260811.mbx

260811.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, August 11, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 159 Headlines ABSOLUTE DENTAL: Class Settlement in Jordan Suit Gets Final Nod AMAZON.COM INC: Rogow Balks at Misleading Seafood Product Claims AMERICAN PLUMBING: Bid for Conditional Status Partly OK'd APPLOVIN CORP: Defends Securities Class, Derivative Suits in Cal. AVANTIC MEDICAL: Pagan Wins Class Certification Bid AVOCADO MATTRESS: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Rehman Says BAYADA HOME: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Ladson Says BELL COUNTY, KY: Hale's Bid to Certify Class Tossed BIOAGE LABS: Securities Class Suit Dismissal Bid Oral Argument Set BLOOM ENERGY: Nevins Sues Over Misleading Company Statements BLUESTAR ALLIANCE: Weygint Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Must File Responsive Brief by Sept. 4 CAPGEMINI AMERICA: Class Certification Bid in Palardy Due Oct. 7 CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Class Certification Bid Due August 9, 2027 CITY WINERY: Lugo Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Certification CLARITEV CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suits in Ill. CLOVER HEALTH: Continues to Defend Christian Class Suit in Tenn. CONTEXT THERAPEUTICS: Gusinsky Stockholder Class Suit Closed COPPERFIELD SNF: Faces Shelton Suit Over Illegal Background Check CROCS INC: Plaintiffs Withdraw Class Cert Bid DAVE INC: Russell Class Suit Stayed Pending Appeal Outcome DNVB INC: Demarco Suit Seeks Class Certification ELON MUSK: Appeals Post-Trial Order in Pampena Suit to 9th Circuit EMBECTA CORP: Continues to Defend Apitz-Grossman Class Suit ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Seeks Leave to File Supplement to Opposition EOS ENERGY: Continues to Defend Yung Class, Derivative Suits in NJ EQUITABLE FINANCIAL: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Tossed EUROFINS DONOR: Martinez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. EVERCOMMERCE INC: Continues to Defend Gusinsky Class Suit in Del. EXTREME NETWORKS: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Steamfitters Suit FLAGSTONE FOODS: Xavier Files Suit in E.D. California FLORIDA POOL: Faces Moreno Suit Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation FLUENCE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Class, Derivative Suits in Va. FLYWIRE CORP: Continues to Defend Hickman Securities Class Suit FRED MEYER: Brace Seeks to Certify Class of Employers FREESE II: Tucker Seeks Partial Summary Judgment on Claims FUJI HANA: Court Endorses Class Cert Bid Denial GAIA INC: Class Certification Filing in Ambuster Extended to Oct. 6 GATE GOURMET INC: Balderas Suit Removed to W.D. Washington GOODRX HOLDINGS: Defends Consumer Privacy Class, Derivative Suits GREAT AMERICAN: Plaintiffs Lose Class Certification Bid GRUBHUB INC: Class Settlement in Lawson Suit Gets Final Nod HANOVER COUNTY, VA: Hatcher Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Class Settlement in SFPRS Gets Final Nod HOLLEY INC: Securities Class Deal Wins Preliminary Approval ITONIC HOLDINGS: Moustacakis Sues Over Share Price Drop J & B RESTAURANT PARTNERS: Gonzalez Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. JOINT CORP: Invasion of Privacy Class Suit Discovery Ongoing KAISER FOUNDATION: Parties Seek to Alter Class Cert Briefing Sched KEAN UNIVERSITY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Papenmeier Says KENTUCKY: Student Doe Appeals to Ky. Ct. of Appeals KESTREL GROUP: Discovery in Maiden Securities Class Suit Ongoing KRISTI NOEM: EMPC Seeks Class Certification LATOYA HUGHES: Court Extends Time to Respond to Class Cert Bid LELAND STANFORD: Class Certification Bid in Chism Due Oct. 15 LGI HOMES: Connelly Files Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Muhammad Due Oct. 9 MANGO MNG USA: Soffer Seeks Refund from Unlawfully Charged Tariffs MARATHON REFINING: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 7, 2027 MARRIOTT INT'L: Bid For Leave to Amend Complaint Tossed MDL 3162: Parties Must Submit Joint Status Report by Sept. 18 MECHANICS BANCORP: Ponzi Class Suit Trustee Claims Dismissed MERCOR.IO CORP: White Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid MONSANTO COMPANY: Szafarski Suit Transferred to N.D. California NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Limits Strength Coach Jobs, Spellman Says NAYAX LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ayyad Suit Says NELSON UNIVERSITY: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Pugh Says NEW YORK CITY HEALTH: Rodriguez Balks at Compromised Patients' Info NEW YORK: NYCDOE Faces Suit Over Denial of ESY Services NEW YORK: SPED Student Sues NYCDOE Over Staff/Teachers' Abuse NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Class Cert Oral Argument Set for August 26 NUSCALE POWER: Motion to Dismiss Truedson Class Suit Due Sept. 8 NYSARC INC: Cruikshank Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ONE TWO: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Nov. 27 ONEONCOLOGY LLC: Montiel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PACCAR INC: Warren Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. PAYCOR INC: Judge Grants Plaintiff's Motion to Compel in Part PIZZA HUT: Sontag Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages PLATINUM MARKETING: Hinton Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida PORTILLO'S INC: PAGA Class Suit Settlement for Court Approval POWER ELECTRONICS: Underpays Field Technicians, Paulino Says PROGRESSIVE COMMERCIAL: Loses Bid to Toss Declaratory Relief Claim QUESTO INC: Harrison Files Suit in S.D. Georgia QUIDELORTHO CORP: Securities Class Suit Dismissal Motion Pending RACKSPACE TECHNOLOGY: Morgan-Reed Balks at Share Price Drop RAMACO RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.Y. REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Washington Wins Class Certification Bid RICHTECH ROBOTICS: Continues to Defend Diez Class, Derivative Suits ROSCO PRODUCTION: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Olaguez Due Nov. 13 RSG GROUP NORTH AMERICA: Scipio Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RUDIN MANAGEMENT CO: Wolfe Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. SAFETYFIRST SYSTEMS: Dabbas Files Suit in D. New Jersey SALIDA DEL SOL CBAS: Rivas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SALT HARBOR INC: Mosquera Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. SANCTUARY METALS: Maynard Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah SHARDA USA: FMC Allowed Leave to File SAC SHOOT STRAIGHT: Thomas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida SOLID POWER: Continues to Defend Hamilton Class Suit in Delaware SOLVENTUM CORP: 3M Continues to Defend Bair Hugger MDL SPAULDING PARTNERS: Property Has Architectural Barriers, Pardo Says STEPHEN AUSTIN: Seeks to Stay Discovery in Myers Suit SWEEPSTEAKS LTD: Bid to Compel Arbitration & Stay Proceedings OK'd SYMBIOTIC INC: Aug. 31 Scheduling Conference in Decker Class Suit TEXAS DODGE LLLP: Boykin Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas TICKETMASTER LLC: Madrigal Seeks to Certify Purchaser Classes TICKETMASTER LLC: Plaintiffs Seek to File Documents Under Seal TIKTOK INC: Faces Navarro Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages TOMY INTERNATIONAL: Bergen Files Suit in N.D. Illinois TOP LINE COLLECTORS: Benson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas TRACY MCGRADY: Karnas Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas TRADER JOE'S: Class Cert Filing in Smith Suit Extended to Nov. 20 TRANSDEV ALTERNATIVE: Stein Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. TRANSPARENTBUSINESS INC: Defends Unicoin Class, Derivative Suits TREACE MEDICAL: Continues to Defend McCluney Class Suit in Florida TRYAX REALTY: Richiez Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class UNILEVER UNITED: Faces Lisa Suit Over Mislabeled Rice & Pasta Sides UNITED PARKS: Parties Seek Clarification of July 28 Order UNITED STATES OF ARITZIA: Ramirez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. UNITED STATES: Appeals Injunction Order in L.T. Suit to 9th Circuit UNITED THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend RICO Class Suit in Mass. UPSTART HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Crain Class, Derivative Suits US MED: Class Certification Related Deadlines in Leedy Extended US MESSENGER: Hall Files Suit in Ill. Dist. Ct. VENEZUELA: Zahn's Bid to Certify Class Tossed VESTIS CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lumber Extended to August 19 WELLS FARGO: Class Cert Bid Filing in Patterson Due Sept. 7, 2027 WERNER ENTERPRISES: $18M Abarca Class Deal Awaits Final Court Nod WESTMORE BEAUTY: Paige Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages WORLD MARKET: Class Cert Bid Filing in Harvey Suit Due Nov. 19 WVMF FUNDING: Plaintiffs Win Rule 23 Class Certification Bid XAI CORP: Plaintiffs' Bid to Proceed Under Pseudonyms OK'd YOH SERVICES LLC: Lares Suit Removed to C.D. California YONKERS, NY: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Taylor Suit ********* ABSOLUTE DENTAL: Class Settlement in Jordan Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kathleen Jordan, Mario Eastman, Edwina Jackson, Amanda Maduike-Iwataall, and Viridiana Tinajero Monterroza, all individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Absolute Dental Group, LLC, and Judge Consulting Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00986-JAD-DJA (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Dorsey entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement. Absolute offers cosmetic dentistry, dental bridges, dental implants, pediatric dentistry, oral surgery and root canals. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N6DpLS at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Rogow Balks at Misleading Seafood Product Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- MADELEINE ROGOW and ADAM SORKIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02702 (W.D. Wash., July 31, 2026) seeks damages and injunctive relief under the Washington Consumer Protection Act on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers who purchased Defendant's Greenwashed Seafood Products. The suit concerns Amazon's scheme to use unqualified, unsupported, and at times untrue environmental and ecological representations -- the "Sustainability Claims" -- to market the "Greenwashed Seafood Products." According to the complaint, Amazon engages in a scheme to market numerous seafood products sold on its platform using environmental and ecological representations that products are "responsibly sourced," "traceable," and "MSC Certified Sustainable Seafood." Amazon knows that consumers rely on such claims when deciding which seafood products to purchase and that consumers often pay more for products they believe possess those attributes. Through product-detail pages and point-of-sale disclosures that Amazon controls, Amazon communicates to reasonable consumers that the Greenwashed Seafood Products originate from environmentally responsible and ecologically sustainable fisheries and supply chains. Amazon reinforces that message through repeated references to sustainability certifications, responsible sourcing, traceability, and environmental stewardship. Taken together, the Sustainability Claims create the net impression that the Greenwashed Seafood Products are sourced in a manner that causes minimal harm to the planet and our oceans -- an impression that is materially false, alleges the suit. Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, entertainment, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Shelby Smith, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com shelby@hbsslaw.com - and - Roxana Moussavian, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 E-mail: roxana.moussavian@hbsslaw.com - and - Catherine A. Peterson, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Krista K. Freier, Esq. HECHT PARTNERS LLP 1650 West 82nd Street, Suite 880 Bloomington, MN 55431 Telephone: (612) 778-9530 E-mail: cpeterson@hechtpartners.com rpeterson@hectpartners.com kfreier@hechtpartners.com AMERICAN PLUMBING: Bid for Conditional Status Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH EZRA MARSTON, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. AMERICAN PLUMBING PROFESSIONALS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05122-ELR (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Ross entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and issuance of notice. Specifically, the Court grants the Motion to the extent that it conditionally certifies the collective action and denies the Motion to the extent that it seeks to compel the Defendant to produce contact information of putative class members within 14 days of this order and to send the Plaintiff's unilaterally prepared notice and consent. The Court orders the Parties to meet and confer on the appropriate notice to be provided to potential class members and, within 21 days of the entry of this order, to file a 10-page or less joint proposed notice with their agreed-to notice procedures. If there are minor disagreements as to notice terms and delivery method, the parties should note those disagreements in the joint notice. The Court defers approval of the proposed notice and notice procedures pending the Parties' submission of a joint proposed notice. At this preliminary notice stage, the Court concludes that the declarations satisfy the Plaintiff's modest burden of demonstrating a reasonable basis to believe that similarly situated employees exist. Marston brings this action alleging that APP failed to pay him and other plumbers time and one-half for all of their hours worked over forty hours each week. On Sept. 9, 2025, Marston filed a Collective Action Complaint against American Plumbing on behalf of himself and other employees who have worked or currently work as an apprentice, technician, plumbing tech or plumber for APP any time within the past three years. The Defendant is a plumbing company based in Georgia. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M3dE4T at no extra charge.[CC] APPLOVIN CORP: Defends Securities Class, Derivative Suits in Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- AppLovin Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities class, derivative suits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On March 5, 2025, alleged stockholder Michael Quiero filed the first putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, Adam Foroughi, and Matthew Stumpf. On March 24, 2025, alleged stockholder Ben Brownback filed a second putative class action complaint in the same court against the Company, Mr. Foroughi, Mr. Stumpf, and Herald Chen, which is referred to as the Brownback Action. On April 17, 2025, the Wayne County Employees Retirement System filed a third putative class action complaint in the Northern District of California against the Company, Mr. Foroughi, Mr. Stumpf, and Mr. Chen. These three complaints are collectively referred to as the Securities Complaints. In May 2025, Mr. Quiero and the Wayne County Employees Retirement System voluntarily dismissed the complaints they had filed in the Northern District of California, leaving the Brownback Action as the primary putative securities class action. The U.S. District Court subsequently appointed lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs counsel in the Brownback Action. The lead plaintiffs then filed an Amended Complaint on Sept. 12, 2025, in which they added Basil Shikin as an additional defendant. The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's advertising solutions and financial growth. It further alleges a putative class period running from Nov. 7, 2024, through March 27, 2025. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in November 2025, and that motion was fully briefed as of February 2026. The Company reiterates that it believes the allegations lack merit and that it will continue to vigorously contest the Brownback Action. Beginning in late March 2025, certain alleged shareholders filed shareholder derivative complaints in the Northern District of California against the individual then current members of the Company's board of directors, as well as against Adam Foroughi and Matthew Stumpf (collectively, the "D&O Parties"). These complaints allege violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets (collectively, the "Shareholder Derivative Complaints"). They also assert claims for contribution under the Exchange Act against Messrs. Foroughi and Stumpf and seek unspecified monetary relief, declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys' fees from the D&O Parties. Relying on the Securities Complaints, the Shareholder Derivative Complaints allege that the D&O Parties made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's advertising solutions and financial growth. On March 25, 2025, Amit Patel filed the first derivative complaint in the Northern District of California against the individual then current members of the Company's board of directors, Mr. Foroughi and Mr. Stumpf. On May 19, 2025, Nathan Smith filed a second derivative complaint in the same court against the same set of defendants. The Shareholder Derivative Complaints have since been consolidated and stayed pending resolution of the defendants' motion to dismiss in the Brownback Action. The Company states that it believes these allegations lack merit and that it will vigorously contest these actions. AppLovin Corp. is a global technology company that provides software and analytics tools to help mobile app developers grow and monetize their applications. It offers a suite of advertising, marketing, and monetization solutions designed to optimize app discovery, engagement, and revenue across mobile platforms. AVANTIC MEDICAL: Pagan Wins Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAWN O'HARA PAGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AVANTIC MEDICAL LAB, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-14907-BRM-JSA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Brian R. Martinotti entered a judgment granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff's proposed class of approximately 1,400 Avantic patients whose files were leaked in the Data Breach is certified. The Plaintiff's motion for default judgment as to the issue of liability is granted in part as to Count I of the Complaint and denied in part as to the other causes of action. Having weighed all the factors and considered all the requirements of class certification, the Court finds it is appropriate to certify the class. The Plaintiff does not identify any policies, codes of conduct, or statements by Avantic that would constitute promises beyond what Avantic was already required to do under applicable law. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment as to Count III—breach of implied contract—of the Complaint is denied. This action arises out of a cyberattack and data breach, which allegedly targeted Avantic's IT Network on July 3, 2025. Avantic is a full-service clinical laboratory. A copy of the Court's opinion dated July 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KtyS0W at no extra charge.[CC] AVOCADO MATTRESS: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Rehman Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANAS REHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVOCADO MATTRESS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-7918 (N.D. Cal., July 30, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all U.S. residents who accessed and navigated Defendant's website, avocadogreenmattress.com and whose electronic communications were intercepted or recorded by advertising technology provided by Meta Platforms, Inc., Google LLC, AppLovin Corp., and Elevar by Audiense (collectively the "Third Parties"). According to the complaint, when consumers visit the website, the Defendant warrants that it will not track or disclose their online activity to third parties. Unbeknownst to its customers, and contrary to its express assurance otherwise, the Defendant intercepts and discloses its customers' personally identifiable information, and product purchase information to the Third Parties before customers have an opportunity to opt out, and continue to do so after customers have opted out. The Defendant aids, agrees with, employs, or otherwise enables Third Parties to eavesdrop on communications sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members on the website that Defendant owns and operates, including communications that contain PII, asserts the complaint. By failing to procure consent, the Defendant violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, and the California Constitution, says the suit. Avocado Mattress, LLC is a mattress and bedding-related product retailer. Avocado uses its website as an online marketplace where consumers can browse and purchase various products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0708 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com BAYADA HOME: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Ladson Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA LADSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-09565 (D.N.J., July 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information, culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. Bayada Home Health Care, Inc. provides a variety of home health services across the country including home health, hospice care, pediatric home health, and personal care. As part of its business practices and to provide services, the Defendant collects, stores, and maintains current and former patients' and employees' PII and PHI, including Plaintiff's and Class Members'. On March 2, 2026, the Defendant became aware that between February 18 and March 2, 2026, unauthorized cybercriminals gained access to Defendant's inadequately protected computer system and Plaintiff's and the Class Member's private information stored thereon. Due to Defendant's negligent failure to secure and protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information, the cybercriminals have stolen and obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, nominal damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other remedies the Court deems just and proper.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com BELL COUNTY, KY: Hale's Bid to Certify Class Tossed --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELVIN HALE, v. BELL COUNTY FISCAL COURT, et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00086-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Wier entered an order denying Hale's motion to certify class. The Court says that Hale has not met his burden of affirmatively demonstrating entitlement to class certification under the guideposts of Rule 23, applied here with required rigor. Hale alleges that on April 20, 2022, as a pretrial detainee at Bell County Detention Center ("BCDC"), the Defendants Gary Ferguson, Joshua Collett, and Chad Money, all working as jailers at BCDC, ordered Hale to remove his clothes and put on an anti-suicide smock, which Hale refers to as a "turtle suit." Hale moves for class certification under Rule 23, seeking certification of the following class: "All formerly and currently incarcerated pretrial detainees who, from April 1, 2019, to the present, were or are inmates housed at BCDC and were the subjects of videos that were posted on the internet without their consent." The Defendant is the governing legislative and executive body for Bell County, Kentucky. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wAmHU8 at no extra charge.[CC] BIOAGE LABS: Securities Class Suit Dismissal Bid Oral Argument Set ------------------------------------------------------------------ BioAge Labs, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California set the oral argument for the securities class suit dismissal motion in 2027. On Jan. 7, 2025, a putative securities class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Court"). The complaint alleged violations of Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, based on allegations that defendants misrepresented and/or omitted certain information in the Company's initial public offering registration statement concerning azelaprag. An amended complaint was filed on June 2, 2025. On Oct. 30, 2025, the Court entered an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice. On Nov. 20, 2025, a further amended complaint was filed. On March 2, 2026, the Court entered an order granting defendants' further motion to dismiss with prejudice. On March 27, 2026, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the Court's order granting defendants' motion to dismiss. On July 22, 2026, the plaintiff filed its opening brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Defendants' answering brief is due on Sept. 18, 2026, and any reply brief from the plaintiff is due by Oct. 2, 2026. Oral argument, to the extent scheduled, would likely occur in early 2027. BioAge Labs, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on developing therapeutics that target the molecular mechanisms of aging to treat age-related diseases. The company leverages human longitudinal data and computational biology to identify and advance drug candidates with the potential to extend healthy lifespan. BLOOM ENERGY: Nevins Sues Over Misleading Company Statements ------------------------------------------------------------ SASHANNA NEVINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLOOM ENERGY CORPORATION, KR SRIDHAR, SIMON EDWARDS, MACIEJ KURZYMSKI, and DANIEL BERENBAUM, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-07944 (N.D. Cal., July 30, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Bloom Energy securities between February 27, 2025 and July 8, 2026, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, sells, and installs solid oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation in the United States and internationally. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Bloom Energy obtained scandium through intermediaries who sourced the metal from China; (2) that, as a result, the Company understated the extent to which it relied on scandium from China; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On this news, Bloom's stock price fell $15.28, or 5.7%, to close at $254.29 per share on July 8, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: CLinehan@glancylaw.com PRajesh@glancylaw.com - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 BLUESTAR ALLIANCE: Weygint Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case KEVIN WEYGINT and XIAO CHUAN ONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BLUESTAR ALLIANCE LLC; SCOTCH & SODA E-COMMERCE LLC; SCOTCH & SODA RETAIL LLC; SCOTCH & SODA LLC; UNITED LEGWEAR CANADA LLC; UNITED LEGWEAR COMPANY, LLC; and UNITED LEGWEAR RETAIL LLC, Case No. 26-2-18552-2 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for King County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 31, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02717 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for sending misleading emails. Bluestar Alliance LLC is a global brand management firm, headquartered in New York, New York. Scotch & Soda E-Commerce LLC is a clothing and fashion accessories retailer, headquartered in New York, New York. Scotch & Soda Retail LLC is a clothing and fashion accessories retailer, headquartered in New York, New York. Scotch & Soda LLC is a clothing and fashion accessories retailer, headquartered in New York, New York. United Legwear Canada LLC is a global apparel manufacturer and distributor, headquartered in New York, New York. United Legwear Company, LLC is a global apparel manufacturer and distributor, headquartered in New York, New York. United Legwear Retail LLC is a global apparel manufacturer and distributor, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ross Taylor, Esq. Bethany M. Kirk, Esq. FOX BALLARD PLLC 1102 Broadway, Suite 501 Tacoma, WA 98402 Telephone: (206) 800-2727 Email: ross@foxballard.com bethany@foxballard.com BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Must File Responsive Brief by Sept. 4 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATLAN et al., v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-09546-CCC-SDA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Stacey D. Adams entered an order as follows: 1. BMW NA will file its responsive supplemental brief by Sept. 4, 2026. 2. The Plaintiffs will file their reply supplemental brief by Sept. 25, 2026. BMW markets and sells motor vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o85sRz at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Christopher J. Dalton, Esq. BUCHANAN 550 Broad Street, Suite 810 Newark, NJ 07102-4582 Telephone: (973) 273-9800 Facsimile: (973) 273-9430 E-mail: christopher.dalton@bipc.com CAPGEMINI AMERICA: Class Certification Bid in Palardy Due Oct. 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Palardy v. Capgemini America, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:26-cv-05082 (W.D. Ark., Filed April 17, 2026), the Hon. Judge David Clay Fowlkes entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file motion for class certification. Any motion for class certification must be filed by October 7, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Capgemini provides consulting, technology, and outsourcing services.[CC] CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Class Certification Bid Due August 9, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Children's Hospital Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-10343 (D. Mass., Filed Feb. 10, 2025), the Hon. Judge Patti B. Saris entered a scheduling conference order as follows: Answer due by Aug. 7, 2026 Amended Pleadings due by Feb. 8, 2027 Fact Discovery to be Completed by June 7, 2027 Class Certification Motion due by Aug. 9, 2027 Opposition due by Oct 7, 2027 Replies due by Nov. 8, 2027 The nature of suit states statutory actions. The Defendant operates as a non-profit health care organization.[CC] CITY WINERY: Lugo Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESUS LUGO, et al., on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. CITY WINERY, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-05135-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective certification and for court facilitation of notice pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section 216(b): City Winery is a live music and comedy venue, urban winery, restaurant, and private event space. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AhKKpo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com CLARITEV CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suits in Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Claritev Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2026, that discovery is ongoing for antitrust class suits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Company has been named in numerous federal lawsuits, including putative class action lawsuits relating to litigation on the basis of alleged violation of antitrust laws, asserting that, among other things, the Company is conspiring with commercial health insurance payers to suppress out-of-network reimbursements in violation of applicable antitrust law. These lawsuits were initially filed in various venues, including the Southern District of New York, the Northern District of Illinois, and the Northern District of California, naming the Company and, in certain cases, certain payers, as defendants. The lawsuits have now been centralized in the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to a transfer order issued by the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and assigned to the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly. Consolidated complaints were filed on Nov. 18, 2024, and the defendants filed joint motions to dismiss the consolidated complaints on Jan. 16, 2025, which were granted in part and denied in part on June 3, 2025. Discovery in the case is ongoing. The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and is vigorously defending the Company. Claritev Corp. is a health care technology and data analytics company that provides platforms and services to support health insurers, providers, and other stakeholders in managing medical claims and reimbursement. It focuses on tools aimed at improving cost efficiency, payment accuracy, and network performance in the commercial health insurance market. CLOVER HEALTH: Continues to Defend Christian Class Suit in Tenn. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Clover Health Investments, Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Christian class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. On July 22, 2026, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, captioned Christian et al. v. Clover Health Investments, Corp., Case No. 3:26-cv-01035. On July 23, 2026, two additional putative class action complaints were filed in the same court, captioned Holman v. Clover Health Investments, Corp., Case No. 3:26-cv-01047, and Griffin v. Clover Health Investments, Corp., Case No. 3:26-cv-01049. On July 24, 2026, another putative class action complaint was filed in the same court, captioned Karwoski v. Clover Health Investments, Corp., Case No. 3:26-cv-01054. Each of these matters is a putative class action naming the Company as a defendant. The complaints arise from the cybersecurity incident disclosed by the Company on July 17, 2026, and generally assert claims relating to the alleged compromise of personally identifiable information and protected health information. They include claims for negligence and other common law causes of action, brought on behalf of putative classes of individuals whose information was allegedly affected by the incident. The Company intends to vigorously defend these matters. At this early stage of the proceedings, it cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these actions. Clover Health is a health care technology company that operates as a next-generation Medicare Advantage insurer, using data analytics and its Clover Assistant platform to improve care coordination and outcomes for its members. The company focuses on leveraging technology to manage medical costs while enhancing the patient and physician experience. CONTEXT THERAPEUTICS: Gusinsky Stockholder Class Suit Closed ------------------------------------------------------------ Context Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware closed the Gusinsky class suit after full payment of approximately $0.9 million mootness fees. On Feb. 4, 2026, the Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust filed a stockholder class action complaint against the Company and its directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The Action alleges that certain provisions of the Company's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, violate specific sections of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (DGCL). It focuses on director term lengths and limitations on director removal and contends that these provisions are inconsistent with Delaware statutory requirements. The Action asserts that Article V, Section 2 of the Company's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation provides for a full term of three years for directors in violation of Section 211(b) of the DGCL. It further asserts that Article VI, Section 1 of the Certificate of Incorporation improperly limits the removal of directors to removal only for cause, allegedly in violation of Section 141(k) of the DGCL. The complaint seeks relief based on these alleged conflicts between the Company's governing documents and the DGCL. In addition, the Company reported that, on Feb. 24, 2026, a stipulation and proposed consent judgment was filed with the Court regarding the Action, and on March 11, 2026, the Court approved the stipulated judgment. Under that judgment, Article V, Section 2 and Article VI, Section 1 of the Certificate of Incorporation were determined to be invalid and unenforceable, and on the same date the Company filed a Certificate of Correction with the Delaware Secretary of State reflecting that those provisions were invalid, unenforceable and no longer part of the Certificate of Incorporation. Also on March 11, 2026, pursuant to the stipulated judgment, the Action was dismissed with prejudice with respect to the plaintiff, although the Court retained jurisdiction to address any mootness fee application. The Company further disclosed that on April 30, 2026, it entered into a letter agreement under which a third party service provider agreed to pay in full, on the Company's behalf, a mootness fee owed in connection with the Action. On the same date, the Court granted a stipulation and proposed order closing the case, which required the payment of approximately $0.9 million in fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel as the mootness fee. The Court was not asked to review and did not pass judgment on the entitlement to or amount of the mootness fee. According to the filing, the third-party service provider paid the mootness fee in full on May 1, 2026, pursuant to the letter of agreement, and the Action has since been closed. Context Therapeutics Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing innovative medicines for hormone-driven cancers and other solid tumors. It seeks to advance targeted therapies that address unmet medical needs in oncology. COPPERFIELD SNF: Faces Shelton Suit Over Illegal Background Check ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAWN SHELTON, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COPPERFIELD SNF OPERATIONS LLC d/b/a COPPERFIELD HEALTH AND REHABILITATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00753 (M.D.N.C., July 31, 2026) is a class action complaint against the Defendant seeking statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FCRA by failing to: (i) comply with the FCRA's authorization requirements in obtaining the permission of Plaintiff and other consumers to procure their consumer reports for employment purposes; (ii) provide copies of consumer reports to Plaintiff and other consumers prior to taking adverse employment action against them based on such reports; and/or (iii) certify that Defendant complied with the FCRA's mandates prior to obtaining copies of consumer reports referencing Plaintiff and other consumers. Plaintiff Shelton, a resident of Concord, North Carolina, was the subject of a consumer report procured by the Defendant. Copperfield SNF Operation LLC, d/b/a Copperfield Health and Rehabilitation is engaged in the business of healthcare in North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Smith, Esq. Jayson Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 525 North Tryon Street, Suite 1600 Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (980) 533-4616 E-mail: dsmith@sirillp.com jwatkins@sirillp.com CROCS INC: Plaintiffs Withdraw Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mongalo et al v. Crocs, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-09037 (N.D. Cal., Filed Dec. 13, 2024), the Hon. Judge Trina L. Thompson entered an order that the Plaintiffs have voluntarily withdrawn, without prejudice, their motion for class certification filed on June 4, 2026. The hearing date reserved for October 20, 2026, is vacated. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Crocs is an American footwear company based in Broomfield, Colorado.[CC] DAVE INC: Russell Class Suit Stayed Pending Appeal Outcome ---------------------------------------------------------- Dave Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Central District of California stayed the Russell class suit pending the outcome of the appeal. On April 1, 2025, a putative class action was filed by Michael Russell and other named plaintiffs (the "Russell Plaintiffs") against the Company in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County, California, alleging that the Company's practices violate the Military Lending Act and Truth in Lending Act. The Russell Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, civil penalties, monetary relief, and other relief. On May 5, 2025, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On June 11, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration. On July 2, 2025, rather than oppose the motion, the Russell Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (the "Russell Amended Complaint") that added a claim under the Georgia Payday Loan Act. On July 29, 2025, the Company renewed its motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration. The hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration was held on Dec. 8, 2025. On Dec. 12, 2025, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss as well as its motion to compel arbitration. On Dec. 26, 2025, the Company filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the District Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal. On April 13, 2026, the Company filed its brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dave Inc. is a financial technology company that offers mobile banking services, cash advances, and related tools aimed at helping consumers manage short-term liquidity needs. It delivers its products through a digital platform focused on lower-cost, consumer-friendly alternatives to traditional banking and overdraft services. DNVB INC: Demarco Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM DEMARCO and JOSEPH LEE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DNVB, Inc. d/b/a THURSDAY BOOT COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-03076-GHW-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court granting motion for class certification and awarding such further and other relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Pursuant to Local Rule 6.1(b), opposing papers, if any, much be served on or before Aug. 13, 2026. DNVB is an apparel retailer that sells clothing and accessories through its website www.thursdayboots.com. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tIHWo5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 315 Madison Ave, 3rd Fl New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 979-3642 Facsimile: (856) 797-9978 E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com ELON MUSK: Appeals Post-Trial Order in Pampena Suit to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ ELON MUSK is taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Giuseppe Pampena, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Elon Musk, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-05937-CRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities who sold the publicly traded securities of Twitter, Inc. between May 13, 2022 and October 4, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused by Elon Musk's violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. After a two-week trial and more than three days of deliberations, a jury unanimously found that Musk's two tweets were false, and that the investing public was damaged. On Apr. 17, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed post-trial motions of their own. They seek an award of prejudgment interest and approval of their class notice of the verdict and proposed claims administration process. On May 1, 2026, Elon Musk filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a new trial and a motion to decertify class action. On July 6, 2026, Judge Charles R. Breyer entered an Order on post-trial motions. The Court granted Musk's motion for a judgment as a matter of law as to his May 17 tweet and denied it in all other respects. The Court also denied his motion to decertify the class. The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for prejudgment interest and motion for approval of their proposed class notice and claims administration procedure. The appellate case is styled as Pampena, et al. v. Musk, Case No. 26-4928, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 31, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 5, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order is due on August 13, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on September 13, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on October 22, 2026; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief Due is due on November 23, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees GIUSEPPE PAMPENA, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, are represented by: Aaron Paul Arnzen, Esq. Albert Y. Chang, Esq. Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 - and - Gia Jung, Esq. Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Mark Cotton Molumphy, Esq. Tyson C. Redenbarger, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Defendant-Appellant ELON MUSK is represented by: Ellyde R. Thompson, Esq. Alex Spiro, Esq. Jesse Bernstein, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 295 5th Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10016 - and - Stephen Broome, Esq. Matthew Alexander Bergjans, Esq. Michael Lifrak, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (212) 849-7330 EMBECTA CORP: Continues to Defend Apitz-Grossman Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Embecta Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2026, that on June 17, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Apitz-Grossman securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On June 17, 2026, a putative securities class action titled Apitz-Grossman v. Embecta Corp., et al., No. 2:26-cv-07217, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its officers. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between Nov. 25, 2025, and May 4, 2026. It asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the Company's fiscal year 2026 revenue guidance. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend the action vigorously. Given the preliminary stage of the matter, it cannot predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any. In addition, the Company is not currently subject to any related shareholder derivative actions, government investigations, or consolidated proceedings arising out of the allegations in Apitz-Grossman v. Embecta Corp., et al. Based on information presently known to management, no such related actions or investigations have been filed or initiated in connection with the same underlying subject matter. Accordingly, there are no additional related legal proceedings to report beyond the putative securities class action described. Embecta Corp. is a global medical technology company focused on developing, manufacturing, and supplying diabetes care products, including insulin delivery devices and related technologies. It serves healthcare providers and patients worldwide through a portfolio of injection and infusion solutions. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Seeks Leave to File Supplement to Opposition ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PORTABLE POWER, INC., on behalf of itself and those similarly situated, v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.; AND WAL-MART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02091-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to submit a recent judicial opinion filed on July 20, 2026, in Office of General Treasurer on Behalf of Employees Retirement System v. Boeing Co., No. 25-1492 (4th Cir.), as supplemental authority for the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification. Because the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification are fully briefed, and the Court held a hearing on June 18, 2026, the Defendants seek leave under Local Rule 7-3(d) to file the opinion as supplemental authority for consideration by the Court in deciding the pending motions for class certification. The opinion addresses issues presently before the Court on the Plaintiffs' pending motions for class certification, including but not limited to the Defendants' Opposition at pages 23–28. The opinion is attached as Exhibit A to the concurrently filed Declaration of Christopher D. Dusseault and is also available on Westlaw. Energizer manufactures dry cell batteries and flashlights. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d0zIh2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq. Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. Sarah M. Kushner, Esq. Courtney L. Spears, Esq. Rachel S. Brass, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com cdusseault@gibsondunn.com sliversidge@gibsondunn.com smkushner@gibsondunn.com cspears@gibsondunn.com rbrass@gibsondunn.com - and - Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Belinda S Lee, Esq. Brendan A. McShane, Esq. Ashley M. Bauer, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com belinda.lee@lw.com brendan.mcshane@lw.com ashley.bauer@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com lawrence.buterman@lw.com EOS ENERGY: Continues to Defend Yung Class, Derivative Suits in NJ ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Yung securities class and derivative suits in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On March 6, 2026, a putative class action complaint captioned as the Yung Complaint was filed by plaintiff Shui Shing Yung in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and two individual officers, the Company's Chief Executive Officer and its then acting Chief Financial Officer. Together with the Company, these defendants are referred to as the Yung Defendants. The Yung Complaint alleges that the Yung Defendants violated federal securities laws by making knowingly false or misleading statements about the Company's manufacturing capabilities and financial outlook. It seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the plaintiff and other members of the putative class, together with interest and an award of attorneys' fees. Several alleged stockholders have filed motions seeking appointment by the Court as lead plaintiff, and those motions are currently pending before the Court. The Company has stated that it intends to vigorously contest the Yung Complaint and to defend against the asserted claims. The litigation remains at an early procedural stage, with no resolution on class certification, liability, or damages, and no settlement has been reached or approved. In addition, on March 13, 2026, a shareholder derivative lawsuit (the "Berger Complaint") was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by plaintiff Paul Berger against certain defendants including the Company's Chief Executive Officer, the Company's then acting Chief Financial Officer, and nine of the Company's then current Directors (the "Berger Defendants"). The Berger Complaint alleges that the Berger Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by allowing the Company to make knowingly false or misleading statements about the Company's manufacturing capabilities and financial outlook. The Berger Complaint seeks declaratory relief, unspecified corporate governance reforms, and compensatory damages, including interest thereon and attorney's fees. A second shareholder derivative lawsuit, the "Skaff Complaint," was filed on March 25, 2026, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by plaintiff Ronald F. Skaff against certain defendants including the Company's Chief Executive Officer, the Company's then acting Chief Financial Officer, and nine of the Company's then current Directors (the "Skaff Defendants"). The Skaff Complaint similarly alleges that the Skaff Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by allowing the Company to make knowingly false or misleading statements about the Company's manufacturing capabilities and financial outlook. It also seeks declaratory relief, unspecified corporate governance reforms, and compensatory damages, including interest thereon and attorney's fees. On May 13, 2026, the Berger Complaint and the Skaff Complaint were consolidated into a single action (the "Consolidated Derivative Action"). The Consolidated Derivative Action was stayed pending resolution of the Yung Complaint, including any appeals therefrom. Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. is a U.S.-based energy storage company that designs, manufactures, and deploys zinc-based battery systems for utility, commercial, and industrial applications. It focuses on providing long-duration energy storage solutions to support grid reliability and the integration of renewable energy resources. EQUITABLE FINANCIAL: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA DEVLIN, v. EQUITABLE FINANCIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-03283-VM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Marrero entered an order that the Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to strike class allegations are denied. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motions at docket numbers 56 and 58. Equitable has not carried its burden to demonstrate "irrefutably" that the "plaintiff discovered or should have discovered sufficient facts to adequately plead its claim," the Court says. The Court further finds that Devlin sufficiently alleges that the Account Statements were materially misleading. The Account Statements provided a misleading impression for investors that there were no or few fees being charged, when in fact there were significant fees being charged by Equitable. Accordingly, at this stage, Devlin has sufficiently alleged materially misleading statements. Devlin claims that Equitable assessed fees on her EQUI-VEST annuity that were not disclosed on the account statements that Equitable provided to Devlin, thereby diminishing the value of her account and any subsequent contributions. The Defendant is a New York life insurance company whose primary business is providing variable annuity, life insurance, and employee benefit products to both individuals and businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7Yrig9 at no extra charge.[CC] EUROFINS DONOR: Martinez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as RONALD MARTINEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; Plaintiff v. EUROFINS DONOR & PRODUCT TESTING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; EUROFINS VRL, INC., an unknown business entity; EUROFINS DONOR & PRODUCT TESTING, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. C26-01675, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 29, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-07896 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code, including (1) failure to pay overtime; (2) failure to provide meal periods;(3) failure to provide rest periods; (4) failure to pay minimum wages; (5) failure to timely pay wages upon termination; (6) failure to timely pay wages during employment; (7) failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements; (8) failure to keep complete and accurate payroll records; (9) failure to reimburse necessary business-related expenses and costs. Eurofins Donor & Product Testing, LLC is a clinical laboratory that performs infectious disease screening, transplant compatibility testing, microbiology testing, and regulatory compliance testing for organ, tissue, and cellular therapy donors and products.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Barbara I. Antonucci, Esq. Sarah K. Hamilton, Esq. Spencer C. Ladd, Esq. Annan Chen, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 350 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 918-3000 E-mail: bantonucci@constangy.com shamilton@constangy.com sladd@constangy.com achen@constangy.com EVERCOMMERCE INC: Continues to Defend Gusinsky Class Suit in Del. ----------------------------------------------------------------- EverCommerce Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Gusinsky class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. A putative class action lawsuit filed by plaintiff Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on Jan. 31, 2024, against the Company and certain other defendants, and detailing the procedural history, motions to dismiss, and the Companys assessment of the claimed liability. The lawsuit, captioned Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust v. Eric Remer, Penny Baldwin, et al., is a putative class action filed against the Company, members of its Board, and the other parties to its sponsor stockholders agreement dated June 30, 2021: Providence Strategic Growth II L.P., Providence Strategic Growth II-A L.P., SLA Eclipse Co-Invest, L.P., and SLA CM Eclipse Holdings, L.P. (collectively, the Sponsor Stockholders). The complaint generally alleges violations of Section 141(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) based on provisions that grant the Sponsor Stockholders a veto right over the Boards ability to hire or fire the Companys chief executive officer (the CEO Approval Right). The plaintiff contends that this CEO Approval Right unlawfully limits the Board's statutory authority to manage the business and affairs of the Company. The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the CEO Approval Right is invalid and void, other declaratory and equitable relief for the putative class and/or the Company, attorneys and expert witness fees, other costs and expenses, and additional equitable relief as the Court may deem appropriate. On June 14, 2024, the Company filed its opening brief in support of its Motion to Dismiss the complaint. On July 15, 2024, the plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion. On July 16, 2024, the Court entered a stipulation and order dismissing the director defendants from the action, leaving the Company and the Sponsor Stockholders as the remaining defendants. On Aug. 29, 2024, these remaining defendants (collectively, the Defendants) filed their reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss. Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the plaintiff filed a sur-reply on Sept. 26, 2024, and the Defendants filed a response to that sur-reply on Oct. 10, 2024. On Oct. 15, 2024, the Defendants filed a separate Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, arguing that the claims alleged in the complaint are not ripe for adjudication. On Nov. 15, 2024, the plaintiff opposed that jurisdictional motion, and on Dec. 9, 2024, the Defendants filed their reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The Court has scheduled oral argument on the pending motions, including the motions to dismiss and related briefing, for Oct. 19, 2026. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted by the plaintiff and the putative class. It further believes that any liability for the alleged claims is not currently probable and that the potential loss or range of loss associated with this matter is not reasonably estimable at this time. EverCommerce Inc. is a software and services platform that provides integrated, cloud-based solutions to service-based small and medium-sized businesses across healthcare, home services and other end markets. It offers business management software, payment solutions and customer engagement applications designed to support its customers mission-critical workflows and drive growth. EXTREME NETWORKS: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Steamfitters Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXTREME NETWORKS, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Security Funds, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Extreme Networks, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-05102-TLT, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit is brought against the Defendants for false and misleading statements, omissions, and deceptive acts in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 (a)-(c) promulgated thereunder. On Apr. 17, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Trina L. Thompson granted on July 16, 2026. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's model for damages is measurable on a class wide basis. The appellate case is styled as Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Security Funds v. Extreme Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-4910, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 31, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Security Funds, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Lauren A. Ormsbee, Esq. Jesse L. Jensen, Esq. Danielle S. Lazarus, Esq. Alexandra E. Forgione, Esq. Jacqueline E. Lacovara, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 Email: lormsbee@labaton.com jjensen@labaton.com dlazarus@labaton.com aforgione@labaton.com jlacovara@labaton.com - and - Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 Email: lucasg@hbsslaw.com reed@hbsslaw.com - and - Aaron L. Castle, Esq. VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY PC 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 Facsimile: (313) 578-1201 Email: acastle@vmtlaw.com Defendants-Petitioners EXTREME NETWORKS, INC., et al. are represented by: Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq. Morgan E. Whitworth, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 - and - Daniel R. Gherardi, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 801 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300 Redwood City, CA 94063 Telephone: (650) 328-4600 - and - Samir Deger-Sen, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 Email: samir.deger-sen@lw.com - and - Susan E. Engel, Esq. Christine C. Smith, Esq. Derek K. Choi, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 FLAGSTONE FOODS: Xavier Files Suit in E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flagstone Foods LLC. The case is styled as Michael Xavier, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Flagstone Foods LLC doing business as: Emerald Nuts, Case No. 2:26-cv-02626-JAM-CSK (E.D. Cal., July 29, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Flagstone Foods -- https://flagstonefoods.com/ -- is one of the largest manufacturers and distributors of private label healthy snacks in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Hakakian, Esq. TREEHOUSE LAW LLP 3130 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 555 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Phone: (310) 598-1201 Email: josephhakakian@yahoo.com FLORIDA POOL: Faces Moreno Suit Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------------- CLAUDIA MORENO, and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA POOL SERVICE, INC., and ROBERT A. MOYER, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02267 (M.D. Fla., July 30, 2026) is an action to recover monetary damages from the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages and retaliatory discharge under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half her regular rate for every hour that she worked over 40 hours. On May 8, 2026, the Plaintiff engaged in statutorily protected activity by complaining to the Defendants about unpaid overtime wages. In retaliation for Plaintiff's complaints, Defendant Moyer fired Plaintiff on the same day, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, retaliatory discharge damages, liquidated damages, costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and any other relief as allowable by law. Plaintiff Moreno was hired as a pool technician by the Defendant. Florida Pool Service, Inc. is a pool cleaning and maintenance company specializing in private homes and commercial properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, PA 2250 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 E-mail: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com FLUENCE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Class, Derivative Suits in Va. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fluence Energy, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities class, derivative suits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On March 11, 2025, a putative federal securities class action complaint captioned Abramov v. Fluence Energy, Inc. et al. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00444) was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, against the Company and certain of the Company's executive officers. On April 15, 2025, a putative federal securities class action complaint captioned Kramer v. Fluence Energy, Inc. et al. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00634) was filed in the same court against the Company, certain of the Company's current and former executive officers, AES Grid Stability, and AES. Both actions purported to be brought on behalf of a purported class of stockholders and asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and the complaints sought unspecified damages and other relief. On May 30, 2025, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, ordered the consolidation of the Abramov and Kramer cases, captioned the consolidated matter In re Fluence Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 1:25-cv-00444-PTG-IDD), and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The court-appointed lead plaintiff subsequently filed a consolidated complaint that asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the Company, AES Grid Stability, AES, and certain of the Company's former and current executive officers. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint on July 11, 2025. On March 31, 2026, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in its entirety, without prejudice. The order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss provides that the plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 14 days of the date of issuance of the forthcoming memorandum opinion. In addition, two shareholder derivative actions were filed in connection with these matters. On March 25, 2025, a purported stockholder, Raffi Elmajian, filed a shareholder derivative complaint captioned Elmajian v. Nebreda et al. in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Case No. 1:25-cv-521) against current and former officers and directors of the Company, naming the Company as a nominal defendant. On April 3, 2025, a purported stockholder, Diaa Al Amad, filed a second shareholder derivative complaint captioned Al Amad v. Nebreda et al. in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Case No. 1:25-cv-577) against current and former officers and directors of the Company, also naming the Company as a nominal defendant. Both derivative complaints allege claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and breaches of fiduciary duties, among other claims, and purport to be brought derivatively on behalf of the Company, seeking damages and other various relief. On April 22, 2025, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia ordered the consolidation of the Elmajian and Al Amad cases, captioning the matter In re Fluence Energy, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation (Case No. 1:25-cv-00521). On July 21, 2025, the same court ordered a stay of all proceedings and deadlines in the consolidated derivative action pending resolution of the consolidated securities class action described above. A separate derivative action was also filed in the District of Delaware. On Jan. 16, 2026, a purported stockholder, Jung Jae Hyung, filed a shareholder derivative complaint captioned Hyung v. Nebreda et al. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:26-cv-00050) against current and former officers and directors of the Company, naming the Company as a nominal defendant. On March 9, 2026, the District of Delaware ordered a stay of all proceedings and deadlines in that matter as well, pending resolution of the consolidated securities class action. Further, on July 21, 2026, a purported stockholder, Evan Levitan, filed a Verified Stockholder Derivative Complaint captioned Levitan v. The AES Corporation et al. in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain of the Company's current and former executive officers and directors, as well as certain other entities, again naming the Company as a nominal defendant. The Levitan complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties. The Company believes the claims in all of these derivative complaints are without merit and intends to defend itself in these matters vigorously. Fluence Energy, Inc. is a global provider of energy storage products and services, as well as cloud-based software for renewables and storage, serving utilities, developers, and commercial and industrial customers worldwide. It focuses on enabling the transition to cleaner energy by delivering grid-scale storage solutions and related digital applications. FLYWIRE CORP: Continues to Defend Hickman Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Flywire Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Hickman securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On July 25, 2025, the Company and certain of its current and former officers were named as defendants in a securities class action complaint captioned Hickman v. Flywire Corporation filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint was brought on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased Flywire securities from Feb. 28, 2024, through Feb. 25, 2025. In January 2026, the complaint was amended to, among other matters, remove a former officer from the claim and modify the class period to the time period between May 21, 2024, through Feb. 25, 2025. Plaintiffs' counsel filed a second amended complaint on May 7, 2026, which, among other matters, added new allegations and another named plaintiff. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by purportedly overstating the strength and sustainability of the Company's revenue growth and understating the negative impact of certain government permit and visa-related policies on the business. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and other relief. The Company believes it has strong defenses against the asserted claims and intends to vigorously defend itself. It filed a motion to dismiss in response to the second amended complaint on June 15, 2026. The matter remains pending, and there has been no settlement or final judgment disclosed in the provided text. As a further related matter, the Company notes that it cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential exposure or the range of possible loss for the Hickman v. Flywire Corporation securities class action at this time. Taking into account discussions with the Company's external lawyers, Flywire does not consider the probability of an outflow of resources to be sufficient to recognize a provision at the balance sheet date. In the Company's opinion, these matters constitute contingent liabilities as of the balance sheet date. However, it is currently impractical for the Company to estimate with sufficient reliability the respective contingent liabilities. Flywire Corp. is a global payments enablement and software company that provides digital payment solutions across education, healthcare, travel, and business-to-business end markets. It helps clients and their customers securely move and manage complex cross-border and domestic payments. FRED MEYER: Brace Seeks to Certify Class of Employers ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN BRACE, BLAKE HOLDEN, JASON WOODS, and YVONNE WOODS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FRED MEYER STORES, INC., a foreign profit corporation; FRED MEYER, INC., a foreign profit corporation; FRED MEYER JEWELERS, INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 2:25-cv-01776-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following class: "All current and former employees of Fred Meyer Stores, Inc., Fred Meyer, Inc., and Fred Meyer Jewelers, Inc. who worked in Washington and earned less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage from Jan. 1, 2020, through the date notice is provided to the Class." Certification is warranted because the Plaintiffs and all putative class members earned less than twice the state minimum wage and were subject to identical outside employment restrictions and noncompetition covenants. The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint the Plaintiffs as class representatives, appoint their counsel as class counsel, and order that notice be issued to the class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 23(c). The Defendants prohibited thousands of low-wage Washington employees from engaging in outside employment with Fred Meyer's competitors while paying them an unlivable wage, the suit alleges. Fred Meyer is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Kroger Company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5TxIau at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. EMERY | REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com FREESE II: Tucker Seeks Partial Summary Judgment on Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DYREAKA TUCKER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. FREESE II, INC. d/b/a CLUB BLAZE ATLANTA, a Georgia Domestic Profit Corporation, DAVID L. WHORTON, an individual, and LAKISHA S. BROWN, an individual, Case No. 1:24-cv-03494-JPB (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- granting partial summary judgment on the claims in their Amended Complaint, and -- determining that (1) Club Blaze was an enterprise engaged in commerce under 29 U.S.C. section 203(s)(1)(A); (2) Defendant Whorton is an "employer" under 29 U.S.C. section 203(d), jointly and severally liable with Freese II, Inc.; (3) the Plaintiffs and the certified collective were employees, not independent contractors; (4) the Defendants are liable under 29 U.S.C. section 206 for paying no wages; (5) the violations were willful under 29 U.S.C. section 255(a); and (6) the section 259 safe harbor and section 260 good-faith defense are unavailable, rendering liquidated damages mandatory under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The undisputed facts demonstrate that the Defendants exercised immense control over their dancers and the work the dancers were to perform for the business, the court says. Further, all dancers were required to charge the same $5.00 minimum, and every entertainer performed all of her work on Club Blaze premises using facilities and customers the club supplied, the Court adds. The foregoing applied to approximately one hundred current dancers and several hundred dancers who worked in 2024 alone. Accordingly, the first factor weighs decisively in favor of employee status, as to Plaintiff Tucker and as to the collective. Club Blaze is an adult entertainment venue located just outside of Atlanta. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xOyQDY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 E-mail: jrose@theleachfirm.com cleach@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com FUJI HANA: Court Endorses Class Cert Bid Denial ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DESHENG LIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FUJI HANA RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a Fuji Hana Kosher Japanese Restaurant d/b/a Fuji Hana, LORRAINE GINDI, ESTATE OF ISADORE GINDI, by Executor Raymond Betesh, ISADORE NATKIN and JACK COHEN, Case No. 1:21-cv-03832-NCM-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cho entered a judgment that recommends denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class consisting of all restaurant workers who were employed or are currently employed by defendants, other than defendants themselves, during the six years immediately preceding the institution of this action. The Court finds that plaintiff's motion should also be denied for failure to satisfy Rule 23(g). Based on Troy Law's neglect and inadequate performance in this action and the firm's history of deficient performance in other cases, this Court recommends denying plaintiff's motion for class certification on this ground as well. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former employees of the defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Plaintiff's proposed class in connection with his NYLL claims is comprised of: "All restaurant workers who were employed or are currently employed by the Defendants, other than the Defendants themselves, during the six years immediately preceding the intuition [sic] of this action, i.e., from July 7, 2015 through date the [sic] decision of this motion." Fuji Hana is an authentic Japanese restaurant. A copy of the Court's recommendation dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wwcqaq at no extra charge.[CC] GAIA INC: Class Certification Filing in Ambuster Extended to Oct. 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Armbruster v. GAIA, INC. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03267 (D. Colo., Filed Dec. 20, 2022), the Hon. Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered an order granting joint Motion for Extension of Time to File. The Court extends the following deadlines: The deadline for filing a motion for class certification is extended to October 6, 2026. The deadline for designating affirmative experts for class certification issues is extended to October 6, 2026; the deadline for service of interrogatories, requests for production of documents and/or admissions is extended to October 8, 2026. The cut-off for factual discovery is extended to November 10, 2026. The deadline for any opposition to a motion for class certification is extended to December 15, 2026; the deadline for designating opposing experts for class certification issues is extended to December 15, 2026. The deadline for any reply in support of a motion for class certification is extended to January 12, 2027. The deadline for designating rebuttal experts for class certification issues is extended to January 12, 2027. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Gaia is a publicly traded American digital media and video streaming subscription company.[CC] GATE GOURMET INC: Balderas Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tracy Balderas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GATE GOURMET, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 26-2-19881-1 KNT was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 31, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02720. The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide meal periods; failure to pay overtime wages; payment of wages less than entitled; failure to accrue and allow use of paid sick leave; unlawful deductions and rebates; failure to pay all wages due at termination; and willful refusal to pay wages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. April Rheaume, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 1215 4th Avenue, Suite 1630 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (360) 207-0000 Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com arheaume@justicelawcorp.com The Defendants are represented by: Molly A. Terwilliger, Esq. Hannah R. Talmage, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 274-6400 Email: molly.terwilliger@morganlewis.com hannah.talmage@morganlewis.com GOODRX HOLDINGS: Defends Consumer Privacy Class, Derivative Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- GoodRx Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend consumer privacy class, derivative suits Between February 2, 2023, and March 30, 2023, five individual plaintiffs filed five separate putative class action lawsuits against Google, Meta, Criteo, and the Company, alleging generally that the Company has not adequately protected consumer privacy. On October 27, 2023, six plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 1:23-cv-24127-BB; the SDFL Class Action Matter) on behalf of the same nationwide class as the matter pending in the Northern District of California (the NDCA Class Action Matter), asserting substantially the same statutory and common law claims. The plaintiffs in the SDFL Class Action Matter seek various forms of monetary damages, as well as injunctive and other unspecified equitable relief on a nationwide basis. On Oct. 27, 2023, the Company entered into a proposed settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the SDFL Class Action Matter, on behalf of a nationwide settlement class that includes the NDCA Class Action Matter. The proposed settlement provides for a payment of $13 million by the Company. On Oct. 30, 2023, the plaintiffs in the SDFL Class Action Matter filed a motion and memorandum in support of preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement, and on Oct. 31, 2023, the court in the SDFL granted preliminary approval of the settlement. In response to the proposed settlement in the SDFL Class Action Matter, plaintiffs in the NDCA Class Action Matter filed motions challenging the settlement efforts in Florida. They filed a motion in the NDCA to stay and to enjoin the Company from seeking settlement with counsel other than plaintiffs' counsel in the NDCA Class Action Matter, and on Nov. 2, 2023, they filed a motion in the SDFL for that court to allow them to intervene and appear in the SDFL action. In that motion, they further requested that the SDFL transfer the SDFL Class Action Matter to the NDCA and reconsider and deny its preliminary approval of the settlement, and the NDCA was notified of the pendency of the SDFL Class Action Matter. The Company filed its written response to this order on Nov. 8, 2023, addressing the issues raised by the NDCA plaintiffs. In connection with these proceedings, the Company estimated a probable loss of $5.5 million relating to the indemnification of certain parties named in the class action litigation, and it recorded this estimate in its financial statements. On Nov. 19, 2025, together with another party named in the class action lawsuit, the Company filed an amended settlement proposal in the consumer privacy class action matter, further addressing the structure and terms of the class-wide resolution. Apart from the consumer privacy class action matter, the Company disclosed that it has not accrued for a material loss for any other matters because a loss is not considered probable or reasonably estimable at this time. The Company identified the SDFL Class Action Matter as pending litigation and the NDCA Class Action Matter as settled litigation, indicating that the nationwide settlement class in the SDFL proceeding includes the claims asserted in the NDCA Class Action Matter. The SDFL Class Action Matter and NDCA Class Action Matter references in the disclosure reflect both the roles of the SDFL and NDCA proceedings and class member designations within the overall consumer privacy class action landscape, including their status as either SDFL Class Action Matter Member or NDCA Class Action Matter Member. However, the Company is also involved in additional, related legal proceedings arising from the same underlying facts. Two shareholder derivative actions have been filed nominally on behalf of the Company against certain of its current and former directors and officers, asserting that they breached fiduciary duties in connection with the consumer privacy practices and disclosures at issue in the class litigation. These actions generally allege that the individual defendants failed to implement adequate controls, permitted the wrongful sharing of consumer data, and caused or allowed the Company to make misleading statements or omissions about its data privacy and security practices. In one such derivative action, the plaintiff seeks, among other relief, damages in favor of the Company, corporate governance reforms, enhanced oversight of data privacy compliance, and an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. A related derivative complaint filed in another forum asserts substantially similar theories of liability and seeks comparable relief, including changes to the Companys internal controls and board-level oversight structures. The Company has indicated that it intends to defend these derivative actions vigorously and that, at this time, no accrual has been recorded because any potential loss is not considered probable or reasonably estimable. GoodRx Holdings, Inc. is a U.S.-based digital healthcare platform that provides prescription drug price comparison tools, telehealth services and related healthcare information to consumers. It partners with pharmacies, pharmacy benefit managers and telehealth providers to help users find lower-cost options for medications and select medical services. GREAT AMERICAN: Plaintiffs Lose Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hamid Tavakolian v. Great American Life Insurance Company, Case No. 5:20-cv-01133-SPG-ACCV (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Many class members have suffered no injury at all. As such, the Plaintiffs have not suffered "the same or similar injury" as these absent class members, the Court says. In addition to these Rule 23(b)(2) issues, the presence of class members who intentionally allowed their policies to lapse makes Plaintiffs' claims atypical of the class. Thus, the Plaintiffs' proposed class does not meet the requirements for certification under either Rule 23(a) or (b). Accordingly, the Motion is denied. The Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion on March 27, 2026, seeking certification of the following class for purposes of declaratory relief only: "All owners of the Defendant's individual life insurance policies issued in California before 2013 that the Defendant lapsed or terminated for non-payment of premium in or after 2013 without first applying Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72." Great American is engaged primarily in property and casualty insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n7htlS at no extra charge.[CC] GRUBHUB INC: Class Settlement in Lawson Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAEF LAWSON, et al., v. GRUBHUB, INC., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-05128-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the parties' class action settlement. In addition, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs; specifically, the Court awards the following: $6,187,500 in attorneys' fees; $433,290.45 in combined litigation and settlement administration costs; and $10,000 to Mr. Lawson and $2,000 to Ms. Marshall as incentive awards. In accordance with the Northern District's Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, "within 21 days after the distribution of the settlement funds and payment of attorneys' fees," Class Counsel shall file "a Post-Distribution Accounting." The Court is satisfied the Settlement Agreement was not the result of collusion between the parties and instead is the product of arms-length negotiations between experienced and professional counsel. For each of these reasons, the Settlement Agreement passes muster under Rule 23(e) and final approval is appropriate. Raef Lawson brings a representative California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim alleging Grubhub unlawfully classified its food delivery drivers as independent contractors and as a result failed to reimburse them for necessary expenses and pay the required minimum and overtime wages. The Settlement Class consists of: "Any and all individuals who entered into an agreement with Grubhub to use the Grubhub platform as an independent contractor to offer delivery services to customers and who used the Grubhub platform as an independent contractor service provider to accept or complete at least one (1) delivery in California [from Dec. 3, 2014 through March 13, 2026]." Grubhub provides food services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BUoiJd at no extra charge.[CC] HANOVER COUNTY, VA: Hatcher Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER HATCHER is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Christopher Hatcher, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. County of Hanover, Virginia, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00325-MHL, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The suit seeks unpaid wage and overtime compensation for the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Wage Payment Act, and the Virginia Gap Pay Act. On Apr. 16, 2026, the Defendants filed a second motion for summary judgment, which Judge M. Hannah Lauck granted on June 26, 2026. The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims against the County under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Virginia Gap Pay Act with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case. The appellate case is styled as Christopher Hatcher v. County of Hanover, Virginia, Case No. 26-2022, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on July 31, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CHRISTOPHER HATCHER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, is represented by: Zev H. Antell, Esq. Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. Samantha Rachel Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Defendants-Appellees COUNTY OF HANOVER, VIRGINIA, et al. are represented by: David Patrick Corrigan, Esq. Melissa Yvonne York, Esq. HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN 4951 Lake Brook Drive Glen Allen, VA 23060 Telephone: (804) 747-5200 (804) 622-1131 - and - Brian Peter Ettari, Esq. HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN P.O. Box 70280 Richmond, VA 23255 Telephone: (804) 747-5200 HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Class Settlement in SFPRS Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF SOUTHFIELD FIRE AND POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. HAYWARD HOLDINGS, INC. et al Case No. 2:23-cv-04146-WJM-SD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Martini entered an order granting final approval to the class action settlement. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eNvbUL at no extra charge.[CC] HOLLEY INC: Securities Class Deal Wins Preliminary Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- Holley Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 28, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucy granted preliminary approval to securities class suit settlement. A putative securities class action was filed on Nov. 6, 2023, against the Company, Tom Tomlinson (the Company's former Director, President, and Chief Executive Officer), and Dominic Bardos (the Company's former Chief Financial Officer) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (the "Complaint") and is captioned City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees' Retirement System v. Holley, Inc., f/k/a Empower LTD., Tom Tomlinson, and Dominic Bardos, Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-148-S. On Feb. 26, 2024, the court appointed the City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees' Retirement System to serve as lead plaintiff to prosecute claims on behalf of a proposed class of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Holley securities between July 21, 2021, and Feb. 6, 2023. On April 26, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding Vinod Nimmagadda (the Company's Executive Vice President of Corporate Development and New Ventures) as a defendant. The lead plaintiff alleges that statements made regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects violated Sections 10(b), Section 20(a), and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks class certification, damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on June 28, 2024. On Jan. 7, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a supplemented amended Complaint, which the court granted on March 20, 2025. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the supplemented amended Complaint on April 3, 2025, and on Aug. 29, 2025, the court denied the motion to dismiss. On April 21, 2026, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the matter, and on April 22, 2026, the parties filed a joint motion to stay all case deadlines for sixty days to negotiate and prepare a settlement agreement and settlement-related papers. The Court granted the motion on April 24, 2026. To allow additional time to negotiate definitive settlement documentation, the Court subsequently granted motions to further extend all case deadlines until July 10, 2026, and July 17, 2026. The lead plaintiff filed for preliminary approval of the settlement on July 17, 2026. The settlement received preliminary Court approval on Aug. 3, 2026. Holley Inc. is a manufacturer and marketer of high-performance automotive aftermarket products, including fuel injection systems, engine and exhaust components, and related accessories. It serves enthusiasts, racers, and specialty vehicle markets through a portfolio of performance brands and distribution channels. ITONIC HOLDINGS: Moustacakis Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------- JEAN-CLAUDE MOUSTACAKIS and IZABELA OLENDSKA-MOUSTACAKIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. iTONIC HOLDINGS LTD (f/k/a PHETON HOLDINGS LTD); JIANFEI ZHANG; ZHIXIN LI; PENGFEI ZHANG; CATHAY SECURITIES, INC.; DOMINARI SECURITIES LLC; and MARCUM ASIA CPAS LLP, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-06484 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Pheton Holdings securities between September 5, 2024, and July 29, 2025, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. This case arises from the sudden collapse of the Pheton Holdings' stock on July 29, 2025, which followed an artificial price surge created through fraudulent stock promotions conducted in the months following the Company's initial public offering, says the suit. The complaint asserts that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and the true nature of the trading activity in the securities. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Pheton Holdings was the subject of a market manipulation and fraudulent promotion scheme involving social-media based misinformation and impersonators posing as financial professionals; (2) Pheton Holdings' public statements and risk disclosures omitted any mention of intention to use fraudulent trading or the realized risk of market manipulation used to drive the Company's stock price; (3) as a result, the Company's securities were at unique risk of extreme price volatility and trading halts triggered by the manipulation scheme; (4) the Auditor Defendant and Underwriter Defendants had been involved with numerous foreign microcap public offerings that became targets of market manipulation schemes; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. iTonic Holdings Ltd (f/k/a Pheton Holdings Ltd) is a holding company incorporated in the Cayman Islands. The Company conducts its purported business operations through an operating subsidiary, Beijing Feitian Zhaoye Technology Co., Ltd., which is based in the People's Republic of China.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron T. Morris, Esq. Andrew W. Robertson, Esq. MORRIS KANDINOV LLP 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 431-7473 E-mail: aaron@moka.law andrew@moka.law - and - Leonid Kandinov, Esq. MORRIS KANDINOV LLP 550 West B Street, 4th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 780-3993 E-mail: leo@moka.law J & B RESTAURANT PARTNERS: Gonzalez Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against J & B Restaurant Partners Top Flight Foods L.L.C., et al. The case is styled as Manuel Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. J & B Restaurant Partners Top Flight Foods L.L.C., Gatsby on the Ocean, LLC and any other related entities, Case No. 616798/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., July 30, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Torts (Labor Law)." J & B Restaurant Partners and Top Flight Foods L.L.C. are separate New York-based restaurant and hospitality management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. 1 Old Country Rd Ste 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: 516-873-9550 Fax: 516-747-5024 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com JOINT CORP: Invasion of Privacy Class Suit Discovery Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Joint Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated Thursday, Aug. 6, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2026, that discovery is ongoing for an invasion of privacy class suit in the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County. In 2025, the Company determined that the likelihood of a loss related to multiple lawsuits outside of the normal course of business, including three cases consolidated into one class action lawsuit (but not yet certified), six individual cases related to each other and two unrelated individual cases, all filed against the Company and a chiropractor employed by the professional corporation providing clinical services in 2024, 2025 and 2026 in the state of California, became probable. The initial lawsuit was filed against the Company on June 6, 2024, with the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County. The lawsuits allege, among other claims, an invasion of privacy, negligence, emotional distress, sexual harassment, unlawful recording, failure to provide a safe environment, and trespass on person at one of the company-owned or managed clinics. The lawsuits are currently in discovery, and the trial is scheduled to begin in early 2027. The Company intends to continue to defend these cases vigorously, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from these cases, and therefore, no accrual exists as of June 30, 2026, with the exception of two individual cases related to the matter where it has booked an accrual that represents its insurance coverage deductible. The Company also notes that its exposure to these cases may be limited by its insurance coverage, but the potential exposure is undetermined as of June 30, 2026. Joint Corp. is a franchisor and operator of chiropractic clinics that focus on providing affordable, routine, and accessible chiropractic care. It operates company-owned and franchised locations across the United States under The Joint Chiropractic brand. KAISER FOUNDATION: Parties Seek to Alter Class Cert Briefing Sched ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER CULBERT and DOUGLAS WARRINER, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF COLORADO a Colorado Nonprofit Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-01231-DDD-NRN (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to alter class certification briefing schedule, allow for additional discovery. To allow the Parties time to sufficiently engage in discovery, the Parties have jointly agreed to the following briefing schedule: a. The deadline to complete discovery in anticipation of the class certification motion shall be Oct. 31, 2026; b. The Defendant's deadline to file its opposition to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion shall be Dece. 4, 2026; c. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file its reply to the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's class certification motion shall be Dec. 18, 2026. The Parties have further agreed, and request, that each side be granted an additional 25 RFPs and 5 additional interrogatories for discovery as to Plaintiff Warriner. On June 29, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class action certification. Kaiser is a non-profit health maintenance organization (HMO) that has provided integrated healthcare and insurance services across the Denver/Boulder, northern, and southern regions of Colorado. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ijt3VL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trent R. Taylor, Esq. David H. Miller, Esq. THE WILHITE & MILLER LAW FIRM 1600 Ogden Street Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 551-7663 Facsimile: (303) 832-7102 E-mail: ttaylor@wilhitelawfirm.com dhmiller@wilhitelawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Christian J. Rowley, Esq. Kerry M. Friedrichs, Esq. Parnian Vafaeenia, Esq. Daniela Archila, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 E-mail: crowley@seyfarth.com kfriedrichs@seyfarth.com pvafaeenia@seyfarth.com darchila@seyfarth.com KEAN UNIVERSITY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Papenmeier Says --------------------------------------------------------------- VERONICA PAPENMEIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEAN UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-09644 (D.N.J., July 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information. On July 24, 2026, the notorious ransomware group Qilin claimed responsibility for infiltrating Defendant's cybersecurity systems and exfiltrating sensitive information held therein. The Plaintiff and Class Members are students, applicants, alumni, employees, and other individuals who entrusted their sensitive, non-public PII to the Defendant. Institutions like Defendant that handle PII owe the individuals to whom that data relates a duty to adopt reasonable measures to protect such information from disclosure to unauthorized third parties, and to keep it safe and confidential. The complaint alleges that the Defendant breached these duties owed to Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to safeguard the PII it collected and maintained, including by failing to implement industry standards for data security to protect against, detect, and stop cyber-attacks, which failures allowed criminal hackers to access and steal Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII from the Defendant. To recover from Defendant for these harms, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, brings claims for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and declaratory relief, to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII in its care. Founded in 1855, Kean is a public university, providing higher education to approximately 19,000 students. Its principal campus is in Union, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C. 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. SHUB, JOHNS & HOLBROOK LLP Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 Facsimile: (856) 210-9088 E-mail: bjohns@shublawyers.com KENTUCKY: Student Doe Appeals to Ky. Ct. of Appeals --------------------------------------------------- STUDENT DOE 1, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Student Doe 1, et al., individually, proceeding under pseudonyms, and on behalf of similarly situated current students of Kentucky State University, Plaintiffs, v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al., Defendants, Case No. 26-CI-00587, in the Franklin Circuit Court of Commonwealth of Kentucky. This is a Kentucky constitutional action under Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) Chapter 418 to declare Senate Bill 185, 2026 Regular Session, Acts Chapter 120, unconstitutional, invalid, void, and without legal effect. The appellate case is styled as Student Doe 1, et al., individually, proceeding under pseudonyms, and on behalf of similarly situated current students of Kentucky State University, v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al., Case No. 2026-CA-0946, in the Kentucky Court of Appeals, filed on July 31, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants STUDENT DOE 1, et al., individually, proceeding under pseudonyms, and on behalf of similarly situated current students of Kentucky State University, are represented by: James Michael Morris, Esq. Tyler James Morris, Esq. MORRIS & MORRIS PSC 217 N. Upper Street Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 281-6981 Defendants-Appellees COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al. are represented by: Aaron John Silletto, Esq. Abigail Grace Vicars, Esq. OFFICE OF THE KENTUCKY ATTORNEY Frankfort, KY 40601 - and - Steven Travis Mayo, Esq. Laura Crittenden Tipton, Esq. OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR Frankfort, KY 40601 - and - Courtney Ross Samford, Esq. Donald Callaway Morgan, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP Lexington, KY 40507 - and - Catherine Ann Poole, Esq. Shandeep Jonathan Dutta, Esq. FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION CABINET Frankfort, KY 40602 KESTREL GROUP: Discovery in Maiden Securities Class Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kestrel Group Ltd. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2026, that discovery is ongoing for a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. A putative class action complaint was filed against Maiden Holdings, Ltd., Arturo M. Raschbaum, Karen L. Schmitt, and John M. Marshaleck in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on February 11, 2019. On February 19, 2020, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs, and on May 1, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint asserts violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 (and Section 20(a) for control person liability) arising in large part from allegations that Maiden failed to take adequate loss reserves in connection with reinsurance provided to AmTrust. Plaintiffs further claim that certain of Maiden's representations concerning its business, underwriting, and financial statements were rendered false by the allegedly inadequate loss reserves, that these misrepresentations inflated the price of Maiden's common stock, and that when the truth about the misrepresentations was revealed, Maiden's stock price fell, causing plaintiffs to incur losses. On Sept. 11, 2020, a motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of all defendants. On Aug. 6, 2021, the Court issued an order denying, in part, defendants' motion to dismiss, ordering plaintiffs to file a shorter amended complaint no later than Aug. 20, 2021, and permitting discovery to proceed on a limited basis. In addition, on Feb. 7, 2023, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of its decision denying plaintiffs' objection to the Magistrate Judge's December 2021 ruling on discovery. On May 26, 2023, Maiden filed a renewed motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. On Dec. 19, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim for securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act to Maiden and individual defendants Arturo Raschbaum, Karen Schmitt, and John Marshaleck, holding that the factual record failed to support, as a matter of law, plaintiffs' allegations that defendants had made false statements regarding Maiden's loss reserves. It also dismissed plaintiffs' claims that the individual defendants were liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for any such alleged false statements, and plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On Aug. 20, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the District Court's order granting summary judgment to Maiden and the individual defendants, disagreeing with the District Court's conclusion that the record required judgment for Maiden, as a matter of law, on whether Maiden's loss reserves were misleading. The Third Circuit explained that it was not issuing a ruling on the element of scienter but instead vacated the District Court's opinion and remanded the case with instructions to permit plaintiffs to pursue discovery with respect to their Section 10(b) securities fraud claims. It denied defendants' petition for rehearing on Sept. 16, 2025, and discovery is now proceeding in the action. Maiden states that it believes it has procedural and substantive defenses to the asserted claims and intends to oppose and defend against these claims. Kestrel Group Ltd. is an investment holding and advisory company with interests in financial services and related businesses. It focuses on deploying capital and expertise across a diversified portfolio of operating companies and investment assets. KRISTI NOEM: EMPC Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as E.M.P.C., et al., v. Noem et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-21565-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order as follows: For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs request that this Court: 1. Certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2), (b)(1)(A), and/or (b)(3); 2. Appoint Plaintiffs E.M.P.C., et al., as class representatives; and 3. Appoint Arno Javier Lemus of Lemus Law Group, LLC as class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). The proposed class satisfies every requirement of Rule 23(a) and qualifies independently under Rule 23(b)(2), (b)(1)(A), and (b)(3). All members share identical claims arising from the same categorical directives, applied uniformly to arriving aliens whose applications only USCIS may adjudicate, and the narrowed definition addresses each concern raised in prior briefing. Class treatment permits resolution of the Hold Directives' legality in a single proceeding. Pursuant to the Second Amended Complaint (D.E. 63 at ¶ 68), Plaintiffs propose the following class: "All Cuban nationals who (1) are arriving aliens within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. section 1.2 who were paroled into the United States under section 212(d)(5) of the INA; (2) have remained physically present in the United States for at least one year following their parole; (3) have properly filed a Form I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status pursuant to the CAA with USCIS; and (4) whose I-485 applications are currently subject to the adjudication hold imposed by the Hold Directives, Policy Memorandum PM-602-0192 (Dec. 2, 2025), and/or Policy Memorandum PM-602-0194 (Jan. 1, 2026). Excluded from the class are: the Defendants, their officers, agents, and employees; any member of the federal judiciary assigned to this matter; and any person whose Form I-485 application has been finally adjudicated on the merits, whether granted or denied, prior to the date of class certification. Kristi Noem is an American politician serving as the United States special envoy for the Shield of the Americas since 2026. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=whRVWS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Arno Javier Lemus, Esq. LEMUS LAW GROUP, LLC 1024 NW 102 PL Miami, FL 33172 Telephone: (786) 816-2795 E-mail: arno@lemus.org LATOYA HUGHES: Court Extends Time to Respond to Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Adams v. Hughes, Case No. 3:25-cv-03098 (C.D. Ill., Filed April 22, 2025), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting 60-day extension to respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class. The Defendants state that a calendaring error and transition to new defense counsel prevented them from requesting an extension within the applicable deadline. The Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. The Court may extend a deadline "on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect." Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). In determining whether any neglect was excusable, a court "should consider all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's neglect, including the prejudice to the non-movant, length of delay, and reason for delay." Bowman v. Korte, 962 F.3d 995, 998 (7th Cir. 2020). The delay in seeking this relief was short, and the Court assumes from Plaintiff's lack of opposition to the motion that he did not suffer any prejudice. The Court finds that Defendants have shown excusable neglect. The Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class by September 28, 2026. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Prison Condition.[CC] LELAND STANFORD: Class Certification Bid in Chism Due Oct. 15 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH CHISM, v. THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-03331-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beeler entered a revised scheduling order as follows: Further CMC (update due seven days prior): Sept. 24, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. Deadline for filing class-certification Oct. 15, 2026 motion: Opposition due: Dec. 27, 2026 Reply due: Jan. 27, 2026 Hearing on motion and/or further Feb. 18, 2027 case-management conference: at 9:30 a.m./11:00 a.m. Expert discovery cutoff: Oct. 18. 2027 The Defendant is a private research university located in Stanford, California. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tFa5z3 at no extra charge.[CC] LGI HOMES: Connelly Files Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARA CONNELLY and RICHARD BRYAN WILSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LGI HOMES, INC., LOANDEPOT, INC., and LGI MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-00539 (M.D. Fla., July 29, 2026) seeks damages, disgorgement of profits from the Defendants' alleged illegal scheme, restitution, as well as injunctive relief for the Plaintiff and similarly situated LGI homebuyers pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Truth in Lending Act. LGI Homes, Inc. is a Texas-based builder of new construction homes and housing developments, with its development projects mostly focused in the southwestern region of the United States. The case concerns Defendants' alleged abusive, improper home-sales scheme, including high-pressure sales tactics and numerous materially false and misleading representations, that has caused -- and continues to cause -- substantial harm to home purchasers in Florida. According to the complaint, LGI targets populations of renters, typically communities that are economically disadvantaged and/or that predominantly comprise racial minorities, with deceptive advertising promising potential customers that they can own a home for the same monthly cost as renting (or less) and quoting specific monthly-payment numbers. Once the potential customers make contact with LGI, the Company deploys a high-pressure sales playbook to ensure: (1) that the customer has no independent advisors (like a realtor or mortgage broker) to guide them through the process; and (2) that they are forced to make a decision on the biggest purchase they have ever made as soon as possible -- often the same day, asserts the complaint. Based on the Company's advertisements and representations, when Plaintiff Bryan Wilson signed his purchase agreement with LGI, he believed that he would be paying $300,000 for his LGI-manufactured house and would not be required to pay a down payment. It was only after Plaintiff Wilson signed the purchase agreement and went to the closing that he found out he would be paying a $3,000 down payment. LGI also directed him to use loanDepot for his mortgage despite his being eligible for a loan from Veterans Affairs, the suit alleges.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric W. Ostroff, Esq. Will J. Rosenzweig, Esq. MELAND BUDWICK, P.A. 3200 Southeast Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-6363 Facsimile: (305) 358-1221 E-mail: eostroff@melandbudwick.com wrosenzweig@melandbudwick.com - and - Adam Hollander, Esq. David Slarskey, Esq. Deepa Devanathan, Esq. SLARSKEY LLC 825 Third Avenue, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 658-0661 - and - Joseph Slaughter, Esq. HUNTERBROOK LAW 2942 N 24th St, Ste 115 PMB 143531 Phoenix, AZ 85016 LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Muhammad Due Oct. 9 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BILAL MUHAMMAD, individually and as class representative, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, OFFICER EDWIN CHOI, OFFICER JOSE DE ANDA, and DOES 3 through 10, Case No. 2:23-cv-09846-MEMF-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order continuing class certification deadline as follows: 1. The portion of the Court's order setting the class certification deadline for May 15, 2026, is vacated. 2. The deadline for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification is Oct. 9, 2026. Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center of the nation’s film and television industry. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dxmJrC at no extra charge.[CC] MANGO MNG USA: Soffer Seeks Refund from Unlawfully Charged Tariffs ------------------------------------------------------------------ MURIEL SOFFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MANGO MNG USA, INC. and MANGO NY, INC. Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-06580 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2026) is a class action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and declaratory relief arising from Defendants' practice of raising the prices it charged consumers in order to pass on the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and Defendants' refusal to refund those overcharges to consumers even as Defendants sued the federal government to recover for itself the very same tariffs that consumers actually paid. According to the complaint, while the IEEPA tariffs were in effect, Defendant Mango paid those tariffs to U.S. Customs and Border Protection and passed the tariff burden on to consumers like Plaintiff and the Class in the form of higher prices. On February 20, 2026, the United States Supreme Court held that IEEPA tariffs were illegal. Following this decision, the importer of record became entitled to refunds of the duties they had previously paid. The consumers who ultimately paid those tariffs, like Plaintiff and the proposed Class, have no statutory right of action to pursue or collect a refund of the illegal tariffs they paid. While Defendants are eligible for a full tariff refund, it has not refunded a penny to the consumers who actually paid those tariffs through inflated prices, nor has it given any indication that it intends to do so, the complaint asserts. The Defendants, thus, stand to recover the tariff costs twice -- once from its customers through higher prices, and again from the government through its refund suit, while keeping the windfall for itself, the complaint adds. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this suit on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated against Defendants for violations of New York General Business Law, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. In September 2025, Plaintiff Soffer purchased multiple items from the Mango website. The Plaintiff paid retail prices for the products that were increased by Defendants to account for the tariffs imposed on imported products. The Plaintiff would not have paid those higher prices, absent the unlawful tariffs and Defendant's actions in passing the costs of tariffs onto consumers, says the suit. Mango MNG USA, Inc. is one of the largest fashion retailers in the world. Mango imports almost all the products that it sells in the United States from other countries including, but not limited to, Spain, China, Vietnam, and India, which were subject to IEEPA tariffs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julian C. Diamond, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jdiamond@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com MARATHON REFINING: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 7, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL M. ARROYO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MARATHON REFINING LOGISTICS SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive Case No. 2:25-cv-11208-DSF-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fischer entered an order continuing the Plaintiff's class certification motion and related deadlines: Amended deadline motion Jan. 7, 2027 for class certification: Opposition due: Feb. 3, 2027 Reply due: Feb. 16, 2027 Hearing date: March 15, 2027 Marathon is an operating subsidiary and logistics provider associated with Marathon Petroleum Corporation, specializing in supply chain, storage, and transportation management for the refining sector. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WFJERs at no extra charge.[CC] MARRIOTT INT'L: Bid For Leave to Amend Complaint Tossed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA JONES, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01613-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly K. Evanson entered an order denying the motion for leave to amend class action complaint. The parties shall file a Joint Status Report as explained in this order no later than Aug. 14, 2026. The Clerk is directed to terminate the motion for class certification, subject to reactivation by the Court after reviewing the parties' Joint Status Report. Pre-class certification discovery had already closed by the time Jones filed her motion. Jones acknowledges that her first and seemingly only attempt to meet and confer with Marriott took place on March 17, 2026—over three months after the deadline to join additional parties and two weeks after the close of pre-class certification discovery. Such efforts do not reflect diligence, and thus, the Court finds, in its discretion, that Jones has failed to meet her burden of showing good cause, the Court says. As a result of the undue delay, granting the motion to amend would also prejudice Marriott, the Court adds. On July 18, 2025, Jones filed her class action complaint in King County Superior Court, alleging that the Defendant engaged in a "business practice of illegally restricting, restraining, and prohibiting low-wage workers from engaging in lawful professions, trades, and businesses and from accepting or transacting business with customers in violation of Washington's noncompetition law." On Aug. 22, 2025, Marriott removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, and on Sept. 15, 2025, the matter was re-assigned to the undersigned. Marriott is an American multinational company that operates, franchises, and licenses lodging brands that include hotel, residential, and timeshare properties. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XPaK7Q at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3162: Parties Must Submit Joint Status Report by Sept. 18 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION LITIGATION (MDL NO. 3162), Case No. 1:25-mc-00179-JDB (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Bates entered a case management order as follows: 1. A case management conference in this matter is set for Sept. 23, 2026, at 10:30 a.m. 2. The parties shall submit a Joint Status Report to the Court outlining an agenda for the September Management Conference and briefly summarizing the parties' positions on any disputed items, or notifying the Court that there are no issues requiring a conference, by not later than Sept. 18, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. 3. The Court will defer setting a general discovery and class certification motion schedule in this case pending resolution of the motions to dismiss. 4. The parties shall meet and confer by not later than Aug. 18, 2026 on any remaining Rule 26(f) issues, to include both the adequacy of disclosures to date and the scope of Rule 26(f) obligations for defendants, plaintiffs, and their respective counsel. By not later than Aug. 25, 2026, the parties shall submit a Joint Status Report either notifying the Court of the parties' agreement on their respective Rule 26(f) obligations and proposing a new Rule 26(f) report deadline or proposing a briefing schedule to address outstanding disputes. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b7QVym at no extra charge.[CC] MECHANICS BANCORP: Ponzi Class Suit Trustee Claims Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Mechanics Bancorp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted Mechanics Bank's motion to dismiss all of the Trustee's claims in the Ponzi scheme class suit. There is also a Kentucky putative class action captioned Tindal and Rogers v. Community Financial Services Bank, et al., brought on behalf of investors in that state. The case asserts that the defendants, including Mechanics Bank, facilitated or failed to prevent McClain's alleged Ponzi scheme and the resulting investor losses. On March 27, 2026, the bankruptcy court granted Mechanics Bank's motion to dismiss all of the Trustee's common-law claims in the adversary proceeding. On April 10, 2026, the court further granted the Bank's motion to dismiss the Trustee's constructive fraudulent transfer claims with prejudice, and also dismissed the Trustee's preferential transfer and actual fraudulent transfer claims without prejudice and with leave to replead. By this April 10 order, the court dismissed all of the Trustee's claims against Mechanics Bank, four with prejudice and two without prejudice. On April 13, 2026, the Trustee filed a motion to reconsider the court's dismissal rulings, seeking to revisit the disposition of the claims against Mechanics Bank. The Bank opposed that motion on May 1, 2026, arguing that the dismissals should stand. The court directed the parties to proceed in accordance with its instructions, and further proceedings on the motion to reconsider and any potential repleading by the Trustee remain pending. In addition, the court directed the Trustee to wait until it rules on other pending motions to dismiss filed by co-defendants before filing a third amended complaint. Further proceedings in the adversary action, including any renewed pleading by the Trustee following resolution of the co-defendants motions, therefore remain stayed pending the bankruptcy court's determinations on those related dismissal motions. Mechanics Bancorp is the parent company of Mechanics Bank, a community-focused financial institution offering a range of commercial and consumer banking products and services. It provides lending, deposit, and treasury management solutions to individuals, small businesses, and commercial clients in its regional markets. MERCOR.IO CORP: White Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEIDI L. WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MERCOR.IO CORPORATION (d/b/a MERCOR), Case No. 6:26-cv-00201-H (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion to extend the deadline to file motion for class certification. The Plaintiff requests that the Court extend the Local Rule 23.2 deadline and direct that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification be due on the date established in the scheduling order to be entered following resolution of Mercor's amended motion to compel arbitration, strike the Plaintiff's class action allegations, and stay proceedings, or in the alternative, motion to dismiss and the parties' Rule 26(f) conference. Alternatively, if the Court prefers a date certain, the Plaintiff requests that the deadline be extended to 120 days after the Court resolves Doc. 19, or such other time as the Court directs. Mercor's own threshold motion should be resolved before class certification is briefed. Requiring certification briefing while the motion is pending would risk substantial duplication, the Plaintiff avers. The Plaintiff filed her class action complaint on May 8, 2026. The Defendant develops application software. The Company provides a platform that uses AI-based resume parsing to find engineers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NmLMm9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew B. Stephens, Esq. Heather G. Hacker, Esq. HACKER STEPHENS LLP 108 Wild Basin Rd. South, Suite 250 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 399-3022 E-mail: andrew@hackerstephens.com heather@hackerstephens.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Szafarski Suit Transferred to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ronald Szafarski, and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 1:26-cv-01431 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 29, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-07870-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian A. Goldstein, Esq. GOLDSTEIN GRECO, P.C. 2354 Wehrle Drive Buffalo, NY 14221 Phone: (844) 716-4653 Email: bg@goldsteingreco.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Limits Strength Coach Jobs, Spellman Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MARK SPELLMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION; PAC-12 CONFERENCE; THE BIG TEN CONFERENCE, INC.; THE BIG TWELVE CONFERENCE, INC.; SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE; and ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-07975 (N.D. Cal., July 31, 2026) is an action challenging the NCAA's rules that artificially restrict the number of strength and conditioning coaches that Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) schools may employ in their football programs. According to the complaint, despite robust and growing demand for skilled strength and conditioning coaches across top-tier college football programs, the NCAA has chosen to impose what amounts to an unlawful restraint on the labor market by capping the number of such coaches FBS teams may employ. Rather than allowing schools to compete for talent and hire as many qualified professionals as their needs and resources justify, the NCAA's restriction artificially suppresses employment opportunities, depresses wages, and limits competition for these specialized positions, the complaint adds. Accordingly, on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all individuals who sought employment as strength and conditioning coaches in NCAA Division I FBS football programs and whose employment opportunities or compensation were restricted by the NCAA's rules, the Plaintiff requests an injunction permanently restraining Defendants from enforcing their unlawful and anticompetitive agreements to restrict the number of strength and conditioning coaches that FBS football programs can employ. The Plaintiff is a qualified and experienced strength and conditioning coach who has held positions as a strength coach at several non-FBS Division I schools including Villanova University, Campbell University, Fairfield University, and George Washington University. National Collegiate Athletic Association is an unincorporated association with its principal office in Indianapolis, Indiana. The NCAA is a joint venture of approximately 1,100 member colleges and universities that governs intercollegiate athletics in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Emilee N. Sisco, Esq. Stephanie A. Verdoia, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com emilees@hbsslaw.com stephaniev@hbsslaw.com - and - Benjamin J. Siegel, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 E-mail: bens@hbsslaw.com NAYAX LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ayyad Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------- YAQOUB AYYAD and RAYMOND LONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NAYAX, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02946-GLR (D. Md., July 29, 2026) is a class action arising out of Defendant Nayax's failure to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to the complaint, the Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack that came to public light in July 2026 to compromise Defendant's network and cloud environment that contained personally identifiable information of Plaintiffs and other individuals. A threat actor gained access to Nayax's inadequately protected cloud environment and, over an extended period, accessed and exfiltrated a large quantity of highly sensitive data belonging to Nayax and to its customers and their consumers. On July 7, 2026, the threat actor publicly claimed responsibility for the attack on a cybercrime forum, asserting that it had exfiltrated more than 100 terabytes of data and established a dedicated leak site threatening to publish the stolen data. On July 8, Nayax publicly acknowledged a cybersecurity incident in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, stating that it had detected anomalous activity within a cloud account belonging to one of its subsidiaries. The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated consumers to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third party and including in that notice precisely what specific types of information were accessed and taken by cybercriminals, the suit asserts. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract, (iii) unjust enrichment, and (iv) declaratory relief. Nayax, LLC is a global financial-technology company that provides cashless payment, IoT, and management solutions for unattended and self-service retail and related consumer-facing products such as its Monyx mobile wallet, to merchants, businesses, and consumers across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Danielle L. Perry, Esq. Gary E. Mason, Esq. MASON & PERRY LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Ste. 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: dperry@masonllp.com gmason@masonllp.com NELSON UNIVERSITY: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Pugh Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- COURTNEY PUGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NELSON UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02548-E (N.D. Tex., July 31, 2026) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated victims as a result of a recent cyberattack and data breach involving personally identifiable information and personal health information suffered by Defendant, which Defendant detected on April 6, 2025. Nelson University is a private, Christian university in Waxahachie, Texas. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted private information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect individuals' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the data breach will remain for their respective lifetime. Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed during the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for: (i) negligence and negligence per se, (ii) breach of implied contract, and (iii) unjust enrichment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 2626 Cole Avenue, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com NEW YORK CITY HEALTH: Rodriguez Balks at Compromised Patients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- WALY RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION d/b/a NYC HEALTH + HOSPITALS, and JOHN DOE THIRD PARTY VENDOR, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-06583 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2026) is a class action arising from the alleged theft and publication of extraordinarily sensitive patient information maintained by New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) and by one or more outside vendors entrusted with HHC's data systems. On March 24, 2026, HHC publicly disclosed a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to its network between approximately November 25, 2025, and February 11, 2026. The Plaintiff and Class members provided their private information in connection with paid health-care transactions and services. The parties' course of dealing, HHC's privacy representations, and the highly confidential nature of the information created an implied contractual obligation that HHC would use reasonable measures to protect the information and would provide accurate and timely notice of any material compromise. But HHC failed to honor those obligations and compounded the injury by materially understating or omitting the scope of the compromise after it knew or should have known facts unavailable to patients, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings claims against HHC for breach of implied contract and violations of New York General Business Law and a negligence claim against Doe Vendor. The Plaintiff does not presently assert a tort claim for personal injury or property damage against HHC. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation is the U.S. largest municipal health-care delivery system. It operates hospitals, post-acute facilities, and outpatient sites, serves more than one million New Yorkers each year, and maintains patient records containing medical, financial, identity, and contact information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 E-mail: consumerlitigation@wilshirelawfirm.com NEW YORK: NYCDOE Faces Suit Over Denial of ESY Services ------------------------------------------------------- S.S. and J.H., individually and on behalf of their minor child, S.S-H., Plaintiffs v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT; DR. BETTY A. ROSA, in her representative role as Commissioner of Education for the New York State Education Department; the OFFICE OF STATE REVIEW, and JUSTYN BATES, CAROL H. HAUGE, STEVEN KROLAK, SARAH L. HARRINGTON, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-06572 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2026) is an action brought under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law. On October 22, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a due process complaint alleging that the DOE denied S.S-H. a free and appropriate public education for the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 school years. As relief, the Plaintiffs sought, inter alia, an order requiring the DOE to fund compensatory services in an amount and type according to proof. On February 16, 2026, Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) Engelsohn issued a Findings of Fact and Decision regarding the remanded IHO Case No. 287344 ("FOFD 2"). FOFD 2 incorporated the unappealed aspects of FOFD 1 and made new findings on the issues on remand. Specifically, the IHO denied Plaintiffs' request for a finding that S.S-H. required Extended School Year services (ESY) and ordered the DOE to provide 360 hours of 1:1 multi-sensory tutoring services. IHO Engelsohn ordered that the compensatory tutoring hours expire within three years from the date of the order. On March 27, 2026, the Plaintiffs perfected their appeal of FOFD 2 to the OSR (which was designated Appeal No. 26-361). Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to have the Court order the Office of State Review (OSR) to decide the case designated Appeal No. 26-361 immediately; or, in the alternative, declare that Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies in the underlying administrative action designated by the DOE as Case No. 287344 and reverse the portions of the February 16, 2026 Findings of Fact and Decision (FOFD) by Impartial Hearing Officer Leslie Engelsohn in Case No. 287344 that found that S.S-H. was not entitled to ESY services and limited the compensatory award to 360 hours of "1:1 multisensory tutoring" to be provided by the DOE within three years of February 16, 2026. The Plaintiffs seek an order finding that S.S-H. was entitled to ESY services for the 2022-2023, 2023 2024, and 2024-2025 school years and requiring the DOE to provide 500 hours of 1:1 multisensory tutoring and executive function coaching or that such services be provided by an independent provider(s) of Plaintiffs' choosing at a rate not to exceed $250 per hour if the DOE does not provide such services within 15 days of the final decision in this matter. Plaintiffs S.S. and J.H., the parents of S.S-H. S.S., J.H., and S.S-H., have resided in the County of New York at all times relevant to this action. S.S-H. is a twelve-year-old student with a disability under the IDEA. New York City Department of Education is a branch of the municipal government in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven J. Alizio, Esq. Justin B. Shane, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN ALIZIO, PLLC 11 Broadway, Suite 568 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (347) 395-4656 Facsimile: (347) 214-2233 NEW YORK: SPED Student Sues NYCDOE Over Staff/Teachers' Abuse ------------------------------------------------------------- Z.S., by his parent A.C., and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and KAMAR H. SAMUELS, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04607-NRM-LKE (E.D.N.Y., July 30, 2026) is a civil rights class action lawsuit pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the New York City Human Rights Law challenging the systemic failure of the New York City Department of Education (DOE) to investigate and respond to allegations of abuse by teachers and staff against students with disabilities. The Plaintiff is a student with disabilities who attends District 75, a specialized district of the New York City School District that provides educational environments for nearly 26,000 students with behavioral, emotional, or intellectual disabilities. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff reported abuse by a DOE teacher or other employee, and through such reporting, the DOE was notified of abuse inflicted by its employees. In Plaintiff's case and in the cases of other District 75 students, the DOE either failed to investigate the allegations at all or conducted an investigation that was flawed, deficient, and subject to lengthy delays, the complaint adds. The failure by the DOE to investigate abuse by employees disproportionately affects District 75 students, and Plaintiff in this action seeks to improve school safety for all District 75 students through fundamental changes in the way that the DOE investigates allegations of abuse, so that Plaintiff and all District 75 students can access the education to which they are entitled by law. Through its discriminatory practices and deliberate indifference, the DOE has violated the civil and constitutional rights of District 75 students, asserts the complaint. These violations deprive students with significant disabilities -- entrusted by their parents and guardians to the care of the DOE every day -- of access to the DOE's benefits and services, their right to an education, and to equal treatment under the law, says the suit. New York City Department of Education, formally known as the City School District of the City of New York, pursuant to New York Education Law, is responsible for developing policies with respect to the administration and operation of the public school program in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory F. Laufer, Esq. Lissette Duran, Esq. Eric E. Stern, Esq. Edward S. Friedman, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 E-mail: glaufer@paulweiss.com lduran@paulweiss.com eestern@paulweiss.com efriedman@paulweiss.com - and - Roberta Mueller, Esq. William Juhn, Esq. NEW YORK LAWYERS FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST 151 West 30th Street, 11th Floor New York, NY 10001-4017 Telephone: (212) 244-4664 E-mail: rmueller@nylpi.org wjuhn@nylpi.org NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Class Cert Oral Argument Set for August 26 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bucks County Employees Retirement System et al. v. Norfolk Southern Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-04175 (N.D. Ga., Filed Sept. 15, 2023), the Hon. Judge Steven D. Grimberg entered an order setting class certification oral argument for Wednesday, August 26, 2026, at 2:00 pm. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Norfolk is a provider of rail transport services.[CC] NUSCALE POWER: Motion to Dismiss Truedson Class Suit Due Sept. 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------- NuScale Power Corporation disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the United States District Court for the District of Oregon has set a deadline of until Sept. 8, 2026 for the defendants to move to dismiss Truedson shareholder class suit and it also continues to defend derivative suit. On February 18, 2026, a shareholder lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division, against the Company, John Hopkins, Ramsey Hamady, and Fluor Corporation, and on July 10, 2026, an amended complaint was filed in this lawsuit adding Alan Boeckmann, Jim Breuer, Alvin Collins, ENTRA1 Energy, LLC, and Wadie J. Habboush as additional defendants. The amended complaint in the lawsuit, Truedson v. NuScale Power Corporation, et al. (Case No. 26-cv-00328) (the "Truedson Class Action"), asserts claims under federal securities laws that the defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts, relating to ENTRA1's experience, qualifications and capabilities as a developer of nuclear power plants, and further asserts that Fluor and certain individual defendants are controlling persons within the meaning of federal securities laws, and that Fluor sold securities while in possession of material, non-public information in violation of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff in the lawsuit seeks to represent a class of persons that purchased shares of the Company's Class A common stock between March 3, 2025, and Nov. 6, 2025, and seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other relief. The Court has set a deadline of until Sept. 8, 2026, for the defendants to move to dismiss, answer, or otherwise respond to the amended complaint. The Company is unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the lawsuit, which could materially and adversely impact its business, financial condition, or results of operations. On March 24, 2026, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a derivate lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division, against certain of the Company's officers and directors, namely John Hopkins, Alan Boeckmann, Bum-Jin Chung, Alvin Collins, Shinji Fujino, Kent Kresa, Diana Walters, and Kimberly Warnica, and the Company, as the nominal defendant. The lawsuit, Albert Leigh, derivatively on behalf of NuScale Power Corporation v. John Hopkins, Robert Hamady, et al. (Case No. 3-26) is based on substantially the same factual allegations as the Truedson Class Action case and asserts claims against the individual defendants for alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties as officers and directors of the Company, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and, against defendants Hopkins and Hamady, for contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. On June 5, 2026, the Court entered a stipulated motion to stay this case until final resolution of the Truedson Class Action and the exhaustion of any and all appeals therefrom. The Company is unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the lawsuit, which could materially and adversely impact its business, financial condition, or results of operations. NuScale Power is a U.S.-based advanced nuclear technology company developing small modular reactor systems designed to provide flexible, carbon-free power generation. It focuses on delivering scalable nuclear energy solutions for utilities, industrial customers, and other energy users worldwide. NYSARC INC: Cruikshank Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NYSARC, Inc. The case is styled as Christopher Cruikshank individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NYSARC, Inc., Case No. 908775-26 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany Cty., July 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Torts (Labor & Employment)." NYSARC, Inc. is the largest not-for-profit organization in New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joanna Ghosh, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, P.C. 217 Broadway, Suite 511 New York, NY 10007 ONE TWO: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Nov. 27 ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERTO BAUTISTA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ONE TWO THAI INC. d/b/a ONE TWO THAI; WARAKORN SIRITIPAKUL; FELICIANO GENIS CARILLO; JOHN DOES 1–10; and ABC CORPORATIONS 1–10, Case No. 1:26-cv-02988-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Liman entered a case management plan and scheduling order: -- Any motion to amend or to join additional parties shall be filed no later than Aug. 28, 2026. -- All fact discovery is to be completed no later than Dec. 18, 2026. -- Depositions shall be completed by Nov. 27, 2026. -- Any motion for summary judgment must be filed no later than Dec. 21, 2026. -- The Plaintiff shall file any motion 216(b) motion by Oct. 16, 2026 and any motion for Rule 23 class certification by Nov. 27, 2026. One Two Thai is a popular local restaurant corporation operating a dining establishment in New York City. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cVn4Jl at no extra charge.[CC] ONEONCOLOGY LLC: Montiel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against OneOncology LLC, et al. The case is styled as Edubiges Montiel, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. OneOncology LLC, OneOncology West LLC, The Los Angeles Cancer Network, Case No. 26STCV24073 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 30, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Oneoncology, LLC -- https://www.oneoncology.com/ -- provides management and support services for oncology and urology practices in the healthcare industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan T. Chuman, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-622-4278 Email: rchuman@blackstonelawpc.com PACCAR INC: Warren Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case ROBERT WARREN and ZACHARY METZGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PACCAR INC., KENWORTH TRUCK COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Case No. 26-2-19714-8 KNT, was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for King County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 31, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02722 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for violations of wage-and-hour law in Washington. PACCAR Inc. is a manufacturer of premium heavy-duty and medium-duty commercial vehicles in Washington. Kenworth Truck Company is a truck manufacturer based in Washington. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew J. Macario, Esq. Sieu Che, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-2308 Facsimile: (206) 682-7908 Email: mmacario@fisherphillips.com sche@fisherphillips.com PAYCOR INC: Judge Grants Plaintiff's Motion to Compel in Part ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Kellin Johns, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Juan Barron, Plaintiffs, v. Paycor, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-264-DWD (S.D. Ill.), Judge David W. Dugan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel. This matter comes before the Court relative to yet another discovery dispute between the parties, this time regarding production of insurance related documents and whether those documents are subject to disclosure under Rule 26. In the Second Motion to Compel the Plaintiff seeks production of all tenders, denials, agreements, emails, and other correspondence related to the two policies the Plaintiff claims were disclosed out of time. The Defendant claims the documents need not be produced because they are protected by attorney-client privilege, common interest privilege, insurer-insured privilege and attorney work product privilege. At oral argument on the Motion, the Court directed the Defendant to submit the documents for an in camera review and determination as to whether they are subject to privilege or are otherwise appropriately disclosed. The Court enjoys extremely broad discretion in controlling discovery and considering relevancy issues. A Defendant must produce at the time of initial disclosure any insurance agreement under which an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment. While the language of Rule 26 is plain regarding the scope of production at the time of initial disclosure, this Court does not believe that it is an absolute bar to production of non-policy insurance documents when they are otherwise discoverable. However, the scope of permissible document discovery is governed in large part by Rule 26(b)(1), which states that parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Upon careful examination, the party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of showing relevance. The Plaintiff points to no particular need to have access to any insurance documents or any pending issue, nor does he demonstrate relevance. Rather, the Plaintiff claims that the insurance agreements should have been produced by the Defendant years ago and their late disclosure warrants a deeper look by directing the production of all tenders, denials, agreements, emails, and other correspondence. Regarding the submitted documents, Files A, B, H and K contain policy and insurance agreement documents under which the insurance company may be liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment. As such, the mandate of Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iv) requires, regardless of legal relevance, the disclosure of these documents and the Defendant is ordered to produce them. Files C, D, E, F, G, I, J, and L contain communications between an insurer and representatives of the Defendant. Some of these files contain arguably privileged communications and would not be discoverable. In any event, these documents are also not relevant to any claim, defense or issue pending before this Court and, therefore, need not be disclosed. Accordingly, the Second Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part. The documents contained in Files A, B, H and K are not subject to any privilege and shall be produced within seven days. The documents contained in Files C, D, E, F, G, I, J, and L are not relevant under Rule 26(b)(1) and need not be produced by the Defendant. A copy of the Court' decision dated 1st August, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WhnMpP from PacerMonitor.com PIZZA HUT: Sontag Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Sontag, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Pizza Hut of Southeast Kansas, Inc.; Fugate Enterprises, LLC; Ryan Wasinger; Doe Corporation 1-10; John Doe 1-10; Case No. 2:26-cv-02443 (D. Kan., July 31, 2026), is brought seeking appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff minimum and overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Kansas Wage Payment Act ("KWPA"), the Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Law ("MWMHL"), the Kentucky Minimum Wage Law ("KMWL"); the Missouri Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"). As a result of unreimbursed automobile expenses and other job-related expenses, Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wage as required by the FLSA and Kansas wage and hour law. The Defendants have been unjustly enriched by Plaintiff in that he uses his own vehicle and incurs vehicle-related expenses for Defendants' benefit. Plaintiff occasionally works more than 40 hours a week during his employment with Defendants. The Defendants did not properly calculate Plaintiff's overtime rate in violation of the FLSA and Kansas wage and hour law. The Defendants have not paid Plaintiff for all of the overtime wages he has earned in violation of the FLSA and Kansas wage and hour law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked at the Pizza Hut store. The Defendants operate at least 94 Pizza Hut franchise locations in Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, and Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Brady, Esq. BRADY & ASSOCIATES 2118 W. 120th Street Leawood, KS 66209 Phone: 913-696-0925 Email: brady@mbradylaw.com - and - Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Laura E. Farmwald, Esq. Emily A. Hubbard, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Phone: (513) 202-0710 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 Email: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com ehubbard@billerkimble.com lfarmwald@billerkimble.com PLATINUM MARKETING: Hinton Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Platinum Marketing Group Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Hinton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Platinum Marketing Group Inc. doing business as: Platinum Elite Stays, Case No. 8:26-cv-02228 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 2, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Platinum Marketing Group Inc. doing business as Platinum Elite Stays -- https://www.pestravels.com/ -- offers exclusive vacation packages, luxury resort stays, cruises, and premium travel experiences at unbeatable value.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 18117 Biscayne Blvd-Ste 4152 Miami, FL 33160 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com PORTILLO'S INC: PAGA Class Suit Settlement for Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- Portillo's Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 28, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the PAGA class suit settlement is subject to court approval. During 2024, a former team member from one of the Company's two California restaurants filed a class action lawsuit alleging wage and hour violations, unfair competition, and claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The filing notes that in November 2025, the parties agreed to settlement terms, which remain subject to court approval. During the quarter ended June 28, 2026, the Company paid $0.05 million toward the settlement. As of June 28, 2026, the related litigation reserve totaled $0.75 million and was included in accounts payable in the Company's condensed consolidated balance sheet. Portillo's Inc. is a fast-casual restaurant company known for its Chicago-style hot dogs, Italian beef sandwiches and other classic American fare, operating locations across several U.S. states. It focuses on a combination of dine-in, drive-thru and catering services to serve a broad customer base. POWER ELECTRONICS: Underpays Field Technicians, Paulino Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Carlos Paulino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Power Electronics (USA) Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-05335-MTM (D. Ariz., July 29, 2026) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and various state labor laws. According to the complaint, Power Electronics improperly classified Plaintiff Paulino and the other field technicians as exempt employees and paid them a salary with no overtime compensation. Power Electronics did not repay the field technicians for the overtime hours they worked when they were improperly classified as exempt. And, even after reclassification, Power Electronics still failed to pay the field technicians for all hours they worked, says the suit. This action seeks to recover the unpaid wages and other damages Power Electronics owes the Plaintiff and similarly situated workers, including unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties, interest, and other remedies provided by federal and respective state laws. Power Electronics manufactures and maintains solar inverters, data storage, energy storage systems, and electric vehicle charging infrastructure.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET LAW PC 2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 999-5200 E-mail: matt@parmet.law PROGRESSIVE COMMERCIAL: Loses Bid to Toss Declaratory Relief Claim ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICKI L. WOFFORD et al., v. UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY d/b/a PROGRESSIVE COMMERCIAL, Case No. 2:25-cv-05637-JS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Sanchez entered a judgment that will deny Progressive's motion to dismiss Wofford's declaratory relief claim with prejudice. Later in this litigation, Progressive may be able to show that this declaratory judgment claim is indeed duplicative and without utility. But at this early stage, the Woffords' declaratory judgment claim may still have some use to the litigation, particularly in certifying a class. The Court will therefore deny the motion to dismiss. An appropriate Order follows. The Plaintiffs alleges that Progressive systematically misuses a regular use exclusion to deny claims for uninsured motorist coverage in violation of Pennsylvania law. On March 5, 2023, Vicki Wofford was driving in Armstrong County, Pennsylvania when her car was hit by another vehicle. This other driver was uninsured and completely at fault for the collision. After the collision, Vicki filed a claim with Donegal and received $200,000 in coverage, the limit of that policy. This amount was not enough to fully compensate Vicki for her damages.The Woffords then sought coverage for the rest of the damages from Progressive. On March 7, 2025, Progressive denied coverage. United is a commercial auto and business insurance subsidiary of Progressive Insurance. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated July 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PcLfbL at no extra charge.[CC] QUESTO INC: Harrison Files Suit in S.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Questo, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Patty Harrison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Questo, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00149-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., July 30, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as "Other P.I. for Personal Injury." Questo -- https://questoapp.com/ -- is a travel and entertainment platform that turns real-world cities into interactive, self-guided game boards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 260 Peachtree St. NW, Ste. 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com QUIDELORTHO CORP: Securities Class Suit Dismissal Motion Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- QuidelOrtho Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 28, 2026, dated Thursday, Aug. 6, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2026, that the motion to dismiss the Bristol County securities class suit is at the early stage and pending in the United States District Court fo the Southern District of New York. A putative federal securities class action filed on April 12, 2024, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Bristol County Retirement System v. QuidelOrtho Corporation, et al. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on statements regarding sales of the Company's COVID-19 diagnostic tests and the 510(k) submission for its SAVANNA RVP4 assay. It seeks a judgment certifying the case as a class action and awarding the named plaintiff and the putative class damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs. On Dec. 16, 2024, the court appointed Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund and Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund, collectively referred to as the Teamsters Funds, as lead plaintiffs in the action and approved their selection of lead counsel. The Teamsters Funds filed an amended complaint on Feb. 7, 2025, which added as additional defendants three current and former executives of the Company who had not been named in the original Bristol County complaint. On April 4, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The action remains in its early procedural stages, and no resolution on the motion to dismiss or on the merits of the claims has yet been reported. In addition, on April 25, 2024, and June 21, 2024, two purported stockholders of the Company filed separate stockholder derivative complaints, purportedly on behalf of the Company, against the current and certain former members of the Board and three of the Company's current and former executives. The complaints, captioned Matthew Whitfield v. Kenneth F. Buechler, Ph.D., et al. and Steven Pinkney v. Douglas Bryant, et al., assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets related to statements regarding sales of the Company's COVID-19 diagnostic tests and the 510(k) submission for its SAVANNA RVP4 assay. The Whitfield and Pinkney complaints seek judgments awarding compensatory and punitive damages against the individual defendants, directing an accounting by the individual defendants, directing the Company and the individual defendants to take actions to improve the Company's governance and procedures, and awarding the costs and disbursements of the action, including attorneys' fees, accountants and experts fees, costs, and expenses. On Dec. 16, 2024, the court consolidated the Whitfield and Pinkney complaints into a single action and stayed the consolidated derivative action. The Company disputes the allegations of wrongdoing and intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters. It is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these lawsuits or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. QuidelOrtho Corp. is a global provider of in vitro diagnostic products, offering a broad portfolio of diagnostic testing solutions used in clinical laboratories, hospitals, and point-of-care settings. Its platforms support testing for infectious diseases, cardiovascular conditions, and other diagnostic applications worldwide. RACKSPACE TECHNOLOGY: Morgan-Reed Balks at Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MORGAN-REED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RACKSPACE TECHNOLOGY, INC., GAJEN KANDIAH, and MARK MARINO, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-06491 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Rackspace securities between May 7, 2026 and July 8, 2026, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Rackspace Technology, Inc. is a hybrid cloud and AI solutions company that owns and operates physical infrastructure to host cloud services and artificial intelligence. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1)that the Company's enterprise AI efforts would require Rackspace to significantly re-prioritize its capacity and capital away from the profitable Private Cloud segment; (2) that Rackspace's Public Cloud revenue was declining as customers contracted directly with hyperscale cloud platforms; (3) that, as a result, Rackspace was likely to significantly reduce a material portion of its Public Cloud infrastructure resale business; (4) as a result, the Company's fiscal year 2026 revenue would be significantly impacted; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On this news, Rackspace's stock price fell $2.21, or 33.6%, to close at $4.37 per share on July 9, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 745 5th Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com - and - Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.com - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 RAMACO RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ramaco Resources, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On Jan. 30, 2026, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company, Randall Atkins, its Chief Executive Officer, and Jeremy Sussman, its Chief Financial Officer, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder arising from allegedly materially false and/or misleading statements concerning the development and active mining status of the Company's Brook Mine rare earth and other critical minerals project in Wyoming during the class period of July 31, 2025 through Oct. 23, 2025. The plaintiff seeks determination of class action status under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an award of compensatory damages against all defendants jointly and severally for all damages sustained (including interest), reasonable costs and expenses including counsel fees and expert fees, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and was originally captioned Lynn Henning, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. Ramaco Resources, Inc., Randall W. Atkins, And Jeremy R. Sussman (Case No. 1:26-cv-00846). On April 22, 2026, the court appointed Andrew Clark, Phil McBride, and Edward Van Vliet as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. The case was also ordered to be styled as In Re Ramaco Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation. On May 5, 2026, the court entered a Scheduling Stipulation and Order requiring Co-Lead Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 45 days and establishing procedures for Defendants to seek a pre-motion conference in advance of any motion to dismiss thereafter. The filed amended complaint extended the class period to July 1, 2025, through Feb. 26, 2026, and added Christopher Blanchard, its Executive Vice President for Mine Planning and Development, and Michael Woloschuk, its Executive Vice President Critical Minerals Operations, as defendants. A pre-motion to dismiss hearing is scheduled for Aug. 7, 2026. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to all claims in this matter. Ramaco Resources, Inc. is a U.S.-based operator and developer of coal and related mineral properties, with mining operations and projects focused on metallurgical coal and critical minerals. It supplies raw materials primarily to steel producers and is pursuing rare earth and other critical mineral opportunities at its Brook Mine project in Wyoming. REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Washington Wins Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANAYA WASHINGTON, MICHELLE SOLAS, DINA VOLPE, MARC YANCEY, and DOUGLAS ANGONA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02327-ALC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: "All persons who purchased Reynolds Wrap aluminum foil labeled with the words "FOIL MADE IN U.S.A." (the "Product") in New York from March 27, 2021, to the present (the "Class Period")." The Court finds that the proposed class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and the relevant requirements of Rule 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 3, 2024, the Plaintiff Anaya Washington filed a complaint against the Defendant alleging that the Defendant violated New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350 for deceptive acts or practices and false advertising. The Defendant manufactures, labels, markets, and sells aluminum foil under the "Reynolds Wrap" brand. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mnamwj at no extra charge.[CC] RICHTECH ROBOTICS: Continues to Defend Diez Class, Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Richtech Robotics Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Diez securities class, derivative suits in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. On Feb. 2, 2026, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, captioned Luiz Gonzalez Diez v. Richtech Robotics Inc., et al., No. 2:26-cv-00231 (D. Nev.). The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of federal securities laws related to statements made in a press release issued by the Company on Jan. 27, 2026. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities during the period from Jan. 27, 2026, through 12:00 p.m. (EST) on Jan. 29, 2026, and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The case was initially in its early procedural stage, and no lead plaintiff had been appointed at that time. On May 5, 2026, the Court entered an order appointing Charles Talisman and Hudson Mac Cayman as co-lead plaintiffs, approving lead plaintiffs' selection of lead counsel, and recaptioning the case as In re Richtech Robotics Inc. Securities Litigation. Lead plaintiffs' amended complaint is presently due to be filed on or before Sept. 11, 2026. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends to defend the case vigorously. The case is at an early stage, and management has concluded that a loss is not probable, and management and the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount or range of any potential financial loss or cost that could result from this lawsuit, given the early stage of the litigation and the inherent uncertainty of class size, trading volume, and potential damages methodologies. Additionally, subsequent to the filing of the Diez securities class action complaint, three separate purported shareholder derivative complaints were filed based on substantially similar factual allegations. These actions name Richtech Robotics Inc. as a nominal defendant and name certain of the Company's current officers and directors as additional defendants. They seek to recover, on behalf of the Company, unspecified damages, disgorgement, corporate governance reforms, and attorneys' fees, as well as costs and expenses, and assert claims, among others, for breach of fiduciary duties and/or contribution. All three derivative actions were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada and are collectively referred to as the Derivative Actions. They are captioned as follows: Morly Gourdet v. Zhenwu Huang, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-01048, filed April 2, 2026; Charvi Shah v. Wayne Huang, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-01273, filed April 24, 2026; and Kenneth Dawson v. Zhenwu Huang, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-01466, filed May 13, 2026. The Derivative Actions are based on substantially similar factual allegations as the Diez securities class action complaint and seek, on behalf of the Company, unspecified damages, corporate governance reforms, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses. On July 15, 2026, the parties filed a stipulation to consolidate the Derivative Actions, which is pending. The Derivative Actions are in their early procedural stages, and no responsive pleadings have been filed. The Company believes the allegations in these actions are without merit, the director and officer defendants deny all allegations of liability, and they intend to defend the Derivative Actions vigorously. Based on the current status of the proceedings and the preliminary stage of the Derivative Actions, management has concluded that a loss is not probable and is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of any potential loss, if any, arising from these proceedings, and the Company cannot determine with certainty the outcome of these cases at this time. Richtech Robotics Inc. develops and markets service robots and automation solutions for use in hospitality, retail, healthcare, and other commercial environments. It focuses on integrating robotics and artificial intelligence to improve operational efficiency and customer service for enterprise customers. ROSCO PRODUCTION: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Olaguez Due Nov. 13 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSE OLAGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ROSCO PRODUCTION LA LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; DANIEL A. WORTHINGTON, an individual, Case No. 2:26-cv-03314-JFW-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Walter entered an order granting stipulation for extension of time in which to file motion for class certification: Event Date Motion for class certification: Nov. 13, 2026 Opposition to class cert. motion: Dec. 4, 2026 Reply: Dec. 11, 2026 Rosco is a worldwide full-service production company with offices in London, New York and Los Angeles. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WuU8Ov at no extra charge.[CC] RSG GROUP NORTH AMERICA: Scipio Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RSG Group North America LP, et al. The case is styled as Kamille Scipio, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RSG Group North America LP, Does 1 through 50, Case No. 26STCV23857 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 29, 2026). RSG Group North America LP -- https://rsggroup.com/en/ -- is one of the world's leading fitness companies, our long-term goal is to help people stay in motion anytime, anywhere.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose Maria D. Patino, Jr., Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 Email: jose.patino@wilshirelawfirm.com RUDIN MANAGEMENT CO: Wolfe Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rudin Management Co. Inc., et al. The case is styled as Timothy Wolfe, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Rudin Management Co. Inc.; RMC Residential Payroll LLC, Case No. 159435/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., July 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Torts (Labor & Employment)." Rudin -- https://www.rudin.com/ -- is one of NYC's leading family-owned real estate companies, offering luxury apartments, office space, retail, and professional suites in Manhattan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joanna Ghosh, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, P.C. 217 Broadway, Suite 511 New York, NY 10007 SAFETYFIRST SYSTEMS: Dabbas Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Safetyfirst Systems, LLC. The case is styled as William Dabbas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Safetyfirst Systems, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-09518-EP-JRA (D.N.J., July 29, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. SafetyFirst Systems, LLC -- https://safetyfirst-uae.com/ -- is a Parsippany, New Jersey-based fleet and driver safety management company founded in 1998.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Henry Alperstein, Esq. James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Fax: (973) 994-1744 Email: jalperstein@carellabyrne.com jcecchi@carellabyrne.com SALIDA DEL SOL CBAS: Rivas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Salida Del Sol CBAS, LLC. The case is styled as Javier Rivas, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Salida Del Sol CBAS, LLC, Salida Del Sol Adult Day Health Care, LLC, Does 1 through 50, Case No. 26STCV23852 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 29, 2026). Salida Del Sol CBAS, LLC is a licensed Community Based Adult Services (CBAS) and adult day health care center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fawn F. Bekam, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 1700 W Burbank Blvd. Burbank, CA 91506-1313 Phone: 213-493-6300 Fax: 213-336-3704 Email: fawn@abramsonlabor.com SALT HARBOR INC: Mosquera Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Salt Harbor, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jenny Mosquera, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Salt Harbor, Inc., Lindsay Ostrander Individually, Case No. 814908/2026E (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., July 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial (Class Action Settlement)." Salt Harbor, Inc. -- https://saltedontheharbor.com/ -- is a trendy all day American restaurant with brunch, happy hour, and harbor views, plus veggie options.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Robert Maguire, Esq. STEVENSON MARINO LLP 105 Maxess Road, Suite 124 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: (212) 939-7229 Email: jmaguire@stevensonmarino.com SANCTUARY METALS: Maynard Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sanctuary Metals LLC. The case is styled as Shellie Maynard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sanctuary Metals LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00712-DAO (D. Utah, July 30, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Sanctuary Metals -- https://www.sanctuarymetals.com/ -- is a precious metals dealer based in Ladera Ranch, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Morrison, Esq. MORRISON LAW OFFICE 1887 N. 270 E. Orem, UT 84057 Phone: (801) 845-2581 Email: matt@oremlawoffice.com SHARDA USA: FMC Allowed Leave to File SAC ----------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FMC CORPORATION, v. SHARDA USA LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02419-MRP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Perez entered a judgment that grants FMC's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. FMC seeks leave to amend only its existing copyright infringement claim to ensure that both copyrights it holds and referenced in the Amended Complaint ("FAC") are included. FMC learned Sharda interpreted the allegations in the FAC to exclude the earlier copyright only in January 2026 while the parties were engaging in settlement negotiations. At that time the case was stayed. FMC filed the instant motion less than one month after the stay was lifted. When FMC filed this motion, no scheduling order had been issued and discovery had not yet begun. Dispositive motions are not due for nearly four months, and trial is scheduled to begin in roughly nine months. The parties have ample time to engage in fact and expert discovery into the claims related to the earlier copyright. For these reasons, the Court finds FMC did not unduly delay in seeking leave to amend and Sharda will not be unduly prejudiced if the motion is granted. Allowing amendment is consistent with the purpose of Rule 15's freely give leave standard because it will ensure this case is resolved on the merits, and it will ensure judicial efficiency because the copyright claims can be resolved in a single case, rather than requiring FMC to bring a separate copyright infringement action based on the '720 Copyright. The Defendant offers a wide range of cost-effective generic products for the agricultural industry. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PwwrsO at no extra charge.[CC] SHOOT STRAIGHT: Thomas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shoot Straight Gun Shows, Inc. The case is styled as Jordan Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Shoot Straight Gun Shows doing business as: Florida Gun Shows, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-25122-XXXX (N.D. Tex., July 29, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Shoot Straight Gun Shows doing business as Florida Gun Shows, Inc. -- https://www.floridagunshows.com/ -- is a gun store chain and gun show retailer in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Eric Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE 1650 SE 17th Street 100 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: (865) 603-7365 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com SOLID POWER: Continues to Defend Hamilton Class Suit in Delaware ---------------------------------------------------------------- Solid Power, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Hamilton class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On Dec. 3, 2024, two purported stockholders filed a putative class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the former officers and directors of Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation III (DCRC), including Erik Anderson, Riverstone Holdings, LLC, and related sponsors and entities referred to as the Hamilton Defendants. The case is captioned Hamilton et al. v. Anderson et al., C.A. No. 2024-1241-JTL. It asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of stockholders and alleges misconduct in connection with a prior business combination involving DCRC. The lawsuit alleges breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment arising from the merger of Solid Power Operating, Inc. with a subsidiary of DCRC. It seeks to recover unspecified monetary damages, as well as equitable relief, from the former officers, directors, sponsors, and related entities. The claims focus on the conduct of these defendants in structuring, approving, and executing the merger transaction and the resulting impact on the putative class members. In addition, none of the Company, its subsidiaries, or its current officers or directors, except Mr. Anderson, is named as a defendant in the Hamilton action. The Hamilton Defendants have demanded indemnification and advancement of defense costs from the Company. As a result, it is reasonably possible that the Company could be liable for legal fees, defense costs, judgments, and/or settlement fees incurred by certain of the Hamilton Defendants. The proceedings remain subject to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, and the Company cannot currently estimate a reasonably possible loss. Solid Power, Inc. is a Colorado-based developer of all-solid-state rechargeable batteries designed for electric vehicles and other applications. It focuses on advancing next-generation battery technology intended to deliver higher energy density, improved safety, and lower cost compared with traditional lithium-ion batteries. SOLVENTUM CORP: 3M Continues to Defend Bair Hugger MDL ------------------------------------------------------ Solventum Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that 3M continues to defend itself from the Bair Hugger MDL. 3M is a named defendant in approximately 8,400 lawsuits in the United States and one Canadian putative class action with a single named plaintiff, alleging that individuals underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugger patient warming system. Under the terms of the Separation and Distribution Agreement by and between Solventum and 3M, Solventum has agreed to indemnify 3M for uninsured liabilities related to the Bair Hugger patient warming system, to manage the litigation, and to pay for legal expenses. In addition to the federal multidistrict litigation cases, there are eight state court personal injury cases relating to the Bair Hugger patient warming systems, including a multi-plaintiff case of amputees in Ramsey County, Minnesota. Additionally, a putative class action has been filed in Ramsey County, Minnesota, seeking economic damages for the use of the Bair Hugger system in knee and hip replacement surgeries involving medically obese people in Minnesota from May 2017 to the present. In June 2016, 3M was served with a putative class action filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for all Canadian residents who underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical site infections that the representative plaintiff claims were due to the use of the Bair Hugger patient warming system. The representative plaintiff seeks relief, including punitive damages, under Canadian law based on theories similar to those asserted in the multidistrict litigation. As a follow-up, the company disclosed that, for product liability litigation matters described in this section for which a liability has been recorded, the amount recorded is included in the disclosed amounts in the preceding "Process for Disclosure and Recording of Liabilities Related to Legal Proceedings" section. During the second quarter of 2026, based on developments in the Bair Hugger matter, the company increased its litigation accrual to management's best estimate of probable loss at this time. It stated that it is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of the recorded liability at this time. Solventum Corp., formerly 3M’s Health Care business, is a global health care company that develops, manufactures, and markets medical and surgical products, health information systems, and related technologies for hospitals, clinics, and other care providers. It focuses on improving patient outcomes and operational efficiency across a broad portfolio of health care solutions. SPAULDING PARTNERS: Property Has Architectural Barriers, Pardo Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. SPAULDING PARTNERS LLC and WEST BRICKELL ASSOCIATES LLC D/B/A EL SANTO COSANOSTRA CIAO HAVANA EL CUBAN DINER A/K/A EL CUBAN DINER, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-25194 (S.D. Fla., July 31, 2026) is a class action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs against the Defendants pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. He uses a wheelchair to ambulate and has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. Spaulding Partners LLC owns and operates a commercial property which is a place of public accommodation as defined by the ADA. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Pardo has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject places of public accommodation. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property and restaurant business have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit these places of public accommodation and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury, embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly situated, adds the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary E-mail: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com mds@ajperezlawgroup.com STEPHEN AUSTIN: Seeks to Stay Discovery in Myers Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SOPHIA MYERS, et al., v. STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 9:25-cv-00187-MJT (E.D. Tex.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion to stay of further discovery and the remaining deadlines pending resolution of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Without a stay, the Court will be simultaneously ruling on SFA's Motion for Protective Order and Motions for Summary Judgment (and any discovery disputes that may develop in the future between the parties) while conducting its rigorous analysis on whether the Plaintiffs have met their heavy burden to establish that the proposed class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23. Additional judicial resources will obviously be needed if the December 12 trial date remains, the Defendant avers. On Aug. 1, 2025, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' emergency motion for preliminary injunction and ordered SFA to preserve the women's beach volleyball, bowling, and golf teams. On June 15, 2026, the Court granted and denied in part SFA's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint, allowing the claims of Allison and Clayton to proceed. The Defendant is an NCAA Division I university located in Nacogdoches, Texas. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I67hW0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Marlayna M. Ellis, Esq. Sheaffer K. Fennessey, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL GENERAL LITIGATION DIVISION Telephone: (512) 463-2100 Facsimile: (512) 320-0667 Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711-2548 E-mail: Marlayna.Ellis@oag.texas.gov shea.fennessey@oag.texas.gov SWEEPSTEAKS LTD: Bid to Compel Arbitration & Stay Proceedings OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LASHAWNNA RIDLEY, et al., V. SWEEPSTEAKS LTD., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02511-LMB-WEF (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Brinkema entered an order as follows: -- Granting the defendant Sweepsteaks' motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings; -- Denying as moot Stake's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint; and -- staying until the arbitration proceeding is complete the Defendant Kick Streaming Ptd Ltd.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, Stake's Motion to Strike Unauthorized Amendments in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative Compel Arbitration or Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, and Kick and Stake’s Motion to Deny Class Certification and Strike Class Allegations in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. The Court further entered an order that: The Plaintiffs and Stake promptly begin the arbitration process as required under the arbitration agreement contained in Stake’s Terms; and The plaintiffs and Stake file a status report concerning the status of arbitration within 120 days of the date of this Order and file updated reports every 90 days thereafter. The Defendant provides online social casino experience. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iC4Sps at no extra charge.[CC] SYMBIOTIC INC: Aug. 31 Scheduling Conference in Decker Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Symbotic Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 27, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts sets scheduling conference for Decker class suit on Aug. 31, 2026. On Dec. 3, 2024, a putative class action captioned Decker v. Symbotic Inc. et al., Case No. 24-cv-12976, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by an alleged purchaser of the Company's common stock. The complaint asserted claims for violations of federal securities laws against the Company and three of its officers on the grounds that the Company made false and/or misleading statements related to its revenue recognition and the effectiveness of its disclosure controls and procedures. Based on these allegations, the plaintiff brought claims seeking unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs and relief on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased the Company's stock between Feb. 8, 2024, and Nov. 26, 2024. On May 5, 2025, the court entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and setting a schedule for the filing of an amended complaint and the Company's response to the complaint. On July 11, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the same action. The amended complaint asserts claims for violations of federal securities laws against the Company and four of its officers on the grounds that the Company made false and/or misleading statements or omissions related to its financial results, deployment times, revenue recognition, and internal controls. Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs bring claims seeking unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs and relief on behalf of themselves and a putative class of persons who purchased stock of the Company between Nov. 20, 2023 and Feb. 5, 2025. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on Sept. 11, 2025. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on Nov. 11, 2025. The Company filed its reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss on Dec. 11, 2025. A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on Dec. 16, 2025. On July 23, 2026, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion. The parties will appear in court for a scheduling conference on Aug. 31, 2026. The Company intends to vigorously defend this action. If a court ultimately determines that the Company is liable in this action, the Company may be subject to substantial damages. It cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this matter or determine the extent of any potential liability. The Company also cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. Any adverse outcome in these matters could expose the Company to substantial damages that may have a material adverse impact on the Company's operations and cash flows. Despite the potential for significant damages, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, although the outcome could be material to its operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. Symbotic Inc. is an automation technology company that provides warehouse automation systems and software, primarily serving retailers and wholesalers across North America. It designs, assembles, and deploys modular robotics and artificial intelligence solutions aimed at improving supply chain efficiency and inventory management. TEXAS DODGE LLLP: Boykin Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Texas Dodge, LLLP. The case is styled as Michael Boykin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Texas Dodge, LLLP, Case No. 2:26-cv-00164-Z (N.D. Tex., July 30, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Texas Dodge, LLLP -- https://www.texasdodge.net/ -- is a car dealer in Amarillo, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Eric Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com TICKETMASTER LLC: Madrigal Seeks to Certify Purchaser Classes ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE MADRIGAL, et al., v. TICKETMASTER LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02375-GW-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Dec. 7, 2026, at 8:30 a.m., will move the Court to: (1) Certify following State Classes of purchasers who encountered the "not All in" buy flow, and the Order Processing Fee ("OPF") buy flow under Rule 23(a), Rule 23(b)(3), and Rule 23(b)(2): The California Class. "All purchasers located in California at the time of the transaction, who, on or after March 18, 2021, paid an OPF and/or other mandatory fee using the (1) "not All in" buy flow and/or the (2) OPF buy flow while making a ticket purchase on Ticketmaster's platform." The D.C. Class. "All purchasers located in DC at the time of the transaction, who, on or after May 9, 2022, paid an OPF and/or other mandatory fee using the (1) "not All in" buy flow, and/or the (2) Order Processing Fee buy flow while making a ticket purchase on Ticketmaster's platform." The Florida Class. "All purchasers located in Florida at the time of the transaction, who, on or after March 18, 2021, paid an OPF and/or other mandatory fee using the (1) "not All in" buy flow, and/or the (2) Order Processing Fee buy flow while making a ticket purchase on Ticketmaster's platform." The Illinois Class. "All purchasers located in Illinois at the time of the transaction, who, on or after March 18, 2022, paid an OPF and/or other mandatory fee using the (1) "not All in" buy flow, and/or the (2) Order Processing Fee buy flow while making a ticket purchase on Ticketmaster's platform." The Maryland Class. "All purchasers located in Maryland at the time of the transaction, who, on or after April 8, 2022, paid an OPF and/or other mandatory fee using the (1) "not All in" buy flow, and/or the (2) Order Processing Fee buy flow while making a ticket purchase on Ticketmaster's platform." Exclusion for Transactions for New York Venues. All transactions for New York venues on or after Aug. 29, 2022, by purchasers located in California, D.C., Florida, Illinois, and Maryland at the time of the transaction are excluded from each of the foregoing State Classes. (2) appoint the Plaintiff Michelle Madrigal as representative of the California Class, Plaintiff Helen Pantuso as representative of the Florida Class, Plaintiff Tracey Sunde as representative of the Illinois Class, Plaintiff Sherry Adams as representative of the D.C. Class, and Plaintiffs Nadine Holmes and Mario Staten as representatives of the Maryland Class; and (3) appoint Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Giskan Solotaroff & Anderson LLP, Z Law LLC, and Zimmerman Reed as Class Counsel. Ticketmaster operates as a ticket distribution company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ntxdfW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Annick Persinger, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1101 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com - and - Caleb Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - and - Oren S. Giskan, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 1 Rockefeller Plaza, 8th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 E-mail: ogiskan@gslawny.com - and - Cory L. Zajdel, Esq. Z LAW, LLC 2345 York Road, #B-13 Timonium, MD 21093 Telephone: (443) 213-1977 E-mail: clz@zlawmaryland.com TICKETMASTER LLC: Plaintiffs Seek to File Documents Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE MADRIGAL, et al., v. TICKETMASTER LLC, et al. Case No. 2:25-cv-02375-GW-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order permitting them to file under seal a certain confidential document in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs apply to file the following document under seal: Document Requested to Be Sealed Document Description Portions of Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Legal brief in support Motion for Class Certification of Plaintiffs' Points and Authorities in Support of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the Madrigal And Holmes Actions Portions of the Declaration of Annick Declaration of counsel M. Persinger in support of the Plaintiffs' Motion for class certification Exhibit 6 Exhibit 6 to the James Deposition, TMMADRIGAL-00004951 The Defendants do not oppose this application. Ticketmaster operates as a ticket distribution company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Drjtx4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Annick Persinger, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1101 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com - and - Caleb Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - and - Oren S. Giskan, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 1 Rockefeller Plaza, 8th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 E-mail: ogiskan@gslawny.com - and - Cory L. Zajdel, Esq. Z LAW, LLC 2345 York Road, #B-13 Timonium, MD 21093 Telephone: (443) 213-1977 E-mail: clz@zlawmaryland.com TIKTOK INC: Faces Navarro Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- ALEJANDRA NAVARRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIKTOK INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-08345 (C.D. Cal., July 29, 2026) is a putative class action against the Defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in aggressive text message campaigns to consumers with no regard for consumers' rights under the TCPA, even after customers opt out from Defendant's text messages. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. TikTok Inc. is a technology and social media corporation that provides a short-form video hosting and sharing platform, along with related digital products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com TOMY INTERNATIONAL: Bergen Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against TOMY International, Inc. The case is styled as Hallie Bergen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOMY International, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-09173 (N.D. Ill., July 31, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. TOMY International, Inc. -- https://us.tomy.com/ -- designs, manufactures, and markets toys and nursery products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Tomascik, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 255-8569 Email: dan@jefirm.com TOP LINE COLLECTORS: Benson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Top Line Collectors LLC. The case is styled as Zantoyia Benson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Top Line Collectors LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-06146 (S.D. Tex., July 30, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Top Line Collectors LLC -- https://www.toplinecollectors.com/ -- is a professional debt collection agency based in Schaumburg, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Eric Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com TRACY MCGRADY: Karnas Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dominik Karnas, Edwin Garrison, Rahil Sayed, William Ayer, Anthony Dorn, Todd Webb, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Tracy McGrady, Case No. 1:24-cv-20480 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on July 29, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02501-X to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Torts/Pers Prop.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara Cabrera Lewis, Esq. Joseph M. Kaye, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM 2 Alhambra Plaza, #601 Miami, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 740-1423 Fax: (786) 298-5737 Email: barbara@moskowitz-law.com joseph@moskowitz-law.com - and - Desiree Erin Fernandez, Esq. Jose Manuel Ferrer, Esq. MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN 80 SW 8th St., Suite 1999 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (305) 374-0440 Email: desiree@mfh.law jose@mfh.law - and - John Ethan Rodstrom, III, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM 3250 Mary Street, Ste. 202 Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 740-1423 Email: john@moskowitz-law.com - and - Caroline Hogan Paschal, Esq. MILLER THIBODEAUX DYSART VEITH & PASCHAL LLC 643 Magazine Street, Suite 405 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (504) 977-9150 Email: hpaschal@mtdvp.com - and - Kerry James Miller, Esq. Molly L. Wells, Esq. FISHMAN HAYGOOD LLP 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4600 New Orleans, LA 70170 Phone: (504) 556-5549 Email: kmiller@fishmanhaygood.com mwells@fishmanhaygood.com - and - Reed D. Forbush, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 44 Montgomery Street, 41st Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 293-6800 Email: rforbush@bsfllp.com - and - Stephen N. Zack, Esq. Tyler Evan Ulrich, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER 100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 2800, Miami Tower Miami, FL 33131-2144 Phone: (305) 539-8400 Fax: (305) 539-1307 Email: szack@bsfllp.com tulrich@bsfllp.com - and - Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM P.O. Box 653409 Miami, FL 33175 Phone: (305) 740-1423 Fax: (786) 298-5737 Email: adam@moskowitz-law.com TRADER JOE'S: Class Cert Filing in Smith Suit Extended to Nov. 20 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN SMITH, DAMANY BROWNE, JANET ROSS, KELLY MCINTOSH and MOHAMAD TLAIB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, a California Corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-04335-JFW-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Walter entered an order granting joint stipulation to extend time to file class certification and set class certification schedule. 1. The Plaintiffs will file their motion for class certification and their class certification expert reports on or before Nov. 20, 2026; 2. The Defendant will file its opposition to class certification and class certification rebuttal expert reports on or before Jan. 8, 2027; 3. The Parties will complete class certification expert discovery on Feb. 8, 2027; and 4. The Plaintiffs will file their reply in support of class certification on or before Feb. 8, 2027. The Defendant is an American chain of neighborhood grocery stores famous for selling unique, high-quality foods mostly under its own private label. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8FxsXu at no extra charge.[CC] TRANSDEV ALTERNATIVE: Stein Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as DANIEL STEIN, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSDEV ALTERNATIVE SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV18086, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 31, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-08456 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges these causes of action: (1) unpaid sick pay wages; (2) unpaid pto wages; and (3) unfair business practices. Transdev Alternative Services, Inc. is a division of Transdev United States focusing on autonomous and emerging vehicle fleet operations, testing, and depot management.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kate Juvinall, Esq. Andrew J. Weissler, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 337-6550 Facsimile: (213) 337-6551 E-mail: kate.juvinall@huschblackwell.com aj.weissler@huschblackwell.com TRANSPARENTBUSINESS INC: Defends Unicoin Class, Derivative Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- TransparentBusiness, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated Aug. 4, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Unicoin class, derivative suits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On Sept. 24, 2025, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Unicoin and certain current and former officers, captioned Finch, et al. v. Unicoin Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-07939. On Nov. 6, 2025, a separate putative class action complaint was filed in the same court against Unicoin and certain current and former officers, captioned German Arochi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unicoin Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-09273. Collectively, these two putative class actions are referred to as the Finch and Arochi Complaints. On Feb. 5, 2026, the Court entered a stipulation and order consolidating the Finch and Arochi actions into a single proceeding captioned In re Unicoin, Inc. Investor Litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-07939-AS. In the same order, the Court stayed the consolidated class action pending the final resolution, including any appeals, of the SEC enforcement action, Case No. 1:25-cv-04245-AS. As part of this consolidation, the Arochi action was closed as a consolidated member case. Separately, the disclosure notes that the consolidated Finch and Arochi class action has been stayed pending the final resolution, including any appeals, of an SEC enforcement action against Unicoin, identified as Case No. 1:25-cv-04245-AS. The stay order links the progress of the private securities class action to the outcome of this government enforcement proceeding, and the consolidated class action will not move forward until the SEC enforcement matter is fully resolved. O Oct. 15, 2025, a putative shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Lee v. Unicoin Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-08821. The complaint was brought nominally on behalf of Unicoin against certain current and former directors and officers, and asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and contribution and indemnification under the federal securities laws. The derivative plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants failed to implement and maintain adequate internal controls and oversight relating to Unicoin's public disclosures and compliance with federal securities regulations. On Dec. 3, 2025, the Lee derivative action was stayed by stipulation and order of the Court, pending the final resolution, including any appeals, of both the consolidated In re Unicoin, Inc. Investor Litigation securities class action and the related SEC enforcement action, Case No. 1:25-cv-04245-AS. Under the terms of the stay, the parties are required to notify the Court promptly upon the conclusion of the SEC proceeding and any subsequent developments in the consolidated class action. The Company has stated that it believes the claims in the derivative lawsuit are without merit and that it intends to defend the action vigorously once the stay is lifted. TransparentBusiness, Inc. is a technology company that provides cloud-based platforms designed to manage and monitor remote and distributed workforces. It focuses on tools for productivity tracking, project management, and compliance for enterprises and public-sector clients. TREACE MEDICAL: Continues to Defend McCluney Class Suit in Florida ------------------------------------------------------------------ Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the McCluney class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. On April 11, 2025, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned McCluney v. Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00390-WWB-PDB. The action was brought against the Company and certain of its officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock between May 8, 2023, and May 7, 2024. The plaintiff alleges that the Company and certain of its current executives violated the federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. The complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose the impact of competition on demand for and utilization of its products, as well as the need to accelerate its plans to offer a new osteotomy product. It further alleges that the Company's positive statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees in connection with these alleged violations. On July 1, 2025, the court appointed the lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the action. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 31, 2025, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on Sept. 5, 2025. On July 15, 2026, the court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice, and on July 29, 2026, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The action remains in a preliminary stage, and the Company disputes the allegations set forth in the complaint and intends to defend against the action vigorously. Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings, the outcome of the litigation remains uncertain, and the Company cannot reasonably estimate the potential impact, if any, on its business or financial statements at this time. The Company maintains Directors and Officers liability insurance coverage for amounts in excess of its retention and up to the limits of the applicable policy. In addition, there are no related shareholder derivative actions, government investigations, or consolidated actions disclosed beyond the class action described above. Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. is a medical technology company focused on the design, manufacture, and marketing of surgical systems and instruments for foot and ankle procedures, including bunion correction. It serves orthopedic surgeons and other specialists across the United States. TRYAX REALTY: Richiez Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL RICHIEZ, et al., v. TRYAX REALTY MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08578-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court at 10 a.m. on Aug. 20, 2026 or at such time and date designated by the Court for an order: (i) certifying the proposed Rule 23 class; (ii) appointing the Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel; (iii) appointing the Plaintiff as class representative; (iv) allowing the Plaintiff to send notice to the class and collective; (v) ordering the Defendants to produce a class list with the class members' contact information; and (vi) granting any other such relief as the Court deems just and Proper. Tryax owns and operates multifamily buildings.[CC] A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BXSxkN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Avi Mermelstein, Esq. ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1402 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 490-3600 Facsimile: (212) 682-0278 E-mail: avi@adklawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Perry S. Heidecker, Esq. MILMAN LABUDA LAW GROUP PLLC 3000 Marcus Avenue Suite 3W8 Lake Success, NY 11042 UNILEVER UNITED: Faces Lisa Suit Over Mislabeled Rice & Pasta Sides ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES LISA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:26-cv-6536 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2026) asserts claims on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated purchasers for Defendant's violation of the New York General Business Law, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. This is a class action on behalf of purchasers of Defendant's Knorr Rice & Pasta Sides that claim to have "No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives." According to the complaint, these representations are false and/or misleading because the products contain citric acid, disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate, and/or sodium citrate -- well-known artificial flavors and/or preservatives commonly used in food products. The Defendant's "No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives" representations are featured on the products' labeling in order to induce health-conscious consumers to purchase food that is free from artificial flavors and/or preservatives. The Defendant markets its products in a systematically misleading manner by misrepresenting that the products do not contain such artificial flavors or preservatives, says the suit. Unilever United States, Inc. manufactures personal care products. The Company offers laundry detergents, shampoos, soaps, fragrances, and body washes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jdiamond@bursor.com UNITED PARKS: Parties Seek Clarification of July 28 Order --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TATIANA EASTMAN, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. UNITED PARKS AND RESORTS INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 6:24-cv-01534-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for clarification of Court's order. The Parties request that the Court clarify the scope of its July 28, 2026 Order by confirming: (a) that the filing at [ECF No. 70] constitutes the sealed, unredacted version of the Motion for Class Certification previously filed at [ECF No. 52], filed in accordance with the Court's Order granting the Plaintiff's motion to seal, rather than a new or amended motion requiring additional briefing; and (b) that because the Defendant's opposition and the Plaintiff's Reply were already filed on the docket without redaction, no further briefing, re-filing, or additional motion to seal is required as to either the Opposition or the Reply. On Feb. 6, 2026, the Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification. In compliance with the Court's Order, on July 24, 2026, the Plaintiff filed under seal unredacted copies of the Motion for Class Certification and accompanying Exhibits D, E, F, G, I, J, L, and M through the CM/ECF Sealed Events menu. On July 28, 2026, the Court entered an Order denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in light of the Plaintiff's filing at ECF No. 70, and directing the Defendant to respond to, and the Plaintiff to reply in support of, the Motion at ECF No. 70 in accordance with the deadlines set forth in the Local Rules. United Parks is an American entertainment company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W3ASEs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Owens, Esq. Andree Rozados-Quaresima, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS P.A. 2750 N. 29th Ave., Suite 209A Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com andree@scottdowens.com - and - Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. LEHRMAN LAW 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (754) 778-9660 E-mail: seth@lehrmanlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Michelle C. Pardo, Esq. Rebecca E. Bazan, Esq. Morgan L. Swing, Esq. Elisabeth L. Rabin, Esq. Anoosheh A. Shaikh, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 901 New York Avenue NW, Suite 700 East Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 776-7844 Facsimile: (202) 578-2563 E-mail: mcpardo@duanemorris.com rebazan@duanemorris.com mswing@duanemorris.com erabin@duanemorris.com ashaikh@duanemorris.com UNITED STATES OF ARITZIA: Ramirez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as MICHAIAH MICAH RAMIREZ and JAIDA JEROTZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF ARITZIA INC., DBA ARITZIA, a Delaware corporation; US OF ARITZIA INC, an entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV11680, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 31, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-08458 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs bring these causes of action on behalf of themselves and the putative class members against the Defendants for alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Defendants operate Aritzia retail stores throughout the United States, including California.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com - and - Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor 695 Town Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 800-7900 Facsimile: (714) 754-1298 E-mail: mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com UNITED STATES: Appeals Injunction Order in L.T. Suit to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for preliminary injunction in the lawsuit entitled L.T., et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-00322, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. This lawsuit seeks to end the inhumane and illegal conditions faced by immigrants detained at Adelanto ICE Processing Center, an immigration detention center in the United States. On June 1, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for preliminary injunction, which Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes granted in part on July 16, 2026. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated they are likely to prevail, or at the least, raise serious questions, on the merits of their Fifth Amendment and Rehabilitation Act claims; that they will suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not issue preliminary injunctive relief; that the balance of equities tips strongly in their favor; and that the public interest lies in issuing a preliminary injunction. The Court also finds that the requirements for provisional class certification for purposes of issuing preliminary injunctive relief have been satisfied. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for preliminary injunction is granted. The Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with the Defendants are preliminary enjoined. The Plaintiffs' request that the Class and Disability Subclass be provisionally certified is granted. Plaintiffs L.T., J.M., Sevak Mesrobian, Jose Mesrobian, and Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights are provisionally appointed the named representatives of the Provisional Class. L.T., Sevak Mesrobian, and Jose Mauro Salazar Garza are provisionally appointed the named representatives of the Provisional Disability Subclass. Public Counsel, Immigrant Defenders Law Center, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, and Willkie Farr & Gallagher are provisionally appointed as class counsel for the Provisional Class and Provisional Disability Subclass. All other relief sought by the Plaintiffs but not addressed in this order is held in abeyance pending the Court's issuance of its full memorandum of decision on the renewed motion for preliminary injunction and the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. The appellate case is styled as L.T., et al. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., Case No. 26-4902, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 31, 2026. [BN] Defendants-Appellants U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al. are represented by: Todd Blanche, Esq. Bilal A. Essayli, Esq. Daniel A. Beck, Esq. Pushkal Mishra, Esq. Federal Building 300 N. Los Angeles Street, Suite 7516 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (714) 338-3503 Email: pushkal.mishra@usdoj.gov UNITED THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend RICO Class Suit in Mass. ----------------------------------------------------------------- United Therapeutics Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from RICO class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In July 2020, MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; MSPA Claims 1, LLC; and Series PMPI, a designated series of MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, filed a class action complaint against Caring Voices Coalition, Inc. (CVC) and the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleged that the Company violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and various state laws through its coordination with CVC regarding donations to a pulmonary arterial hypertension fund. The plaintiffs contend that this coordination was structured so that the Company's donations would be directed toward copayment obligations for Medicare patients taking drugs manufactured and marketed by the Company. The plaintiffs assert that they received assignments from various Medicare Advantage health plans and other insurance entities that purportedly authorize them to pursue this lawsuit on behalf of those entities. Through these assignments, they seek to recover allegedly inflated amounts that those health plans and insurance entities paid for the company's drugs. The allegations in the complaint center on the theory that the copayment assistance arrangement resulted in higher drug costs borne by the assignor entities. In April 2021, the court granted the Company's motion to transfer the case from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. This transfer shifted the venue for all subsequent proceedings in the class action. The matter therefore continues in the Southern District of Florida under the new forum following the transfer order. In October 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that includes state antitrust claims based on alleged facts similar to those raised by Sandoz and RareGen in the matter described above. The amended complaint added MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC as a plaintiff and Smiths Medical and CVC as defendants. In December 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims in the amended complaint, including the new antitrust claims. Smiths Medical also filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims against Smiths Medical. In September 2022, the court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims against us and Smiths Medical without prejudice. In October 2022, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which added federal antitrust claims and consumer protection claims under other states' laws to the claims previously asserted. The second amended complaint also named Accredo Health Group, CVS Health Corporation, Express Scripts, Inc., and Express Scripts Holding Company (collectively, the Specialty Pharmacies), and the Adira Foundation as additional defendants. In March 2023, it filed its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Specialty Pharmacies filed their own motion to dismiss, as did Smiths Medical. On March 22, 2024, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint against all defendants in its entirety with prejudice and, for administrative purposes, issued an order dismissing the complaint. On April 12, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation. On May 10, 2024, the Company filed a response to the plaintiffs' objection, as did the other defendants. If the district court judge adopts the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismisses the case, the plaintiffs will have the right to appeal. It intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the claims made in this lawsuit. United Therapeutics Corp. is a biotechnology company focused on the development and commercialization of innovative therapies for pulmonary arterial hypertension and other chronic, life-threatening conditions. It researches, manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical products and related technologies in the United States and internationally. UPSTART HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Crain Class, Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Upstart Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form A, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Crain class, derivative suits. On July 26, 2022, a lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, captioned Crain v. Upstart Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02935-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio) against the Company, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer, alleging that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements or omissions about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Crain lawsuit claims unspecified damages and legal fees. On Aug. 16, 2022, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead counsel in the Crain action. The court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead counsel in the Crain action on Aug. 16, 2022. On Dec. 5, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint that named the same defendants as the previous complaint, along with two Company executives, as well as Third Point LLC and its CEO and Third Point Ventures LLC and its managing partner, a former Upstart board member. The consolidated amended complaint asserted the same claims as the prior complaint and added a claim under Section 20A of the Exchange Act. On Feb. 24, 2023, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On Sept. 29, 2023, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motion filed by the Upstart defendants and granting the motion to dismiss filed by Third Point LLC and its CEO and Third Point Ventures LLC. On Nov. 7, 2023, the Upstart defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of that order, which the Court denied on Aug. 5, 2024. On Feb. 2, 2024, Lead Plaintiff Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH and plaintiffs Kathy Brooks and Kevin Crain moved for an order certifying the matter, now captioned In re Upstart Holdings Securities Litigation, as a class action, appointing themselves as class representatives, and approving their selection of Motley Rice LLC and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as co-class counsel. The Court granted this motion on March 27, 2025. On Dec. 6, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint, which the Court granted on Sept. 29, 2025. The first amended complaint added back as defendants Third Point LLC and its CEO and Third Point Ventures LLC. On Nov. 14, 2025, Third Point LLC, its CEO, Third Point Ventures LLC, and its managing partner moved to dismiss the claims asserted against them in the first amended complaint. Plaintiffs opposed that motion on Jan. 8, 2026, and on Jan. 29, 2026, Third Point LLC, its CEO, Third Point Ventures LLC, and its managing partner filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. No hearing has been set on the motion to dismiss, and the Company believes the remaining claims in the action are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. Additionally, the Company is involved in several shareholder derivative actions that have been coordinated with, or stayed pending resolution of, the related securities class action. On Dec. 12, 2022, in response to a joint motion by the parties, the Court consolidated the OConnor and Chung derivative matters, appointed co-lead counsel, and stayed the consolidated case until resolution of the securities class action. On April 24, 2024, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an amended complaint that includes allegations similar to those in the initial OConnor complaint and names the same defendants along with an additional Company executive and another former board member. The amended derivative complaint in the consolidated OConnor and Chung matter asserts the same claims as the initial OConnor complaint, and adds claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 for contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act and for abuse of control and gross mismanagement. It seeks relief similar to that in the initial OConnor complaint, and the matter remains stayed until the class action is resolved. Separately, on Feb. 3, 2023, a third derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Hsu v. Girouard, et al., 1:23-cv-00132-UNA (D. Del.). The Hsu action includes allegations similar to those in the consolidated derivative matter pending in Ohio and names as defendants each of the Company's current board members, a former board member, and its Chief Financial Officer, with the Company named as a nominal defendant. It asserts claims for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and for breach of fiduciary duties, seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs from the individual defendants, and also seeks corporate governance and internal procedure modifications. On Feb. 16, 2023, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court stayed the Hsu action until resolution of the related securities class action. On March 8, 2023, a fourth derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Sornchai et al. v. Girouard, et al., 1:23-cv-00253-MN (D. Del.). The Sornchai action includes allegations similar to those in the consolidated derivative matter pending in Ohio and names as defendants each of the Company's current board members, a former board member, its Chief Financial Officer, and a Company executive, with the Company again named as a nominal defendant. The Sornchai action asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duties, breach of fiduciary duty through misappropriation of material non-public information, and unjust enrichment. It seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs from the individual defendants and requests corporate governance and internal procedure modifications. On March 24, 2023, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court stayed the Sornchai action until resolution of the related securities class action. Additionally, on April 5, 2023, a fifth derivative lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Okhai v. Girouard, et al., C.A. No. 2023-0401-BWD (Del. Ch.). The Okhai action includes allegations similar to those in the consolidated derivative matter pending in Ohio and names as defendants the Company's current board members, two former board members, its Chief Financial Officer, and two current or former Company executives, as well as Third Point LLC and Third Point Ventures LLC. It asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting such alleged breaches, and unjust enrichment and seeks equitable and/or injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs from the individual defendants. On Aug. 3, 2023, in response to a motion to stay by the defendants in the Okhai action, the Court stayed that case until resolution of the motion to dismiss in the related securities class action. After the Sept. 29, 2023, order on the motion to dismiss in the securities class action issued, the Court, on Nov. 16, 2023, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order, stayed the Okhai action until resolution of the motion for reconsideration of that order. Following denial of the motion for reconsideration, the parties completed briefing and argued defendants' motion to continue the stay. On Oct. 24, 2024, the Court continued the stay in Okhai until Feb. 1, 2025. On Jan. 31, 2025, the parties submitted to the Court a proposed schedule for briefing defendants' motion to continue the stay. On April 11, 2025, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court ordered that the case remain stayed pending plaintiffs filing a consolidated amended complaint on or before May 7, 2025, after which defendants filed a renewed motion to stay. Subsequent developments in the Okhai action are discussed elsewhere in the filing. In addition to these matters, on Oct. 13, 2023, a sixth derivative lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Romanyshyn v. Girouard, et al., C.A. No. 2023-1029-BWD (Del. Ch.). The Romanyshyn action includes allegations similar to those in the consolidated derivative matter pending in Ohio and names as defendants current and former directors and Company executives, as well as Third Point LLC and its CEO, and Third Point Ventures LLC. The Romanyshyn action includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty and seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs from the individual defendants. It also seeks corporate governance and internal procedure modifications. On Nov. 3, 2023, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court stayed the Romanyshyn action pending the outcome of the motion to stay in the related Okhai derivative action. Upstart Holdings, Inc. is a financial technology company that uses artificial intelligence and machine learning to power a consumer lending platform connecting borrowers with bank and credit union partners. It focuses on leveraging alternative data and advanced risk models to expand access to affordable credit while seeking to improve lenders' underwriting efficiency and loan performance. US MED: Class Certification Related Deadlines in Leedy Extended --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leedy v. US Med Direct, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00631 (M.D. Fla., Filed Oct. 08, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order granting the Defendant's Motion for Extension of Class Certification Related Deadlines. An amended CMSO is forthcoming. However, requested deadlines are not guaranteed and are subject to the Court's trial schedule. Further, granting certain extensions may impact other relevant deadlines. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). US MED is a provider of medical supplies.[CC] US MESSENGER: Hall Files Suit in Ill. Dist. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Messenger & Logistics, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kristina Hall, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. U.S. Messenger & Logistics, Inc., Case No. 2026LA001059 (Ill. Dist. Ct., DuPage Cty., July 31, 2026). U.S. Messenger & Logistics, Inc. -- https://usmessenger.com/ -- provide same-day delivery & logistics services in Chicagoland, the Midwest and across the nation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carl Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 984-0000 Fax: (212) 545-4653 Email: malmstrom@whafh.com VENEZUELA: Zahn's Bid to Certify Class Tossed --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABINE ZAHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA, Case No. 1:24-cv-09271-JPC-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cronan entered an order denying Zahn's motion to certify a class, to appoint her as class representative, and to appoint Duane Morris LLP as class counsel. Within 30 days of this Opinion and Order, another putative class member may move to be appointed lead plaintiff, to appoint class counsel, and to certify a class. If none makes a motion, within seven days of that deadline Zahn shall file a letter advising whether she seeks to pursue this litigation individually. The Clerk of Court is directed to close Docket Number 33. Though Venezuela's standing argument is unavailing, its unique champerty defense has sufficient merit and could fully defeat Zahn's claim based on the BL74 Bonds. Because that unique defense, combined with serious doubts about Zahn's personal involvement in this case, defeat Zahn's attempt to satisfy Rule 23(a)'s typicality and adequacy requirements, the Court denies her motion , the Court says. Zahn seeks to certify a class of: "all holders of the BL74 Bonds on [Dec. 5, 2024] who continue to hold thereafter." The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendant alleging breach of contract for Venezuela's failure to pay the principal and interest owed on sovereign bonds. Venezuela is a country on the northern coast of South America, consisting of a continental landmass and various islands and islets in the Caribbean Sea. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y1r2rP at no extra charge.[CC] VESTIS CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lumber Extended to August 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lumbers, Pipefitters and Apprentices Local No. 112 Pension Fund v. Vestis Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02175 (N.D. Ga., Filed May 17, 2024), the Hon. Judge Steven D. Grimberg entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for extension of time to file reply to class certification. The new deadline is August 19, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Vestis provides uniform rentals and workplace supplies in the United States and Canada.[CC] WELLS FARGO: Class Cert Bid Filing in Patterson Due Sept. 7, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patterson, v. Wells Fargo & Co., Case No. 3:23-cv-03858-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Trial date: Nov. 27, 2028 Final pretrial conference: Oct. 12, 2028 Expert discovery cut-off: May 16, 2028 Motion for class certification: Last day to be heard: Jan. 18, 2028, 2:00 p.m. Reply: Nov. 2, 2027 Opposition: Oct. 5, 2027 Last day to file motion: Sept. 7, 2027 Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q8etL7 at no extra charge.[CC] WERNER ENTERPRISES: $18M Abarca Class Deal Awaits Final Court Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- Werner Enterprises Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2026, that the Abarca class suit settlement is subject to the approval of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. In October 2025, the Company reached an agreement with the plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuits entitled Abarca et al. v. Werner that are pending in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska to settle these cases for a combined $18 million after more than a decade of litigation. The proceeding was instituted on June 4, 2014, in the Superior Court for Alameda County, California, and was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska on Oct. 20, 2014. The cases, which were brought by a small group of drivers and later certified as a class action with tens of thousands of class members and covered the years from mid-2010 to late 2023, involved claims for failure to provide meal and rest breaks (and such meal and rest break claims were dismissed via summary judgment on June 1, 2021), alleged unpaid wages, unauthorized deductions, and other items. The Court entered preliminary approval on Feb. 5, 2026. The settlement is still subject to court final approval. A liability balance of $17.7 million and $18 million for this agreement is included in other current liabilities on the consolidated condensed balance sheets as of June 30, 2026, and Dec. 31, 2025, respectively. Werner Enterprises Inc. is a transportation and logistics company providing truckload, logistics and related services throughout the United States, Canada and Mexico. It operates a portfolio of dedicated, one-way truckload and intermodal services for a broad range of retail, industrial and consumer customers. WESTMORE BEAUTY: Paige Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------- GINGER PAIGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTMORE BEAUTY ULTRA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01942 (M.D. Fla., July 30, 2026) is a putative class action against the Defendant brought under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Westmore Beauty Ultra, LLC is a limited liability company organized under Delaware law with its principal place of business in El Segundo, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 732-2792 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 246 Shore Court Lauderdale-by-the-Sea, FL 33308 Telephone: (305) 336-7466 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com WORLD MARKET: Class Cert Bid Filing in Harvey Suit Due Nov. 19 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIE HARVEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. WORLD MARKET, LLC, COST PLUS WORLD MARKET, LLC, and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-01242-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered a case management statement order: -- Last day to file for class certification: Nov. 19, 2026 -- Last day to complete all discovery: June 18, 2027 -- Last day to file dispositive motions: July 23, 2027 -- Deadline to file oppositions to dispositive motions: Aug. 23, 2027 -- Deadline to file replies in support of dispositive motions: Sept. 10, 2027 -- Hearing on dispositive motions: Sept. 24, 2027 The case was filed in Alameda County Superior Court in October 2024. The operative complaint was filed on January 7, 2025. On February 5, 2025, Defendants removed the case to this Court. The Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of herself, a class of similarly situated persons, and the general public, against Defendants based on violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"). The Plaintiff currently intends to move for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). The class in the operative complaint is defined as follows: Class "All individuals who purchased an item from World Market's website who (1) paid a fixed shipping fee and/or (2) were charged mandatory "Oversized Item Surcharge" or "Handling" fees that were not advertised in the original price." World Market is an American chain of specialty/import retail stores, selling home furniture, decor, curtains, and rugs. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dH4NKC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Monique Olivier, Esq. Christian Schreiber, Esq. George A. Warner, Esq. OLIVIER & SCHREIBER PC 475 14th Street, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 484-0980 Facsimile: (415) 658-7758 E-mail: monique@os-legal.com christian@os-legal.com george@os-legal.com - and - Phillip R. Poliner, Esq. Neil B. Fineman, Esq. FINEMAN POLINER LLP 155 North Riverview Drive Anaheim Hills, CA 92808-1225 Telephone: (714) 620-1125 Facsimile: (714) 701-0155 E-mail: Phillip@FinemanPoliner.com Neil@FinemanPoliner.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel T. Rockey, Esq. Merrit M. Jones, Esq. Anna V. Donald, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4070 Telephone: (415) 675-3400 Facsimile: (415) 675-3434 E-mail: daniel.rockey@bclplaw.com merrit.jones@bclplaw.com Anna.donald@bclplaw.com WVMF FUNDING: Plaintiffs Win Rule 23 Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIANNE RENOIS AS ADMINISTRATOR, FIDUCIARY AND BENEFICIARY OF AND FOR THE ESTATE OF ELLIS DEANGELO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, MYRTEEN LEE, TAUNA THOMPSON, v. WVMF FUNDING, LLC, and COMPU-LINK CORPORATION D/B/A CELINK, Case No. 1:20-cv-09281-LTS-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Figueredo entered a judgment recommending that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification be granted. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class and subclasses, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3): "All borrowers (and estates of borrowers) of mortgage loans serviced or subserviced by Celink, who were charged for force-placed insurance at the same time an insurance policy was maintained covering the same property, from Nov. 5, 2014 (the "Class")." New York Subclass. "All members of the Class where the home secured by the mortgage was or is located in New York (the "New York subclass")." California Subclass. "All members of the Class where the home secured by the mortgage was or is located in California (the "California subclass")." Because individual issues do not predominate, class certification is a superior mechanism, and the Defendants do not contend otherwise. The Plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit on Nov. 5, 2020. On Aug. 14, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint. WVMF is a mortgage financing company. A copy of the Court's recommendation dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q0oqCi at no extra charge.[CC] XAI CORP: Plaintiffs' Bid to Proceed Under Pseudonyms OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, et al., v. X.AI CORP., et al., Case No. 5:26-cv-00772-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order as follows: -- granting the Plaintiffs' administrative motion to proceed under pseudonyms, -- denying the Defendants' motion to compel or motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The Plaintiffs have shown that pseudonymity is appropriate both to protect against retaliation and given the sensitive and highly personal claims at issue in this case. Each of the factors in assessing pseudonymity based on a risk of retaliation favors plaintiffs. The Plaintiff Jane Doe brought this putative class action lawsuit against defendants X.AI Corp. and X.AI LLC (“X”), contending that the defendants' generative artificial intelligence chatbot Grok was used to generate deepfake images of her undressing and in sexual positions. The Defendant is a subsidiary of the American spaceflight company SpaceX working in the areas of artificial intelligence (AI) and social media. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6EM8Xb at no extra charge.[CC] YOH SERVICES LLC: Lares Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Acacia Joi Lares, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YOH SERVICES LLC, a Delaware corporation; SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; NAUGHTY DOG LLC, a California limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV17036 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-08570. On June 25, 2026, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC"). On behalf of herself and the Class, Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action in her FAC. They are: failure to pay minimum wage and straight time wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to timely pay wages due at termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to indemnify employees for expenditures; and Unfair Business Practices under California Business and Professions Code section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: +1. 415.442.1000 Fax: +1.415.442.1001 Email: sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com - and - Ulises Solis, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: +1.650.843.4000 Fax: +1.650.843.4001 Email: ulises.solis@morganlewis.com YONKERS, NY: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Taylor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW TAYLOR and REY MORELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. THE CITY OF YONKERS, TRANSIT AUTO TOWING, INC., MICHAEL SP ANO individually, ANTHONY LANDI individually, STEVEN LEVY individually, CHRISTOPHER SAPIENZA individually, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 7:25-cv-05861-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Karas entered an amended scheduling order: 1. The Deposition of the Defendant Transit shall be completed by Aug. 14, 2026; 2. Fact discovery relating to the Plaintiffs' claims against the City of Yonkers and Transit Auto Towing, Inc. shall be completed by Aug. 14, 2026; 3. Pre-motion letters concerning summary judgment motions remain due on Sept. 16, 2026, on claims other than those referred to in paragraph 4, infra. 4. Following the Court's determination of the pending motion to dismiss filed by defendants Michael Spano, Anthony Landi, Steven Levy, and Christopher Sapienza (the "Individual Defendants"), and the Court's determination of any summary judgment motions directed to the Plaintiffs' individual claims, the Court shall, to the extent warranted by its rulings, establish a schedule for (i) fact discovery relating to claims that remain pending against the Individual Defendants, and (ii) class-related discovery and proceedings concerning class certification. 5. The Court finds that commencing class discovery and class certification proceedings as scheduled by this Order complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(l)(A)'s requirement that the Court determine whether to certify a class "[a]t an early practicable time." City of Yonkers is located directly north of the Bronx, and serves as an inner suburb and a vital economic gateway between New York City and the scenic Hudson Valley. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=68ASei at no extra charge.[CC] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***