260812.mbx

260812.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 12, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 160 Headlines 9 STONES: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Curry Alleges AL RAJABI: Whisman Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ALIBABA GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Company Statements ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Brown Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Duffy Sues Over Improper Insurance Claims AMAZON.COM INC: Protein Powder Contains Heavy Metals, Cada Says ANIXTER CENTER: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit APRIA HEALTHCARE: Tafoya Files Suit in S.D. Indiana ARBOR REALTY: Multiple Shareholder Derivative Suits Dismissed ARCARE INC: Class Settlement in Hale Suit Gets Initial Nod ARROWHEAD REGIONAL: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Class Suit AVANTAX ADVISORY: Filak Files Suit in N.D. Texas AVIS BUDGET: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 29 AVIS BUDGET: Faces Securities Class Action in M.D. Fla. AXON ENTERPRISE: Antitrust Class Action Over Vievu Deal in NJ Court AXT INC: N.D. Calif. Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit BELLISIO FOODS: McKenna Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BH SECURITY: Offutt Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII BLAIR COUNTY, PA: Inmate Seeks to Join Suit Over Prison Conditions BLAIZE HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 5 BOOKING HOLDINGS: Removes Rodriguez Suit to S.D. Calif. BOSTON PROPERTIES: Defendants Move to Dismiss Wage Class Suit BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE: Ropes Sues Over Failure to Pay Earned Wages BXP INC: Wage Class Suit Dismissal Briefing Runs to Jan. 20, 2027 CABINETS TO GO: Cordova Sues Over Leaked Private Info CAMDEN PROPERTY: $53M Settlement Reached in RealPage Antitrust MDL CAMPBELL'S COMPANY: Onyango Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CANOPY GROWTH: Settles Securities Class Suit for CAD $3.5MM CARBONFIELD INVESTMENT: Sued Over Apartment's Pest Infestations CATERPILLAR INC: Beyers Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty CENTRUS ENERGY: Envtl. Class Claims Over Site Contamination Proceed CHINA SUMMIT: Court Tosses Yam Second Amended Complaint CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Dismissal Move Pending, Derivative Actions Stayed CHOBANI LLC: Rabinowitz Suit Transferred to S.D. New York COMPASS GROUP: O'Brien Seeks to Certify Hourly Wage Employee Class COMPLETE CARE: Quintero Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Settlement Reached in Shareholder Class Suit CREDIT SUISSE: Rathi Suit Transferred to E.D. North Carolina CRUNCH FITNESS: Secretly Records Women Inside Gym Booths, Suit Says CYTOKINETICS INC: Securities Row Ongoing, Derivative Action Stayed DASCO ENGINEERING: Abarca Seeks Nonexempt Staff's Unpaid Wages DETROIT, MI: Agrees to Settle Water Rate Class Action for $4.45MM DLS EVENTS: Seas Sues to Recover Unpaid Regular and OT Wages DOLGEN MIDWEST: Christensen Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages DOUG BLAUVELT: Boulier Suit Seeks to Certify Class DOXA INSURANCE: Padavick Files Suit in N.D. Indiana DR. HAKAKIAN DENTAL: Quinonez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages DXC TECHNOLOGY: Settlement in Securities Class Suit Gets Final Nod ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Seeks Leave to File Supplement to Opposition EPOCH HOSPITALITY: Puroll Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages F5 INC: Class Suit Dismissal Bid Filed, Deriv. Actions Consolidated FABLETICS LLC: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Gabrielli Says FARMERS GROUP: Wiretaps Users' Private Info, Barajas Suit Says FEDERAL EXPRESS: Agrees to Settle Military Leave Suit for $900,000 FIRST ADVANTAGE: Davis FCRA Suit Seeks Class Certification FIRST CHOICE: Scheduling Conference in Enslow Suit Set for Oct. 9 FIVE BELOW: Himes Wins Class Certification Bid FIVE BELOW: Must Return Unlawfully Charged Tariff Refunds GENWORTH LIFE: TVPX Wins Class Certification Bid GERBER PAYROLL: Continuance of Class Cert Briefing Sched Sought GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS: Carroll Sues Over Unsafe Therapy Products GOOGLE LLC: $7.5MM Settlement Final Court OK Hearing Set Oct. 15 GREIF INC: Ryan Seeks to Certify Four Classes HALFDAY TONICS: Falsely Advertised Prebiotic Iced Teas, Suit Says HANG YING: Court Grants Final Opportunity for Discovery in "Luo" HOLLEY INC: Class Settlement in Lauderdale Suit Gets Initial Nod ILIOS TAVERNA INC: Marinez Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. JOEL ANDERSON: Al-Haqq Files Suit in D. South Carolina JOSEPH BIDEN: Haitian Bridge Seeks Class Certification KABC TELEVISION: Williams Sues to Recover Statutory and OT Wages KIA AMERICA: Bicek Sues Over Defective Kia Motor Vehicles LANDRY'S INC: Sandoval Sues to Recover Unpaid Regular and OT Wages LKQ PICK: Parties Must Submit Joint Status Report by Sept. 10 LOWE'S COMPANIES: Consumer Sues Over Defective Kobalt Power Tools LOWE'S COMPANIES: Utilitech Lights Pose Serious Burn Risks LUCID GROUP: Seeks Leave to File Supplement to Opposition LUMINA HEALTHCARE: Cope Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MAXIM ERMILOV: Newton Bid for Preliminary Injunction Tossed META PLATFORMS: Class Certification Bid Filing Due August 21 META PLATFORMS: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Hearing MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Class Settlement in Schuman Gets Initial Nod MILES PARTNERSHIP: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach MONEY SOURCE: Agrees to Settle Unwanted Calls Class Suit for $1.5MM MONROE ENERGY: Mielnik Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania MORRISVILLE DRY: Davis Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Practices MYRTLE BEACH, SC: Court Stays Class Cert Briefing NATIONAL HOME HEALTH: Yeh Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE: Calderon Suit Stayed Until August 28 NEW OCCASION BRANDS: Powell Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. NEWARK, NJ: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in "Deleva" NEWELL BRANDS: Faces 2 Class Suits Seeking IEEPA Tariff Refunds NIC & ZOE COMPANY: Oh Sues Over Fictitious Regular Prices O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Settles Spam Texts Class Action for $18.8MM ONEPOINT PATIENT: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.115MM OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: $70M Class Deal Funded in ABD Interest Suit OREGON: Foust Files Suit in D. Oregon PALMETTO STATE ARMORY: Wilkins Suit Removed to C.D. California PAWLEYS ISLAND: Allows Convicted Sex Offender to Work on Campus PEABODY ENERGY: Securities Class Suit Over Centurion Mine Filed PENTAIR PLC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. PEOPLE DATA: Agrees to Settle Phone Number Privacy Suit for $6.3MM PHOENIX GROUP HOME: B.C. Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio PLANET 13 HOLDINGS: M&A Investigates Merger With Vireo Growth POKEMON COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over Ex-Staff Illicit Behavior POWER SOLUTIONS: Securities Suit Filed Over Data Center Products PROCEPT BIOROBOTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Sept. 22 REDDIT INC: Securities Class Suit Pending in California Dist. Court ROBOT CONSULTING: Putative IPO Class Action Ongoing New York Court SIERRA FORESTRY: Cyphers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STRATEGIC FUNDING: Laccinole Allowed Leave to Conduct Class Cert. SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS: M&A Investigates Sale to Indivior Pharma TOWER EV: Preciado Sues Over Unpaid Compensations TRUIST FINANCIAL: Class Seeks Up to $930M in Overdraft Claims TRYAX REALTY: Bid for More Time to Complete Discovery OK'd UDR INC: Faces Class Suit Over Algorithmic Rent Pricing UNISON AGREEMENT: Faces Suit Over Predatory Home Equity Agreements VILLAGE PRACTICE: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach VISION PATH: Africa Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification WATON FINANCIAL: Securities Suit Over IPO Ongoing in NY Court WISE GROUP: Daugherty Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price WISEMAN MINISTRIES: Ford Seeks FLSA Collective Action Certification ********* 9 STONES: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Curry Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ ERICA CURRY, an individual, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. 9 STONES, LLC, a California limited liability company; CURTIS STONE, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV24393 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., August 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay wages for all time worked, including overtime wages. The complaint relates that the Defendants had a policy or practice of failing to accurately track and/or pay for all hours actually worked; engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work off the clock (including by requiring employees to work after clocking out and offsite work or by failing to pay employees for on-call hours); failing to pay overtime hours at the proper overtime rate of pay, including, without limitation, by paying overtime hours at the improper rate(s) of pay and/or recharacterizing overtime hours worked to appear that they worked at a different time or pay period; by failing to pay for reporting time pay; and/or by manipulating or editing time records to show lesser hours than actually worked during the pay period. The Plaintiff and the other class members have been injured by Defendants' intentional and willful violation of the California Labor Code because they were denied both their legal right and protected interest, in having available, accurate and complete payroll records pursuant to California Labor Code, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees, brings this action pursuant to the Labor Code, seeking overtime wages, minimum wages, payment of premium wages for missed meal and rest periods, penalties, reimbursement for expenses incurred in furtherance ofjob duties, other such provisions of California law, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. They also seek an injunction prohibiting Defendants from further violating the Labor Code and requiring the establishment of appropriate and effective means to prevent further violations, as well as all monies owed but withheld and retained by Defendants to which Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled, plus restitution of amounts owed. Plaintiff Erica Curry was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee performing duties as a server starting in July 2024 to May 5, 2026. Defendant 9 STONES, LLC operates as a full-service restaurant. Defendant Curtis Stone was a managing agent, owner, and executive of the Defendants. DOES 1 through 100 are the Defendants with fictitious names.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Robinson, Jr., Esq. Orion S. Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON DI Lando A Professional Law Corporation 801 S. Grand Ave., Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 229-0100 Facsimile: (213) 229-0114 E-mail: mrobinson@rdwlaw.com; orobinson@rdwlaw.com AL RAJABI: Whisman Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Veronica Whisman v. Al Rajabi, Jason Ingle, et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-06063-JTS (W.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)3. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of: "All female guests, residents, and employees of the Arlington Hotel and Spa who were subjected to sexual harassment, unwanted touching, or a hostile environment created by Defendant Jason Ingle, and whose complaints or safety were ignored by the Defendants Al Rajabi, Kori NOoner, and hotel management." A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AbhLY7 at no extra charge. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC] ALIBABA GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Company Statements ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Alibaba Group Holding Limited (NYSE: BABA) between June 26, 2025 and June 24, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Alibaba investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Alibaba class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/alibaba-group-holding-limited/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) under the National Defense Authorization Act (the "NDAA"), any entities directly or indirectly controlled by or affiliated with the MIIT were considered a Chinese military company; (2) Alibaba was directly or indirectly controlled by or affiliated with the MIIT; (3) the risk of Alibaba carrying out distillation attacks against third-party AI models was not a mere hypothetical or inadvertent, but ongoing; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about Alibaba's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 5, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/alibaba-group-holding-limited/join or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured billions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Brown Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allstate Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Colin Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 622069/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Aug. 3, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial (Class Action)." The Allstate Corporation -- https://www.allstate.com/ -- is an American insurance company, headquartered in Glenview, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin P. Fitzpatrick, Esq. MARSCHHAUSEN & FITZPATRICK, P.C. 34 South Broadway, Suite 407 White Plains, NY, 10601 Phone: 914-368-2146 Fax: 914-437-8020 ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Duffy Sues Over Improper Insurance Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL DUFFY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; ENCOMPASS HOME AND AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY; and NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 7:26-cv-06563 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2026) is an action against the Defendants for their systematic practice of improperly calculating first-party benefits under Insurance Law of New York's Comprehensive Automobile Insurance Reparations Act (the "No-Fault Statute"). Allstate Insurance Company insurance company. The Company offers auto, home life insurances policies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin P. Fitzpatrick, Esq. Dirk Marschhausen, Esq. MARSCHHAUSEN & FITZPATRICK, P.C. 73 Heitz Place Hicksville, NY 11801 Telephone No: (516) 747-8000 Email: kfitzpatrick@marschfitz.com dmarschhausen@marschfitz.com - and - Jeremy E. Abay, Esq. POND LEHOCKY GIORDANO INC. 30 Washington Avenue, Suite D2 Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: (856) 528-8115 Email: jabay@pondlehocky.com AMAZON.COM INC: Protein Powder Contains Heavy Metals, Cada Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DAWN CADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02704 (W.D., WA., July 31, 2026) alleges violation of the Washington's Consumer Protection Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, Amazon sells Orgain Organic Protein Powder (the "Contaminated Products") online. Though the Contaminated Products are represented on Amazon's website as having beneficial attributes such as "Cleaner Ingredients," "Quality Ingredients," "Higher Standards," "Non-GMO," "USDA ORGANIC," and "#1 plant protein brand" and providing "Feel Good Energy," the Contaminated Products' representations and the overall impression it creates are not true and are misleading, as the Contaminated Products are tainted with heavy metals which include lead, cadmium, and arsenic. The Defendant actively and knowingly concealed from and failed to disclose to consumers, including Plaintiff and the Class, that the Contaminated Products it sells to consumers contain or materially risk containing heavy metals, including lead, cadmium, and arsenic, says the suit. Amazon Inc. offers online shopping services. The Company retails products such as television, computers, shoes, jewellery, books, toys, video games, grocery, clothing, and other products. Amazon serves customers worldwide. [bn] The Plaintiff is 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 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com shelby@hbsslaw.com - and - Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. HECHT PARTNERS LLP 1650 West 82nd Street, Suite 880 Bloomington, MN 55431 Telephone: (612) 778-9595 Email: rpeterson@hechtpartners.com ANIXTER CENTER: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who received a notice that the July 2023 Lester and Rosalie Anixter Center data breach may have compromised their personal information could be eligible to claim up to $5,052.50 from a class action settlement. The Lester and Rosalie Anixter Center agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging a data security incident allowed unauthorized individuals to access files containing personally identifiable information. The lawsuit claimed Anixter Center failed to adequately safeguard this data. Who can file a claim? Eligible class members must have received a direct notice from Anixter Center indicating the cyberattack may have accessed their personal information. This notice serves as confirmation of eligibility to participate in the settlement. How much can class members get? Qualified class members may claim several types of awards, depending on their circumstances and the impact of the data breach: -- Reimbursement for documented monetary losses: Class members who experienced fraud or identity theft losses that can be reasonably traced to the data incident may claim to $5,000 for documented out-of-pocket losses incurred between July 17, 2023, and Oct. 19, 2026. Eligible expenses include: -- Losses due to identity theft or fraud -- Fees for credit reports, credit monitoring or freezing/unfreezing credit -- Costs to replace identification documents -- Postage to contact banks by mail -- Lost-time reimbursement: Up to three hours at $17.50 per hour ($52.50 maximum) for time spent responding to the data incident. Eligible activities include: -- Changing passwords -- Investigating suspicious account activity -- Researching the data incident -- Alternative cash payment: A one-time $50 payment for those who do not wish to claim expense or lost-time reimbursement -- Credit monitoring: All class members are eligible for one year of CyEx Identity Defense Complete, which includes $1 million in identity theft insurance, real-time credit monitoring, dark web scanning and public records monitoring. How to claim a class action payment To receive compensation, eligible class members must submit the online claim form or download and print the PDF claim form, complete it and mail or email it to the settlement administration. Claimants can request a paper claim form by contacting the settlement administrator. -- Settlement administrator's mailing address: Anixter Data Incident Settlement, c/o Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 25226, Santa Ana, CA 92799-9958 -- Settlement administrator's email address: info@AnixterDataSettlement.com -- Settlement administrator's phone number: 833-421-7316 The claim deadline is Oct. 19, 2026. Is proof or documentation required to submit a claim? Documentation is required for certain types of claims: -- For documented losses, class members must submit third-party proof, such as bank statements, receipts or other evidence of losses showing the data breach caused the expense. Self-prepared notes or explanations can supplement, but not replace, this documentation. -- For lost-time reimbursement, claimants must describe how they spent their time responding to the data incident. -- For the alternative cash payment or credit monitoring, class members only need to select the appropriate option on the claim form. -- For online claims, class members must enter the login ID and PIN from the settlement notice they received. Payout options -- PayPal (provide email address) -- Venmo (provide mobile number) -- Zelle (provide email or mobile number) -- Virtual prepaid card (provide email address) -- Physical check (provide mailing address) Settlement fund breakdown -- Notice and administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and costs: $185,000 -- Service award to the representative plaintiff: $2,000 -- Credit monitoring costs: Dependent on number of claims for this option -- Class member payments: Dependent on number and type of claims Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: Sept. 18, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Oct. 19, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Nov. 23, 2026 When is the Anixter Center payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit claimed unauthorized individuals accessed Anixter Center's files, exposing sensitive personal information. The plaintiff alleged Anixter Center failed to adequately protect this information. Anixter Center denied any wrongdoing but agreed to settle the lawsuit to avoid the costs and uncertainties of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $5,052.50 plus credit monitoring Deadline: October 19, 2026 [GN] APRIA HEALTHCARE: Tafoya Files Suit in S.D. Indiana --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apria Healthcare LLC. The case is styled as Agapito Tafoya, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apria Healthcare LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01621-JMS-MG (S.D. Ind., Aug. 3, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Apria -- https://www.apria.com/ -- is a leading US provider of home medical equipment delivery and clinical support, with services for COPD, sleep apnea, wound therapy, and more.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com ARBOR REALTY: Multiple Shareholder Derivative Suits Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- Arbor Realty Trust 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 July 31, 2026, that it is facing a securities class action lawsuit filed by a purported shareholder and subsequent related procedural developments in federal court. On July 31, 2024, a purported shareholder filed a securities class action lawsuit against the company and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of shareholders who purchased company common stock between May 7, 2021, and July 11, 2024. On Feb. 26, 2025, a purported shareholder filed a verified shareholder derivative suit in the District of Maryland, derivatively and on behalf of the company, against certain officers and directors of the Board of Directors. The complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and contribution under the Exchange Act, arising from substantially the same facts and events as alleged in the Securities Class Action. The complaint sought unspecified damages, costs, and expenses, as well as other relief. On March 17, 2025, another purported shareholder filed a substantially similar verified shareholder derivative complaint, and the derivative actions were consolidated as "In re Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation," No. 1:25-cv-00639. On April 28, 2025, the court in the consolidated Maryland derivative litigation entered a joint stipulation and order to stay the action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the securities class action. On June 12, 2026, the parties filed a joint stipulation to voluntarily dismiss this consolidated derivative action without prejudice. This was subsequently entered by the court on July 1, 2026, thereby ending the consolidated Maryland derivative proceeding without prejudice to the parties. Separately, on April 18, 2025, another purported shareholder filed a substantially similar verified shareholder derivative complaint in the Eastern District of New York. On May 20, 2025, that court entered a joint stipulation and order to stay the action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action. On April 14, 2026, the court lifted the stay. The next day, the parties filed a joint letter to the court requesting that the court reinstate the stay pursuant to its May 20, 2025, order. On April 15, 2026, the court ordered the parties in this E.D. N.Y. derivative action to file a joint status report by May 5, 2026, which the parties did. On May 5, 2026, the court ordered the parties to file a joint status report by June 9, 2026. On June 9, 2026, the parties filed a joint stipulation to voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice. The court subsequently entered the stipulation, and the dismissal without prejudice was entered by the court on July 13, 2026. Additionally, on July 18, 2025, a purported shareholder filed a verified shareholder derivative complaint in the Circuit Court for the Baltimore City, Maryland, derivatively and on behalf of the company against certain officers and directors of the Board of Directors. The complaint asserted demand refusal and a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. On Sept. 15, 2025, the court entered a joint stipulation and order to stay the action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the securities class action. On June 19, 2026, the court in the Baltimore City derivative case entered a joint stipulation and order to extend the stay until July 10, 2026. On July 10, 2026, the parties filed a joint stipulation to voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice. This stipulation was subsequently entered by the court on July 14, 2026, resulting in dismissal of the Baltimore City derivative action without prejudice. Further, on July 29, 2025, two purported shareholders filed a verified shareholder derivative complaint in the Eastern District of New York, derivatively and on behalf of the company, against certain officers and directors of the Board of Directors. The complaint asserted demand refusal and claims for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. On October 23, 2025, the court granted a joint motion to change venue and transferred the action to the District of Maryland. On Nov. 14, 2025, said court entered a joint stipulation and order to stay this transferred derivative action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the securities class action. On May 18, 2026, the court entered a joint stipulation and order to extend the stay until July 10, 2026. On July 10, 2026, the parties filed a joint stipulation to voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice, which was subsequently entered by the court on July 13, 2026, thereby dismissing the transferred derivative action. On Aug. 5, 2025, a purported shareholder filed a verified shareholder derivative complaint in the Eastern District of New York, derivatively and on behalf of the company, against certain officers and directors of the Board of Directors. This complaint asserted demand futility and claims for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. On Sept. 10, 2025, the court entered a joint stipulation and order to stay the action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the securities class action. On June 18, 2026, in this Aug. 5, 2025, Eastern District of New York derivative action, the parties filed a joint stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice. The dismissal was entered that same day by the court, thereby terminating this derivative case without prejudice. Arbor Realty Trust Inc. is a real estate investment trust that invests in a diversified portfolio of structured finance assets in the multifamily and commercial real estate markets. It originates and services loans and provides related financing solutions to real estate investors across the United States. ARCARE INC: Class Settlement in Hale Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREG HALE, et al., v. ARCARE, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00117-BSM (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Miller entered an order as follows: -- The Court grants preliminary approval of the proposed settlement upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Court preliminarily finds that the Parties have shown the Court it will likely be able to approve the proposed settlement, as embodied in the Settlement Agreement, as being fair, adequate and reasonable under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 23"). -- The Court orders that the Settlement Class and the California Subclass are each preliminarily certified for settlement purposes only. The "Settlement Class" is defined as: "all living individuals residing in the United States who were sent a notice of the Data Incident indicating their Private Information may have been impacted in the Data Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) all persons who are directors and officers of the Defendant; (2) governmental entities; and (3) the Judge assigned to the Action, that Judge's immediate family, and Court staff. -- The Court Greg Hale, Jessica White, Alicia Gilmore, Michael Whitkanack, and Melissa Johnson as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class. -- The Court appoints attorneys Jean Martin of Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLC, and Bryan Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. -- The Court will hold a Final Approval (fairness) hearing on Dec. 3, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. The Defendant is a regional health care provider based in Augusta, Arkansas. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q7jNAC at no extra charge.[CC] ARROWHEAD REGIONAL: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Arrowhead Regional Computing Consortium has agreed to a settlement to end a class action lawsuit that alleged the company, which provides administrative services for school districts, failed to protect confidential information from a February 2023 data breach. The Arrowhead Regional Computing Consortium class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 10, 2026. The deal covers all individuals in the United States who received notice of the data breach from Arrowhead. Court documents state that approximately 65,379 people are included in the settlement class. The court-approved website for the Arrowhead Regional Computing Consortium class action settlement can be found at ArrowheadDataSecuritySettlement.com. Arrowhead settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive reimbursement for up to four hours of lost time spent addressing the data breach, at a rate of $20 per hour. Additionally, all class members who submit a valid, timely claim form are eligible to receive two years of three-bureau credit monitoring. To submit an Arrowhead Regional Computing Consortium settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the claim ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by October 8, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Arrowhead Regional Computing Consortium settlement following a hearing on October 12, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Arrowhead Regional Computing Consortium class action lawsuit alleged that the company, which provides payroll and student data system services to school districts in Minnesota, failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect confidential information from a data breach on February 6, 2023. Court documents state that private information that may have been compromised in the cyber incident included names, Social Security numbers, and student educational records. [GN] AVANTAX ADVISORY: Filak Files Suit in N.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avantax Advisory Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Michael Filak, Carolyn Filak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Avantax Advisory Services, Inc., Avantax Investment Services, Inc., National Financial Services LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-02573-X (N.D. Tex., Aug. 3, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Other Contract. Avantax Advisory Services, Inc. -- https://www.avantax.com/ -- is a U.S. financial services company headquartered in Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Angelica Gentile, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: agentile@shamisgentile.com AVIS BUDGET: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 29 ------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of Avis Budget Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: CAR), including those who bought Avis common stock to cover a short position, between February 20, 2025 and April 21, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 29, 2026. SO WHAT: If you purchased Avis securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Avis class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/avis-budget-group-inc-2026/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 29, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered billions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants Pentwater Capital Management LP and Matthew Halbower (Pentwater's CEO, CIO and Founder) orchestrated a scheme to manipulate the market for Avis securities. Taking advantage of Pentwater's position as one of Avis's largest shareholders, holding a total economic interest of approximately 51% of Avis through stocks and cash-settled swaps as of March 2026, defendants' aggressive purchasing of Avis stock during the Class Period triggered unusual volatility and a short squeeze in the market for Avis securities -- i.e., a rapid surge in Avis's stock price caused by short sellers buying back shares to cut their losses, thereby fueling further price spikes -- all of which served to greatly increase the value of Pentwater's holdings of Avis stock. To join the Avis class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/avis-budget-group-inc-2026/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] AVIS BUDGET: Faces Securities Class Action in M.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors in Avis Budget Group, Inc. ("Avis" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CAR). The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and docketed under 26-cv-02275, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Avis securities (including those who bought Avis common stock to cover a short position) between February 20, 2025 and April 21, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 9(a) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against Pentwater Capital Management LP ("Pentwater") and its Founder, Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), and Chief Investment Officer Matthew Halbower ("Halbower"). If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Avis securities (including if you bought Avis common stock to cover a short position) during the Class Period, you have until September 29, 2026, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. The complaint alleges that Defendants Pentwater and Halbower orchestrated a scheme to manipulate the market for Avis securities. Taking advantage of Pentwater's position as one of Avis's largest shareholders, holding a total economic interest of approximately 51% of the Company through stocks and cash-settled swaps as of March 2026, Defendants' aggressive purchasing of Avis stock during the Class Period triggered unusual volatility and a short squeeze in the market for Avis securities -- i.e., a rapid surge in the Company's stock price caused by short sellers buying back shares to cut their losses, thereby fueling further price spikes -- all of which served to greatly increase the value of Pentwater's holdings of Avis stock. Between April 1 and April 22, 2026, the market price of Avis common stock climbed dramatically, after trading below $200 per share for the majority of the preceding twelve months and despite the disappointing full-year 2025 financial results Avis had recently released. Avis's stock price reached a staggering high of $765.94 per share during intraday trading on April 21, an increase of approximately 419% over its $147.52 opening price on April 1, before closing at $713.97 per share. Then, over the following trading sessions, Avis's share price collapsed by 74.51%, closing at $182.005 per share on April 28, 2026. One day later, during an April 29, 2026 earnings call, Avis CEO Brian Choi told investors that Pentwater had sold 4.3 million shares of Avis stock between April 22 and 23, 2026, for sales proceeds of $1.75 billion. Dumping Pentwater's Avis holdings into the market during such a short period of time caused Avis's share price to plunge, damaging investors. On June 18, 2026, Avis disclosed in a filing with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission that Pentwater had agreed to pay Avis $650 million to settle alleged violations of Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act, a "short-swing profits" rule that requires owners of more than 10% of a class of publicly traded equity securities to disgorge any profits from trading in the issuer's equity securities within a period of less than six months. On June 29, 2026, Avis filed a heavily redacted copy of a complaint, originally filed under seal, against Pentwater, Halbower, and a series of apparently related entities, setting forth Avis's allegations. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton, Esq. Pomerantz LLP (646) 581-9980 ext. 7980 dpeyton@pomlaw.com[GN] AXON ENTERPRISE: Antitrust Class Action Over Vievu Deal in NJ Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- Axon Enterprise, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated Aug. 5, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 6, 2026, that it is facing a purported antitrust class action in the District of New Jersey relating to its May 2018 acquisition of an insolvent body camera competitor, Vievu LLC, despite the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) having dismissed its related administrative enforcement complaint without a consent decree or other condition in October 2023. The putative antitrust class action was brought by three municipalities and is based largely on the FTC's prior allegations concerning the company's acquisition of Vievu LLC. Axon Enterprise, Inc. develops and manufactures conducted energy weapons, body-worn cameras, digital evidence management systems, and related public safety technologies for law enforcement and civilian markets worldwide. It is headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona. AXT INC: N.D. Calif. Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that on July 7, 2026, Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with leave to amend a putative class action against a materials science company (the "Company") and its CEO and CFOs ("Individual Defendants" and, together, "Defendants") asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5. Nowakowski v. AXT Inc., No. 24-cv-02778-MMC (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2026). The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants concealed risks to the planned IPO of the Company's Chinese subsidiary on China's Science and Technology Innovation Board (the "STAR Market") of the Shanghai Stock Exchange. The Court dismissed the claims for failure to plead scienter and loss causation and did not address materiality and falsity arguments raised by Defendants. In 2020, the Company allegedly announced the IPO of its subsidiary and disclosed that it was raising money from Chinese private equity investors. The private equity investors could redeem their shares at their original price if the IPO application was rejected or withdrawn. Plaintiffs alleged that the subsidiary, in the lead up to the IPO, hired an employee of a rival company who was accused of a trade-secret theft, allegedly prompting a criminal investigation. According to plaintiffs, this investigation threatened to bar the subsidiary from registering on the STAR Market and trigger investor redemptions, materially impairing the Company's financial condition. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company failed to disclose the investigation to Chinese regulators, whose approval was required for the IPO to move forward. A short-selling firm allegedly issued a report covering, inter alia, the alleged theft allegations and investigation. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants failed to disclose the allegedly known risks posed to the subsidiary's IPO. In granting the motion to dismiss, the Court limited its analysis to scienter and loss causation. On scienter, the Court first found plaintiffs' allegations about the Individual Defendants' seniority, day-to-day involvement, and access to confidential information too generalized to raise a strong inference of scienter. The Court found it significant that plaintiffs had not alleged particularized facts about whether and what Individual Defendants knew regarding the hiring, the investigation, or the regulatory inquiries, or when. The Court likewise rejected allegations specific to the Company's CEO, finding that his alleged personal involvement in the IPO process and his Sarbanes-Oxley certifications did not, even taken together, give rise to a strong inference of scienter. The Court also declined to apply the "core operations" doctrine, reasoning the IPO was a financing transaction rather than a core Company operation. The Court also found loss causation inadequately pled. As a threshold matter, the Court assessed whether the short-seller report qualified as a corrective disclosure. Defendants argued that it drew upon two previously published Chinese language news articles and thus the alleged stock drop already priced in the underlying information. The Court concluded that because those articles were in a foreign language and directed at a foreign audience, the articles were not "publicly available." Nevertheless, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to tie the report to the alleged stock decline. The Court observed that just half a page of the 38 page report detailed the alleged theft allegations, investigation, and regulatory inquiries. In comparison, the report gave far more detail to other unrelated topics. [GN] BELLISIO FOODS: McKenna Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Sharon McKenna, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. BELLISIO FOODS, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00929-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 3, 2026), is brought for its failure to pay its employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweek(s). The Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees spent completing the required sanitation procedures prior to their shifts was compensable as it occurred after their first principal activity, and was itself integral and indispensable to their job duties of food production. However, Defendant's time-rounding policies/practices resulted in a failure to compensate the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees for this pre-shift work. The Defendant maintains a time-rounding policy or practice that does not compensate employees for their time spent performing work before the scheduled start and after the scheduled end of their shifts. Instead, Defendant's policy generally results in the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees' time being rounded to the scheduled shift start and end times. As a result of Defendant's companywide policy and/or practice described herein, Defendant knew or had reason to know that it was not compensating the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees for all overtime hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in the positions of Utilities Worker and Sanitation Worker from August 2023 to May 2026. The Defendant operates three production facilities across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com sdraher@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com BH SECURITY: Offutt Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Offutt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BH SECURITY, LLC D/B/A BRINKS HOME, Case No. 3:26-cv-02566-N (N.D. Tex., Aug. 3, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information ("PII" or the "Private Information") of its current and former customers and employees, which was entrusted to Defendant. On July 22, 2026, Brinks reported that it had experienced a cyberattack on its computer networks. This cyberattack resulted in the breach and/or compromise of certain files containing the sensitive personal data of Plaintiff and at least tens of thousands of other individuals, including but not necessarily limited to their Private Information (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant, as a substantial business with significant resources, had the resources available to take seriously the obligation to protect the Private Information entrusted to it. However, Defendant failed to invest the resources necessary to protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class members. The actions of Defendant related to this Data Breach are unconscionable. Upon information and belief, Defendant failed to implement practices and systems to mitigate against the risks posed by its negligent (if not reckless) information-technology practices. As a result of these failures, Plaintiff and Class members face a litany of harms that accompany data breaches of this magnitude and severity. As such, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brings this Action for restitution, actual damages, nominal damages, statutory damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant. Brinks is a residential security company providing smart home automation and professional alarm monitoring services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 2626 Cole Avenue, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: (215) 888-3214 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com BLAIR COUNTY, PA: Inmate Seeks to Join Suit Over Prison Conditions ------------------------------------------------------------------ Phil Ray, writing for Altoona Mirror, reports that an Altoona man awaiting trial on multiple burglary charges has filed a petition with the U.S. District Court in Johnstown complaining about conditions in the Blair County Prison. Asher Trainer, 31, has been an inmate in the 157-year-old facility since last Nov. 25 after he was arrested as part of a burglary ring that allegedly operated in Blair and Cambria counties as well as Maryland and West Virginia. Trainer late last week filed a petition in the Federal Court seeking to join a class action lawsuit that was filed by another inmate last October. Since the class action was filed by inmate Donald Meyer, more than 20 other inmates sought to join the lawsuit. However, so far, there has been no action to move the lawsuit forward. Like most of those seeking to become part of the class action, Trainer focused on the conditions of imprisonment rather than the specifics of the criminal charges he faces. He noted that when he entered the prison, he was placed for a time in a cell with five other males. Trainer also reported that the showers in the prison were covered with black mold and the mold was simply painted over. He complained about the drug-smuggling in the prison. He stated that he was subject to "many health code violations." Trainer, for instance, pointed out that, while working with the kitchen crew, the septic system backed up, allowing an inch or two of septic waste to collect, during which time the food continued to be distributed. There was a lot of "mice activity and mice feces" in the kitchen, Trainer stated in his lawsuit. He was eventually housed in the Restricted Housing Unit of the prison, noting he was denied cleaning supplies while there. While in the RHU, he stated he was given no rec time or time in the law library. He stated he was denied contact with his family and his lawyer. His lawsuit has listed prison officials, a former warden, the prison board, Blair judges, the Blair DA and "Blair County code enforcement" as defendants in the case. County officials, including a new warden, Michael Hale, are aware of and have been addressing the overcrowding at the prison, medical care, the rodent problem and other issues that were mentioned in the most recent inmate lawsuit. However, plans for a new prison for the moment are on hold. Trainer concluded in his lawsuit, "The Prison is a safe keeper, yet they do not keep inmates safe." He complained the prison has broken equipment, food served in unsanitary conditions and, he complained, "Inmates overdose all the time." "We are forced to breathe in black mold and nothing (is) done and for these reasons the petitioner (Trainer) is requesting to join the class action suit," he stated. The Trainer lawsuit has been referred for review to Magistrate Judge Peter E. Ormsby, who presides in Pittsburgh. Ormsby commented for the record last week that any of the inmates who have indicated a desire to join the class action can select to prosecute their own claim, noting the Clerk of Court has a packet of information on how to proceed independently. Trainer's criminal charges are awaiting trial court review. [GN] BLAIZE HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 5 --------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Blaize Holdings, Inc. ("Blaize" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BZAI) and reminds investors of the October 5, 2026 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com. As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) Blaize announced transactions with entities wholly unequipped to conduct meaningful business in order to create an appearance of growth; (2) Blaize improperly recognized revenue; and (3); as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. Blaize8, 2026, Pelican Way Research published a report entitled "Blaize AI: Running Up The Share Price Based on a Seemingly Bogus Deal, Conveniently Timed for Massive Dilution," alleging that Blaize had artificially boosted its share price by engaging in a bogus deal with a 4-month-old counterparty whose website features "products" that appear to be photoshopped to add the Blaize logo, and that NeoTensr was incorporated in late December 2025 with only approximately $2 million in startup capital, making it inconceivable that Blaize could have achieved $20 million in revenue from a NeoTensr order in Q4 2025. On this news, Blaize's stock price fell $0.26, or 12.03%, to close at $1.90 per share on April 28, 2026. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Blaize's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. To learn more about the Blaize class action, go to www.faruqilaw.com/BZAI or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Investors Regarding the Blaize Securities Class Action Lawsuit: What is the Blaize securities fraud lawsuit about? A securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against Blaize Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: BZAI) on behalf of investors who purchased Blaize securities during the Class Period. The lawsuit alleges that Blaize announced transactions with entities allegedly wholly unequipped to conduct meaningful business, purportedly to create an artificial appearance of growth, and that Blaize improperly recognized revenue in connection with these transactions. As a result, the complaint alleges that defendants' public statements during the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading. The allegations came into sharper focus on April 28, 2026, when Pelican Way Research published a report alleging that Blaize had artificially boosted its share price through a purportedly bogus deal with a counterparty incorporated only approximately four months earlier and carrying roughly $2 million in startup capital - raising serious questions about how Blaize could have legitimately recognized $20 million in revenue from that entity in Q4 2025. On that date, Blaize's stock price allegedly fell $0.26 per share, or approximately 12.03%, to close at $1.90. Who may be eligible to participate in the lawsuit? Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Blaize Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: BZAI) on the NASDAQ exchange between July 18, 2025 and April 28, 2026, inclusive, may be eligible to participate in this class action lawsuit. Eligibility is not limited to those who seek appointment as lead plaintiff; any investor who purchased Blaize securities during that period and suffered losses may potentially share in any recovery obtained on behalf of the class. Investors are encouraged to review their trading records to determine whether their purchases fall within the Class Period. Participation in the litigation does not require taking any active role in the case beyond filing a timely claim if a recovery is obtained. What is a lead plaintiff, and how can I seek appointment? A lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation, including decisions regarding litigation strategy and the selection of lead counsel. Any investor or group of investors who purchased Blaize securities during the Class Period and suffered losses may move the court for appointment as lead plaintiff. The deadline to file a motion seeking appointment as lead plaintiff is October 5, 2026. Importantly, investors are not required to serve as lead plaintiff in order to be eligible to share in any recovery that may result from this lawsuit; class members who do not seek this role may still participate in any eventual settlement or judgment. What should investors do if they purchased Blaize stock during the Class Period? Investors who purchased Blaize Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: BZAI) securities between July 18, 2025 and April 28, 2026 are encouraged to promptly review their brokerage and trading records to confirm whether their purchases fall within the Class Period and to assess any losses they may have incurred. It is important to preserve all relevant documentation, including trade confirmations, account statements, and any communications relating to Blaize securities, as such records may be relevant to the litigation. Investors may wish to evaluate their legal options in light of the allegations and the October 5, 2026 lead plaintiff deadline. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP is available to discuss the case and answer questions investors may have prior to that deadline. Why should investors contact Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP? Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has represented investors in securities litigation for decades and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders. Investors who purchased Blaize securities during the Class Period may contact the firm to discuss their legal rights, potential claims, and the lead plaintiff process at no cost or obligation. Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential manner. [GN] BOOKING HOLDINGS: Removes Rodriguez Suit to S.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOOKING HOLDINGS INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, Case No. 26CU021517C, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on July 31, 2026. The clerk of court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-04397-JES-DEB. The case is assigned to Judge James E Simmons, Jr., and referred to Magistrate Daniel E Butcher. Booking Holdings Inc. operates as an online travel company. The Company offers a platform that allows to make travel reservations, as well as accommodation reservations, rentals cars, airline tickets, and vacation packages. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Teresa H. Michaud, Esq. Sara Victoria M. Pitt, Esq. Aastha Sharma, Esq. COOLEY LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 561-3250 Facsimile: (213) 561-3244 - and - Kristine A. Forderer, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, Floor 20 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 693-2128 Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 Email: kforderer@cooley.com tmichaud@cooley.com sporter@cooley.com asharma@cooley.com BOSTON PROPERTIES: Defendants Move to Dismiss Wage Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Boston Properties Ltd Partnership 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. 6, 2026, that it was named as defendant in an alleged collective and class action wage and hour lawsuit filed on behalf of certain individuals who provided off-duty, uniformed security services at its buildings in New York City pursuant to the New York Police Department's Paid Detail Program. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on Jan. 23, 2025, and was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Freelance Isn't Free Act. In addition to the company, the plaintiffs initially named more than ninety other companies as defendants. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a first amended complaint on Feb. 13, 2025, and a second amended complaint on Feb. 24, 2025. On Dec. 15, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, which sought to add approximately 85 new defendants to the lawsuit. By court order dated Feb. 6, 2026, the court directed the plaintiffs to file the Third Amended Complaint by March 11, 2026, as the operative pleading. The plaintiffs filed the Third Amended Complaint on March 11, 2026, and proceeded to serve it on the new defendants to be added to the lawsuit by the court-ordered deadline of April 10, 2026. In sum, the plaintiffs have now named and joined over 170 defendants in this litigation under the Third Amended Complaint. Consistent with the prior complaints, the Third Amended Complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were not paid certain wages owed to them or were not paid in a timely manner and that they did not receive certain wage payment notices required by law. Pursuant to the current court-ordered schedule, the defendants' deadline to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Third Amended Complaint was July 16, 2026. On July 16, 2026, a group of approximately fourteen defendants, including the Company, together filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. A substantial number of the other defendants joined the motion to dismiss by the court-ordered July 23, 2026, deadline to do so. The briefing period for the motion is scheduled to run through Jan. 20, 2027, and discovery has not yet commenced. Boston Properties Ltd Partnership, through its affiliates, is a real estate investment trust that develops, owns, and manages premier office and mixed-use properties in major U.S. urban markets. It focuses on high-quality, Class A assets in cities such as Boston, New York, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles. BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE: Ropes Sues Over Failure to Pay Earned Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Alec Ropes, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE CALIFORNIA, LLC; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV24461 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 3, 2026), is brought for failure to pay all earned wages; failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements; failure to reimburse all necessary business expenses; failure to pay all wages due and payable at separation of employment; unfair business practices; and violations of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. During his employment, the Class Members generated significant sales revenue for Breakthru and met the criteria for incentive and performance bonuses. However, Breakthru did not properly pay the Class Members for commissions earned. By subtracting the Unlawful Deductions from gross sales and paying the Class Members a percentage of NCS, Breakthru paid the Class Members less than the wages they earned. Breakthru also did not pay the Class Members the non-discretionary incentive and performance bonuses that they earned. The Class Members were also required to regularly use their personal cell phone and home internet. Although it reimbursed Class Members for mileage related to the use of their personal vehicles, Breakthru did not provide Class Members with a stipend, nor did it reimburse the Class Members for the regular use of their personal cell phones and home internet for business purposes. As a result of its failure to properly compensate the Class Members for all wages earned, Unlawful Deductions, and failure to reimburse all necessary business expenses, Breakthru did not provide Plaintiff itemized wage statements showing, among other things, accurate gross and net wages earned, itemized deductions, and failed to identify the pay periods during which the commissions and bonuses were earned, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Breakthru as a Sales Representative — On Premise ("Sales Representative") from April 2023 to September 2025. Breakthru is a distributor of wine, beer, and spirits, serving on premise accounts such as bars and restaurants throughout Southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq. Leah M. Beligan, Esq. BELIGAN LAW GROUP, LLP 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92612 Phone: (949) 224-3881 Email: jbeligan@beliganlawgroup.com lbeligan@beliganlawgroup.com - and – Robert D. Wilson, III, Esq. Tyler D. Kring, Esq. Jeffrey T. Green, Esq. KRING & ASSOCIATES, APC 38 Corporate Park Irvine, CA 92606 Phone: (949) 393-1400 Facsimile: (949) 393-1430 Email: rwilson@kringandassociates.com tkring@kringandassociates.com jgreen@kringandassociates.com BXP INC: Wage Class Suit Dismissal Briefing Runs to Jan. 20, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------------- BXP, 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. 6, 2026, that it is facing an alleged collective and class action wage and hour lawsuit in which it is a named defendant, along with more than 170 other defendants, arising out of off-duty, uniformed security services provided at its New York City buildings under the New York Police Department's Paid Detail Program. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on Jan. 23, 2025, asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Freelance Isn't Free Act. In addition to the company, the plaintiffs initially named more than ninety other companies as defendants. They then filed a first amended complaint on Feb. 13, 2025, and a second amended complaint on Feb. 24, 2025, expanding and refining their allegations. On Dec. 15, 2025, the plaintiffs moved for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, seeking to add approximately eighty-five new defendants. By court order dated Feb. 6, 2026, the court directed them to file the Third Amended Complaint by March 11, 2026, as the operative pleading. The plaintiffs filed that complaint on or about March 11, 2026, and proceeded to serve it on the newly added defendants by the court-ordered April 10, 2026, deadline. As a result, the plaintiffs have now named and joined over 170 defendants in the litigation under the Third Amended Complaint. Consistent with the prior pleadings, the Third Amended Complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were not paid certain wages owed to them or were not paid in a timely manner and that they did not receive certain wage payment notices required by law. Under the current court-ordered schedule, the defendants' deadline to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Third Amended Complaint was July 16, 2026. On that date, a group of approximately fourteen defendants, including the company, jointly filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, and a substantial number of other defendants joined that motion by the court-ordered July 23, 2026, deadline. The briefing period for the motion to dismiss is scheduled to run through Jan. 20, 2027, and discovery has not yet commenced. BXP, Inc. (Boston Properties) is a publicly traded real estate investment trust that develops, owns, and manages premier Class A office and mixed-use properties in major U.S. markets, including New York City, Boston, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Los Angeles. It focuses on high-quality urban assets leased to a diversified base of corporate, government, and institutional tenants. CABINETS TO GO: Cordova Sues Over Leaked Private Info ----------------------------------------------------- YASMINE CORDOVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CABINETS TO GO, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02675-JDP (E.D. Cal., Aug. 4, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendant's installation and use of the TikTok Software on its website, http://cabinetstogo.comwhich violates the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant partnered with TikTok Inc. to install sophisticated software on its landing page to learn the location, source, and identity of consumers who happen to land on its website. The software collects and analyzes user data for mutual financial gain of both Defendant and TikTok, says the suit. Plaintiff Cordova visited the website on November 30, 2025 and her browser transmit identifying electronic impulses to TikTok and Defendant. Cabinets to Go is the proprietor of the website, an online platform that sells cabinets and other home storage to consumers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter K. Chu, Esq. Jaimee Hocker, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 Email: pchu@taulersmith.com jhocker@taulersmith.com CAMDEN PROPERTY: $53M Settlement Reached in RealPage Antitrust MDL ------------------------------------------------------------------ Camden Property Trust 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 July 31, 2026, that, on April 7, 2026, the company entered into a binding term sheet for settlement with plaintiffs "In re: RealPage, Inc., Rental Software Antitrust Litigation (No. II)." Subsequently, the parties executed a definitive settlement agreement, which received the required preliminary court approvals during the three months ended June 30, 2026. The company was named as a defendant in several cases alleging antitrust violations by RealPage, Inc., a seller of revenue management software used by owners and operators of multifamily housing. They allege collusion among the defendants to fix rents in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated 43 cases, including those filed against the company, into a single action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the company agreed to pay an aggregate of $53 million to settle all claims that have been asserted, or could have been asserted, against it in the Class Action Litigation, inclusive of class member recoveries, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and settlement administration costs. The settlement payment was payable in two equal installments of $26.5 million, the first of which was timely paid during the three months ended June 30, 2026, and the second of which is due during the third quarter of 2026. The settlement also includes certain prospective commitments regarding the company's business practices, including provisions relating to the disclosure and use of nonpublic data. Camden Property Trust is a real estate investment trust that owns, manages, develops, and acquires multifamily apartment communities across major U.S. markets. It generates revenue primarily from rental income and related property operations. CAMPBELL'S COMPANY: Onyango Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Salome Onyango, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CAMPBELL'S COMPANY and CORTECH, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-09799 (D.N.J., Aug. 3, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"), to recover unpaid overtime wages owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly contingent workers who performed non-manual compensable work for Defendants but were not paid time and a half for all overtime hours worked ("Class Members"). The Plaintiff and other Class Members regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week and are entitled to receive compensation for working over 40 hours per week. Yet, even though Class Members often work over 40 hours per week, Defendants refused to pay them overtime wages and have willfully prevented and/or discouraged Class Members from accurately recording their time. The Defendants maintained and enforced timekeeping and compensation practices that prevented and/or discouraged Plaintiff and similarly situated workers from accurately recording all compensable hours worked. By requiring, permitting, and accepting work beyond forty hours in a workweek while paying Plaintiff and similarly situated workers for no more than forty hours, the Defendants violated the FLSA, the NJWHL, and the NJWPL, and breached applicable employment agreements promising compensation for work performed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a Marketing Budget Analyst/Account Analyst assigned to Campbell's marketing operations. The Campbell's Company, formerly known as Campbell Soup Company, is a corporation organized under the laws of New Jersey with its principal executive offices located in Camden, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth B. Fromson, Esq. FINKELSTEIN & PARTNERS, LLP 1270 Route 300 Newburgh, NY 12551 Phone: (845) 563-9459 Email: kfromson@lawampm.com - and - D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP 1 North Broadway, Ste. 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 298-3284 Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com CANOPY GROWTH: Settles Securities Class Suit for CAD $3.5MM ----------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo Finance reports that a proposed class action was commenced against Canopy Growth Corporation ("Canopy"), two of Canopy's then-officers, David Klein and Judy Hong, and its former auditor KPMG LLP ("KPMG") ("the Action"). The Plaintiff and KPMG have reached a proposed partial settlement of the Action which is subject to approval by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. If approved by the Court, the Action would end against KPMG. The Action would continue against the other Defendants. The proposed partial settlement amount is CAD $3,500,000 (the "Settlement Amount"), including Class Counsel's fees, applicable taxes and expenses, and interest. The Defendant KPMG denies any such liability and resulting damages. By agreeing to the proposed partial settlement, the Plaintiff and KPMG avoid the cost, time and uncertainty of proceeding to a trial. The class action has now been certified against KPMG, on consent for settlement purposes only. This notice provides information about this proposed partial settlement and related matters and how to exclude yourself from ("opt-out of") the class action. Your legal rights are affected even if you do nothing. Please read this notice carefully. The class action was commenced on behalf of all persons or entities, other than certain Excluded Persons, who during the period from June 1, 2021 to and including June 22, 2023 (the "Class Period") acquired Canopy's securities in the secondary market and who held some or all of those securities until the close of trading on May 10, 2023 or June 22, 2023 and who either: 1. are residents of Canada or were residents of Canada at the time of such acquisitions, regardless of the location of the exchange on which they acquired Canopy's securities; or 2. acquired Canopy's securities on an exchange in Canada or another exchange located outside of the United States, regardless of where they reside or are domiciled (the "Class"). There will be a hearing (the "Settlement Approval Hearing") in which Class Counsel will request the Court to approve: (i) the partial settlement; and (ii) their legal fees and expenses. The Settlement Approval Hearing shall take place on December 10, 2026 at the Courthouse at Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen St. W., Toronto, ON. If you do not wish to participate in this partial settlement and then to continue to be bound by the class action, you must opt-out of the class action before that Hearing, as set out below. A copy of the Opt-Out Form is available at https://knd.law/class-actions/canopy-growth-corp/ At the Settlement Approval Hearing, the Court will determine whether the proposed partial settlement is fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the Class. At the same Hearing, Class Counsel will also seek Court approval of their request for fees, equating to 30% of the Settlement Amount, plus reimbursement of their relevant expenses and any applicable taxes. Class Counsel has been working pursuant to a contingency-fee agreement and has not been paid as the Action has proceeded, and has paid all of the out-of-pocket expenses of conducting the Action. Class Counsel will be requesting that the legal fees and disbursements be deducted from the Settlement Amount. At the Settlement Approval Hearing, the Plaintiff and Class Counsel will recommend to the Court that the net Settlement Amount be distributed to Class Members at a later date, once this class action is concluded against the other Defendants, pursuant to a plan to be proposed to the Court for approval at that time, to distribute the current net Settlement Amount, and any additional funds arising from a settlement with or judgement against the remaining Defendants, if any. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS FOR THIS PROPOSED SETTLEMENT: Stay in the Class Action and Do Nothing: If you fall within the Class definition, you do not have to do anything to stay in the class action and to be eligible to receive benefits from this partial settlement, if approved, but you will give up your right to sue any of the Defendants (not just KPMG) on your own. Stay in the Class Action and Object: If you want to object to or comment upon the proposed partial settlement or the payment of Class Counsel's fees, fill out the Form available at: https://knd.law/class-actions/canopy-growth-corp/. You must submit your Form by email to CanopyGrowth@KND.law by November 25, 2026 at 11:59 p.m. ET for it to be valid. Opt-Out of the Class Action: You can exclude yourself from the class action and the proposed settlement by filling out an Opt-Out Form available at https://knd.law/class-actions/canopy-growth-corp/, or by requesting it from Class Counsel at the email address below. If you opt-out of the Action, you are removing yourself from the lawsuit against all Defendants, not just KPMG, and would have to pursue your own action at your own expense. You must submit your Opt-Out form by email to CanopyGrowth@KND.law by September 21, 2026 at 11:59 p.m. ET for it to be valid. These rights and options and the deadlines to exercise them and further information about the proposed partial settlement are explained in a longer notice available at https://knd.law/class-actions/canopy-growth-corp/. In addition, more details may be found in the Settlement Agreement. You can obtain a copy of the Settlement Agreement at https://knd.law/class-actions/canopy-growth-corp/. The lawyers for the Plaintiff and the Class in this class action are KND Complex Litigation. You can send your questions by email to them at CanopyGrowth@KND.law. [GN] CARBONFIELD INVESTMENT: Sued Over Apartment's Pest Infestations --------------------------------------------------------------- Eleanor Bennett of Aspen Daily News reports that two former residents of The Homestead apartment complex in downtown Carbondale filed a class-action lawsuit on July 13 on behalf of themselves and other current and former tenants at the property against their corporate landlord alleging poor living conditions, eviction threats and hidden junk fees. The suit claims the property's owner and management failed to address residents' complaints about a yearslong, severe cockroach infestation exacerbated by water and sewage leaks in violation of Colorado laws that require landlords to maintain safe and habitable conditions. The lawsuit was filed in the Denver County District Court against the limited liability company Carbonfield Investment Group -- an entity controlled by Denver-based Elkco Properties -- that bought the complex in 2019, according to Garfield County property records. "We have no comment on the pending litigation, which is groundless. Our legal counsel will be responding to this frivolous lawsuit in court filings," said the statement provided by Elken. Denver-based tenants' rights attorney Benjamin DeGolia is representing the former residents of the apartment complex located at 900 Garfield Ave. in Carbondale, which has 58 units, according to the lawsuit. "I've worked on many cases involving pest infestations, and this is by far the worst cockroach infestation I've seen in my career," DeGolia said. "For years, this landlord did absolutely nothing about the cockroach infestation that was really pervasive throughout the entire property." The Homestead, which is a block from Carbondale's main street, consists of three buildings with a mix of one- and two-bedroom units and an outdoor common area with a children's playground. "It's one of few multifamily apartment complexes in Carbondale where a family can rent a unit for less than $2,000 a month," DeGolia said. "It's often those tenants who are most likely to be exploited by corporate landlords," DeGolia said. "We know that there's very limited affordable housing in the Roaring Fork Valley, . . . and that makes it that much more important that we take steps to protect our tenants who need access to dignified, affordable housing." In the lawsuit, the former residents also claim that their landlord unlawfully charged them and others hidden "junk fees" not initially disclosed as part of the advertised rent costs and threatened some tenants who complained about the cockroach infestation with eviction or inflated move-out fees when they asked to be let out of their lease early. If the residents are successful in their lawsuit, DeGolia estimates that more than 200 current and former tenants of The Homestead would be eligible to receive some or all of their rent payments back depending on how long they lived at the property. "We'll ask the court to certify a class of all tenants who resided at the property from three years before the lawsuit was filed, which means June 2023, all the way until the date that notice is sent out to the class, which will likely be sometime next year -- so probably we're talking about a four-year period," DeGolia said. "We'll then ask a jury to award a full rent abatement for this entire period, and if they do, every tenant will get that rent back." Sammy Rodrigo is one of the two former Homestead residents who filed the July 13 class-action suit. Rodrigo, who is originally from Fort Collins, met her now-husband, Bill, on a dating app while he was living in Carbondale and working in Aspen. "We fell in love, and I moved up to Carbondale after we got married," Rodrigo said. "I always wanted to live in the mountains, so I was really excited to move there." In September 2022, they found a two-bedroom apartment at The Homestead for about $1,900 per month and started building a home and community together. "We were part of the Orchard Church and their community garden, we were part of the local gym, we played tons of pickleball, we went to lots of First Fridays and we skied a bunch," Rodrigo said. "We also won the 'Our Town, One Table' event one year, . . . so we were a big part of the town and really loved calling Carbondale our home." Shortly after they moved into their new apartment at The Homestead, Rodrigo started noticing an unusual number of cockroaches. "I would find roaches in every room: the bathroom, kitchen, bedroom, . . . they were in our bed, on our plates in the cabinet, in the shower, in our pantry food, in the fridge -- it was horrible," Rodrigo said. She tried cleaning and putting out sticky traps for them, but nothing seemed to help. "We cleaned all the time, at least every other day, including monthly deep-cleans, and the roaches were still bad year-round," Rodrigo said. "I would set up sticky traps, and sometimes they'd fill up in a week with like 50 cockroaches in them." Rodrigo's husband had previously lived in a different unit with roommates for several years at The Homestead and told her they had issues with cockroaches too. She suspected that the infestation was being exacerbated by water and sewage leaks in their building. She also spoke with several neighbors in different buildings at The Homestead and confirmed that they had experienced similar problems with cockroaches and sewage leaks. "We had a dishwasher in our unit, but we never used it because it always smelled like a sewage system and it leaked once or twice and flooded our kitchen," Rodrigo said. "I also heard about issues where people would be in the shower and someone would flush the toilet in a unit next to them, and it would push sewage into their shower -- that happened once to us, and it happened to one of our friends." Rodrigo runs her own marketing agency and works from home, and she said the cockroaches and sewage leaks in their apartment made it difficult to live and work there. "It was a constant irritation to my everyday life, and just healthy living," Rodrigo said. "We always paid rent on time, we were fantastic tenants and there's no reason that we should live in poor conditions." As one of the few white people living in the apartment complex, Rodrigo said she felt a responsibility to speak up about the issue on behalf of her fellow neighbors, many of whom were immigrants who primarily spoke Spanish. "They live more cautiously because of how our society treats immigrants," Rodrigo said. "Landlords take advantage of immigrants and people of brown and Black communities because they can't be as vocal about it sometimes because they might not be in a position where they are safe, and if they speak out, then maybe they'll just get arrested or deported." Over the two years she lived there, Rodrigo said she reported the issue to the on-site maintenance staff and property manager, as well as to representatives with Elkco Properties and the town of Carbondale, but the response from her landlord was minimal. "They only sprayed our apartment once while I was there, and that is not enough to remove an insect infestation," Rodrigo said. "It was really frustrating that they knew it was such a severe issue and did almost nothing the entire time we lived there." When their lease was coming up for renewal in August 2024, Rodrigo and her husband made the decision to move out. "We loved living in Carbondale, but the cockroaches in our apartment were disgusting," Rodrigo said. "It just felt hopeless." According to DeGolia, landlords in Colorado are required to take action to maintain safe and habitable conditions when they receive complaints like Rodrigo's. "Colorado's warranty of habitability statute is really clear about a landlord's obligations to remedy uninhabitable conditions once they receive notice of those conditions," DeGolia said. "They have to engage in substantial remedial action; they do not get to just spray one time and hope that the problem has been resolved." This past spring -- about a year and a half after Rodrigo left The Homestead -- an account representing the landlord posted a response to several negative Google Reviews that its apartment complex had received over the years from Rodrigo and other residents about the cockroach infestation they had dealt with. "We regularly conduct pest control work, but starting in early 2026 we have undergone an intensive pest control program to eradicate all pests from the property," the company's statement said. In the lawsuit, former Homestead resident Ruby Monica Flores confirmed that the landlord began its first systematic pest control program in November last year. Flores, the second plaintiff named in the lawsuit, declined an interview for this story, but her account is cited in the class-action complaint. Like Rodrigo, the lawsuit states that Flores reported sewage leaks and a worsening cockroach infestation to the on-site property manager to no avail throughout the two years that she lived at The Homestead from March 2023 to last February. When conditions had not improved by early 2025, Flores alleged that her family tried to break their lease, but they could not afford the $5,000 lease-break fee that the property manager said they would owe. Last fall, Flores received a notice from the landlord that they would be undergoing intensive pest control efforts, but she alleged that the process placed heavy burdens on tenants with no rent credit or other compensation offered for the disruption. Every few weeks when the exterminator came, according to the lawsuit Flores and other tenants were required to vacate their units for full days at a time, wrap all their belongings in plastic, deep-clean thoroughly, personally repair any water leaks and hand over spare keys to management. According to the lawsuit, Flores' first treatment was scheduled for Thanksgiving Day; when she objected, management allegedly threatened to terminate her lease, forcing her to cancel her holiday plans to comply. The exterminator never showed up that day, the lawsuit says. "The notices that were posted on tenants' doors at this property are the most threatening notices I've ever seen," DeGolia said, adding that tenants were notified in writing that if they did not comply with the strict preparation requirements, they could face automatic lease termination. When Flores and her family moved out in February, she claimed her unit was still infested with cockroaches. According to DeGolia, residents such as Flores and Rodrigo also faced what he described as hidden "junk fees," including utilities and liability insurance fees, that were not initially advertised to prospective tenants as part of their monthly rent, allegedly in violation of state law. "The Colorado Consumer Protection Act requires [landlords] to be transparent in their advertising by including any fees that tenants will have to pay as part of their rental of a unit at the property, and this landlord doesn't do that," DeGolia said. "They advertise the base rent amount on their website, and then only after a tenant has invested significant time and cost, including application fees, do they then disclose the true amount of rent that tenants will be required to pay." A one-bedroom unit that was available on The Homestead's website as of Monday, Aug. 3, was listed for $1,750 per month, with a $25 application fee and $2,500 security deposit, but did not include any mention of monthly utilities or insurance charges. The lawsuit also alleges that these hidden fees are inflated beyond the actual cost that the landlord pays for utilities and liability insurance. "We have also seen that this landlord has increased the fees for utilities without the consent of their tenants and beyond the amounts that were agreed to in the lease agreements," DeGolia said. Spreading awareness For Anna Belinski-Huber, a housing attorney with local nonprofit Alpine Legal Services, making sure that residents and landlords are familiar with Colorado's habitability laws and tenants' rights is a critical part of ensuring that people have a safe, habitable place to live. In her work with Alpine Legal Services, Belinski-Huber specializes in helping the most vulnerable populations, often people with lower incomes. "For many of us, if we were in a housing situation [with] mold or cockroaches or lack of hot water, we would move," Belinski-Huber said. "The issue becomes when you can't afford it, and you are stuck in your housing because it's the cheapest thing you can find, and the alternative is homelessness, and most of my clients are in that position." Through her work with Alpine Legal Services, Belinski-Huber leads information sessions about tenants' rights and facilitates tenant-landlord mediation. "Colorado actually has really great laws for tenant habitability," said Belinski-Huber. "You are guaranteed certain basic health and safety standards, regardless of your type of tenancy or lease agreement." But according to Belinski-Huber, residents who experience issues such as those alleged in the lawsuit against The Homestead may not know what rights they have or what actions they can take if those rights are being violated. "So the first thing that tenants should do if they're experiencing any sort of pest infestation, mold, malfunctioning heat, lack of water or hot water -- all those kinds of things -- is notify your landlord in writing," Belinski-Huber said. "After you notify your landlord in writing, under Colorado law, your landlord has 24 to 72 hours, depending on the severity of the issue, to start dealing with it, and then they have to take reasonable steps to fully remediate the issue." If a landlord fails to respond or take action, Belinski-Huber suggested several courses of action, including seeking mediation help from an advocacy organization such as Alpine Legal Services, filing complaints with your local municipality, or considering legal action. "Advocacy organizations like ours can help to make sure that the landlord knows what their obligations are and that you're documenting unresolved issues for potential financial compensation," Belinski-Huber said. "If it's something that is really systemic -- an entire building of residents all experiencing the same issue that the landlord is not resolving, despite being informed of it . . . you could also reach out to your city or county for municipal building code enforcement." Belinski-Huber said local municipalities often have limited resources to respond to tenant complaints, but they can help put pressure on a property owner. "They're really more the place to go to put heat on the landlord in an official capacity, and oftentimes that does get landlords to start acting because they want to be in the good graces of the town and the county," Belinski-Huber said. "But as far as actual enforcement, you know, the hammer coming down, that's where we lean into the state's habitability statute because that does give tenants legal recourse." Residents organizing to form a tenants association can also help them have a greater voice. "If there are chronic issues, I am a big proponent of tenants getting together and coordinating," Belinski-Huber said. "Sometimes, when tenants are able to advocate for themselves in a really organized way collectively, landlords and management are more responsive." Belinski-Huber views a landlord's responsibility to provide habitable housing to their tenants as not just a legal obligation, but also a moral one. "No matter how low your rent is, that's not a cop-out for a landlord -- they shouldn't be able to not give someone a habitable place by just charging them less," Belinski-Huber said. "Everyone is entitled to safe and healthy housing. . . . That's not a matter of whether or not you make enough money; that is, to me, a very basic human right." Hopeful for change After leaving The Homestead in August 2024, Rodrigo and her husband decided to fulfill their dream of traveling around the world. They found a shared house to rent in Fort Collins that could be an affordable homebase where they could store their belongings while abroad, but the cockroach problem followed them. "We didn't know that we had cockroaches still living in our furniture from the Carbondale apartment, but they infested the new house we moved into, and we had roommates and they had to deal with that there," Rodrigo said. "We had to pay to get the whole house cleaned and sprayed, and we had to move all of our stuff out." Although the lawsuit could take years to work its way through the court, Rodrigo hopes that it can eventually help hold her former landlord accountable and bring some relief to her fellow residents who experienced similar challenges. "I also hope that this can be a lesson for all landlords that you have to keep your properties in quality condition, and you have to listen to tenants when they share complaints," Rodrigo said. "For landlords to know that you can't do this to people, and for people to be reimbursed for the poor conditions they had to live in, is a very reasonable request." For now, Rodrigo and her husband are looking into what it would take to rebuild their lives in Carbondale, but they know it might not be possible to find an affordable and dignified place to live in the Roaring Fork Valley. "We want to go back to that mountain community that we loved, but the housing prices are just so extreme, . . . it's just not possible for us, so we're staying in the Front Range right now," Rodrigo said. "The Homestead apartments are one of the only affordable options, but I would never want to go back there." When it comes to next steps for the lawsuit, DeGolia said the landlord has a "responsive pleading" deadline to provide an initial response to the allegations in the lawsuit or file a motion to dismiss the case. They could also request an extension. "Our goal in this case is to get the class certified, proceed to trial and ask a jury to give these tenants their rent back," DeGolia said. "They were subjected to horrible conditions over years, but month after month they still had to pay their rent." [GN] CATERPILLAR INC: Beyers Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty ---------------------------------------------------------- AMY BEYERS and GLENN ZABEL, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the CATERPILLAR, INC. EMPLOYEE HEALTH, LIFE and DISABILITY BENEFIT PROGRAM and the CATERPILLAR, INC. RETIREE BENEFIT PROGRAM, Plaintiffs v. CATERPILLAR, INC., THE CATERPILLAR INC. BENEFIT FUNDS COMMITTEE, THE CATERPILLAR INC. BENEFITS ADMINSTRATIVE COMMITTEE, THE CATERPILLAR INC. BENEFITS COMPENSATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE, and DOES No. 1-30, whose names are currently unknown, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-9260 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 4, 2026) is a class action complaint arising from the Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment which violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The complaint alleges the failure of the Defendants to prudently and loyally select and monitor the preferred provider organization medical insurance options of the Caterpillar Inc. Employee Health, Life and Disability Benefit Program and Retiree Benefit Program, allow the Plans' low-deductible health insurance options to be financially dominated by one of the high-deductible options and failure to disclose the material information to the Plans' participants. Plaintiff Beyers is a resident of Indiana who participated in the Active Employee Plan from approximately November 2021 until March 2025. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (773) 554-9354 Email: matt@almeidalawgroup.com - and - James E. Miller, Esq. Laurie Rubinow, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email:jemiller@millershah.com lrubinow@millershah.com - and - Alec J. Berin, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: ajberin@millershah.com CENTRUS ENERGY: Envtl. Class Claims Over Site Contamination Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Centrus Energy 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. 6, 2026, that a putative environmental contamination class action was filed against it, Enrichment Corp., and other Department of Energy contractors relating to operations at the Portsmouth GDP site and the American Centrifuge Plant site located on the premises. On May 26, 2019, the company, Enrichment Corp., and six other DOE contractors that have operated facilities at the Portsmouth GDP site were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint was brought by Ursula McGlone, Jason McGlone, Julia Dunham, and K.D. and C.D., minor children by and through their parent and natural guardian Julia Dunham, who are collectively referred to as the McGlone Plaintiffs. It seeks damages for alleged off-site contamination purportedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site. Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class consisting of all current or former residents within a seven-mile radius of the Portsmouth GDP site and all students and their parents at the Zahns Corner Middle School from 1993 to the present. The complaint was amended on Dec. 10, 2019, and again on Jan. 10, 2020, to add additional plaintiffs and new claims. On July 31, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The court dismissed ten of the fifteen claims asserted in the action but allowed the remaining claims to proceed to the next stage of the litigation process. On Aug. 18, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint and a notice of dismissal of three of the individual plaintiffs, further refining the composition of the case. On March 18, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint to add new plaintiffs and additional allegations. On March 19, 2021, the court granted their motion for leave to amend the complaint to include Price-Anderson Act claims and eight other state law claims. On May 24, 2021, the company, Enrichment Corp., and the other defendants filed their motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint. On March 31, 2022, the court granted the company's motion in part by dismissing claims brought on behalf of the minor children but allowed the other claims to proceed, and the discovery stage of the litigation has continued thereafter. On April 28, 2022, the company, Enrichment Corp., and the other defendants filed their answer to the fourth amended complaint, formally responding to the remaining allegations. Centrus Energy Corp is a U.S.-based supplier of enriched uranium fuel and related nuclear fuel services for commercial nuclear power plants worldwide. It also provides technical, engineering, and manufacturing services to government and commercial customers involved in advanced nuclear and related energy technologies. CHINA SUMMIT: Court Tosses Yam Second Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WANGLAP YAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. QI XIN, also known as BRANDON QI, and CHINA SUMMIT CAPITAL, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09793-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order granting the Defendants motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended complaint. The Court dismisses the Plaintiff's federal claim with prejudice and each of his state claims without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and close this case. The Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") claim, but that the Plaintiff fails to state a civil RICO claim. The Plaintiff Wanglap Yam brings this putative class action against Defendants Qi Xin and China Summit Capital, LLC , of which Mr. Xin is the registered agent and only member, alleging the provision of fraudulent college consulting services. The Plaintiff has not yet moved to certify a class, but he alleges that he will represent a class of: "all individuals who entered into educational consulting contracts with IvyMountain, LLC, MeiTeng International Education, Qi Xin, China Summit Capital, or paid education consulting fees to IvyMountain, LLC, MeiTeng International Education, Qi Xin and/or China Summit Capital" and, alternatively or concurrently, a subclass defined as follows: "all individuals [i] who entered into education consulting contracts with IvyMountain, LLC, MeiTeng International Education, Qi Xin, and/or China Summit Capital; [ii] whose children did not gain admission to one or more of the target schools enumerated therein; but [iii] whose money IvyMountain, LLC, MeiTeng International Education, Qi Xin and/or China Summit Capital refused to refund." China Summit is a private equity firm based in Shanghai, China. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Aug. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2ba7lX at no extra charge.[CC] CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Dismissal Move Pending, Derivative Actions Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chipotle Mexican Grill 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 July 31, 2026, that it and several of its current and former executive officers are defendants in a purported shareholder class action and that related shareholder derivative actions have been consolidated and stayed while the company seeks dismissal of the operative complaint. The case is captioned "Michael Stradford v. Chipotle et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging that statements and omissions by the company regarding portion sizes were materially false and misleading, resulting in the market price of Chipotle's stock being artificially inflated during the claimed class period. It also includes allegations regarding purportedly improper insider trading by the individual defendants in the case. The action seeks damages on behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, as well as interest, an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, and other relief as determined to be appropriate by the court. On Dec. 18, 2025, the court issued an order granting Chipotle's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, with leave to amend. On Jan. 20, 2026, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint repeating substantially the same allegations as the original complaints. Chipotle has filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In addition, two shareholder derivative actions were filed in the Central District of California alleging that members of Chipotle's Board of Directors and former executive officers breached their fiduciary duties by making or allowing Chipotle to make the allegedly false and misleading statements. The complaint further alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing Chipotle to repurchase stock at inflated prices and by engaging in improper insider sales of Chipotle stock. The shareholder derivative actions have been consolidated into a single lawsuit captioned "In re Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation," and seek damages in an unspecified amount as well as interest, an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, and other relief as determined to be appropriate by the court. This has been stayed pending further proceedings in the Stradford matter. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. owns and operates fast-casual restaurants specializing in tacos, burritos, and other Mexican-inspired cuisine, with a focus on responsibly sourced ingredients and made-to-order meals. It operates thousands of locations primarily in the United States, along with a growing international presence. CHOBANI LLC: Rabinowitz Suit Transferred to S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jana Rabinowitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHOBANI, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-03990 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Aug. 3, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-06621 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Chobani, LLC -- https://www.chobani.com/ -- is a prominent American food and beverage company founded in 2005 by Turkish immigrant Hamdi Ulukaya.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. 134 Mineola Boulevard – 2nd Floor Mineola, NY 11501 Phone: (516) 873-9550 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com COMPASS GROUP: O'Brien Seeks to Certify Hourly Wage Employee Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER O'BRIEN individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC.; COMPASS ONE, LLC; COMPASS 2K12 SERVICES, LLC; LATHEM TIME, INC.; "JOHN DOE," "JANE DOE," AND "XYZ CORP." (FICTITIOUS NAMES), Case No. 2:17-cv-13327-ES-JSA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting certification of a class of Compass's hourly wage employees damaged by being shorted due to failures inherent in how Compass used WebPayroll to tabulate and transmit the hours worked. The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following Class: "All current and former hourly-paid employees of the Defendant in the United States whose time was entered into WebPayroll during the Class Period." The Court says that class certification is appropriate to determine Compass's liability and the Class members' damages. The evidence presently before the Court establishes that the central questions in this litigation—WebPayroll's design, Compass's training and audit practices, and the availability of a common method to identify and quantify conversion-related underpayments—are susceptible to common proof. To the extent these issues overlap with the merits, that overlap supports, rather than defeats, certification, the Court adds. In November of 2017, the Plaintiff Christopher O'Brien filed this putative class action against the Defendant alleging that his hourly wages, and potentially those of every other Compass hourly employee, were not being paid properly ("shorted") due to the defective design and operation of Compass' payroll systems nationwide. The Plaintiff O'Brien began working as an hourly wage employee as a cook at the Hackensack School District in 2011. The Plaintiff began to notice and complain about discrepancies with his pay in 2015. Compass Group retails prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NOQPs5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark T. Sadaka, Esq. Michael H. Bowman, Esq. SADAKA LAW 155 North Dean Street, Suite 4-D Englewood, NJ 07631 Telephone: (201) 266-5670 - and - Ron Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor, Tampa, FL 33602 COMPLETE CARE: Quintero Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Brenda Quintero, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. COMPLETE CARE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV24334 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 3, 2026), is brought in violation of the California Labor Codes and the Business and Professions Code for failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to pay all wages; knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; failure to timely pay wages due at termination; failure to timely pay employees; failure to reimburse for business expenses; failure to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff and Defendant's California employees were required to work off the clock for Defendant. The Plaintiff and Defendant's California employees were also required to use their personal cell phone for work-related activities while off the clock, such as texting/calling supervisor/boss, without being compensated for it. The Plaintiff also claims that Defendant has failed to pay all overtime wages due to non-exempt employees. As a result, employees are not properly compensated for work performance in excess of 8 hours in a workday and work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek at a rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay. Employees of Defendant regularly work in excess of 8 hours in a day or more than 40 hours per week and do not receive overtime compensation at a rate of one and one half of their regular rate. Plaintiff and Defendant's California employees were forced to work overtime and were not paid for all hours worked including all straight time wages, and overtime wages. These failures to pay all overtime wages, as described above, constitute violations of Labor Codes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in Los Angeles County, California. Complete Care Community Health Center, Inc. is a California nonprofit corporation in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. Nidah Farishta, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION 5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 123, Westlake Village, CA 91362 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Facsimile: (888) 850-1310 Email: Roman@OLFLA.com Nidah@OLFLA.com - and – Colette Mahon, Esq. LAWYERS FOR EMPLOYEE AND CONSUMER RIGHTS, APC 3500 W Olive Ave, Third Floor Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (323) 375-5101 Facsimile: (323) 306-5571 Email: cmahon@lfecr.com CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Settlement Reached in Shareholder Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Continental 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 July 31, 2026, that it is facing a consolidated putative class action litigation brought by former shareholders of the company. In the second quarter of 2026, the parties reached a settlement to resolve this matter without any admission of liability, wrongdoing, or fault. The terms and conditions of the settlement agreement are still for the approval of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. In April 2023, three separate putative class action lawsuits were consolidated under the caption "In re Continental Resources, Inc. Shareholder Litigation," in said court. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated former shareholders of the Company, allege that Mr. Hamm, certain trusts established for the benefit of Mr. Hamm and/or his family members, and the company's other directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the 2022 take-private transaction. They seek monetary damages, the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuits, and other equitable relief. In addition, in January 2023, FourWorld Deep Value Opportunities Fund I, LLC, FourWorld Event Opportunities, LP, FW Deep Value Opportunities I, LLC, FourWorld Global Opportunities Fund, Ltd., FourWorld Special Opportunities Fund, LLC, Corbin ERISA Opportunity Fund Ltd., and Quadre Investments, L.P., all former shareholders of the company, filed a petition in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, seeking appraisal of their respective shares of the company's common stock in connection with the 2022 take-private transaction. In April 2024, Quadre Investments, L.P. filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Continental Resources, Inc. is an independent oil and gas exploration and production company focused on the discovery and development of crude oil and natural gas reserves. It operates primarily in key U.S. resource plays, including the Bakken, STACK, and SCOOP. CREDIT SUISSE: Rathi Suit Transferred to E.D. North Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Kailash Rathi, Casey Tart, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and as representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Employees Savings and Retirement Plan of Credit Suisse v. Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, The Employee Benefits Committee of Credit Suisse, Does 1-20, Case No. 1:26-cv-00762 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on Aug. 3, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-00544-BO-RN to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. for Employee Retirement. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC operates as an investment banking company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Rhodunda, Jr., Esq. Chandra Williams, Esq. RHODUNDA WILLIAMS & KONDRASCHOW 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 205 Wilmington, DE 19803 Phone: (302) 576-2000 Fax: (302) 576-2004 CRUNCH FITNESS: Secretly Records Women Inside Gym Booths, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Athina Morris, writing for 4WWL, reports that six members of a Crunch Fitness location in Mandeville have filed a proposed federal class-action lawsuit against the gym's owners, alleging the company failed to protect members after a former employee was accused of secretly recording women inside private tanning booths. The lawsuit, filed Aug. 4 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, follows the arrest of former Crunch employee Nathan Volz. Police say Volz used a personal cellphone to record women in the gym's private tanning areas. Investigators have identified at least 10 alleged victims and say evidence dates back to March 2026. Police have warned the number of affected women could grow as they continue reviewing evidence. The six plaintiffs say police confirmed their images were not found on Volz's device, but they argue the gym's alleged security failures still put members' privacy at risk. The lawsuit alleges Crunch's owners failed to implement safeguards, including policies restricting employees from bringing personal recording devices into private areas. It also alleges the company failed to properly screen, train and supervise employees who had access to those spaces. The complaint alleges the gym violated members' privacy rights, breached its membership agreement and improperly retained membership fees while failing to provide a secure environment. Questions over notification A key issue in the lawsuit is how Crunch notified members after the allegations surfaced. The plaintiffs say law enforcement contacted identified victims, but claim the gym did not notify its broader membership base. They argue many members learned about the allegations through news reports and social media, leaving them unsure whether they may have been affected. The lawsuit seeks financial damages, refunds of membership dues and court-ordered changes requiring stronger privacy protections, improved employee screening and training, and restrictions on personal devices in private areas. The lead attorney on the case is Reagan Charleston Thomas of Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz. It has not been certified as a class action, and the allegations have not been proven in court. An attorney representing Fit Fusion, the franchise that owns Crunch Fitness Mandeville, responded with the following statement: "The underlying incident remains under investigation by law enforcement, and we continue to cooperate fully with authorities. The former employee involved was terminated immediately after we became aware of the allegations and is no longer affiliated with Fit Fusion. Fit Fusion does not comment on active litigation." [GN] CYTOKINETICS INC: Securities Row Ongoing, Derivative Action Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cytokinetics 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. 6, 2026, that it is facing a putative stockholder class action lawsuit filed against the company and its Chief Executive Officer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Sept. 17, 2025, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action was purportedly brought on behalf of a class consisting of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock between Dec. 27, 2023, and May 6, 2025. It alleges that the company made materially false and misleading statements regarding the timeline for the NDA regulatory approval process for "aficamten" and failed to disclose related material risks. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, together with interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, and asserts that investors were harmed as a result of the alleged misstatements and omissions concerning the regulatory approval process and associated risks. The case remains pending, and no resolution, settlement, or final judgment has been disclosed. Additionally, on March 27, 2026, the court found a related shareholder derivative action to be connected to "In re Cytokinetics, Incorporated Securities Litigation" and reassigned the matter accordingly. This derivative proceeding is distinct from the securities class action but arises from similar underlying facts and allegations. On April 16, 2026, the court entered an order, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, staying the derivative action in its entirety during the pendency of any motion to dismiss in the securities class action, subject to customary terms. As a result, further proceedings in the derivative case are paused unless and until the stay is lifted by the Court. In addition, the company and the individual defendants dispute the allegations in the derivative action and intend to vigorously defend against the matter. Cytokinetics Inc. is a late-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering, developing, and commercializing muscle biology-driven treatments for diseases characterized by impaired muscle function. Its pipeline includes small-molecule therapeutics intended for cardiovascular and neuromuscular indications. DASCO ENGINEERING: Abarca Seeks Nonexempt Staff's Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- ATHAN ABARCA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DASCO ENGINEERING CORP.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV24635 (Cal., Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 4, 2026) is a class action seeking damages and injunctive relief arising from the Defendant's willful violations of the Labor Code. The Complaint alleges several causes of action against Defendant including failure to pay wages for all hours worked at the applicable minimum wage and all overtime hours worked at the required overtime rate; failure to authorize or permit legally required and/or compliant meal periods or, alternatively, to pay meal-period premium wages; failure to authorize or permit legally required and/or compliant rest periods or, alternatively, to pay rest-period premium wages; and failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation from employment. Plaintiff Abarca worked for Defendant as an hourly non-exempt employee from April 2026 until April 17, 2026. Defendant Basco Engineering Corp. is a private manufacturing company founded in 1963, profiled on Bloomberg Markets. Based in California, it produces complex machined components, structural assemblies, and critical hardware for the aerospace, military, and commercial aviation sectors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Kacey Cook, Esq., LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com jklein@lelawfirm.com kcook@lelawfirm.com DETROIT, MI: Agrees to Settle Water Rate Class Action for $4.45MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who received water services from the City of Detroit between Aug. 1, 2022, and May 31, 2026, and used an average of at least 1.0 MCF (thousand cubic feet) of water per month during that period may be eligible to claim a refund from a class action settlement. The City of Detroit agreed to pay $4.45 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging the city's tiered water rates resulted in certain higher-volume users being charged more than the actual cost of providing water service. Who are the class members? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They are a person or entity who received water services from the City of Detroit between Aug. 1, 2022, and May 31, 2026. -- They used an average of at least 1.0 MCF of water per month during that period. -- They paid or incurred charges for water service to the City of Detroit. How much are City of Detroit settlement payments? The settlement administrator will distribute the net settlement fund among eligible class members based on the proportion of water charges each paid during the class period compared to the total charges all class members paid. The settlement divides eligible class members into three groups based on their customer status and account balance as of Aug. 26, 2026: Group 1: Current water customers as of Aug. 26, 2026, with outstanding balances equal to or greater than their pro rata share of the net settlement fund will receive a credit against their outstanding balance. Group 2: Current water customers as of Aug. 26, 2026, with no outstanding balance or with an outstanding balance less than their pro rata share of the net settlement fund will receive a credit applied to future water charges. Group 3: Former water customers as of Aug. 26, 2026, who do not have an outstanding balance equal to or exceeding their pro rata share will receive a pro rata cash refund. In addition to monetary compensation, the settlement also includes a temporary reduction in the Tier 2 water rate from Jan. 1, 2027, through June 30, 2027. The city will reduce the Tier 2 rate by $6.22 per MCF, bringing it to $44.99 per MCF during this period. This rate reduction is valued at approximately $39 million for the affected period and subsequent years through June 30, 2030, based on historical Tier 2 usage. How to claim a settlement payout -- Current water customers as of Aug. 26, 2026, do not need to take any action. The City of Detroit will automatically apply their credit to their water account over a six-month period. -- Former water customers as of Aug. 26, 2026, must submit a claim to receive a cash refund. They can file a claim online or download and print a PDF claim form.pdf), complete it and mail it to the settlement administrator. Those submitting claims for more than one account or service must submit a separate claim form for each. Settlement administrator's mailing address: City of Detroit Water Settlement Administrator, 1650 Arch St., Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103 The claim deadline is Aug. 26, 2026. What proof or documentation is necessary to submit a claim? Current water customers with valid claims do not need to take any action. Former customers seeking a cash refund must submit a claim form and provide: -- Their name and contact information -- The water and sewer service address if different from their mailing address -- The period during which they paid charges to the City of Detroit -- Their water and sewer account number, if known -- The login ID and PIN from the settlement notice they received Those submitting claims for more than one account or service must submit a separate claim form for each. Payout options -- Current customers will receive a credit applied to their water account over a six-month period. -- Former customers will receive a cash refund by check mailed to the address provided on the claim form. $4.45 million settlement fund The $4,450,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: Amount not specified -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $1,780,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: To be determined -- Service award to class representative: Up to $20,000 -- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: Aug. 21, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 26, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: Sept. 25, 2026 When is the Ajax Metal Processing v. City of Detroit payout date? The settlement administrator will issue credits and refunds once the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The lawsuit alleged the City of Detroit's tiered water rates resulted in certain high-volume users being charged more than the actual cost of providing water service. The city denied these allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the risks and costs of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Pro rata payment Deadline: August 26, 2026 [GN] DLS EVENTS: Seas Sues to Recover Unpaid Regular and OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ ANDREA SEAS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DLS EVENTS, LLC; ACES EVENTS LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV24562 (Cal., Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 4, 2026) is a class action seeking injunctive relief arising from the Defendants' willful violations pursuant to the California Labor Code. The complaint cites several causes of actions against the Defendants including failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime in excess of forty hours in a workweek, failure to authorize or permit meal periods, failure to authorize or permit rest periods, failure to indemnify employees for employment-related losses or expenditures, failure to provide wage statements and unfair business practices. Plaintiff Seas worked as an hourly non-exempt employee from in or around 2015 and then again from 2019, through the present. Defendant DLS EVENTS, LLC is a Los Angeles-based hospitality, catering, and concessions company founded by CEO David Solomon. It manages food, beverage, and bar operations for major music festivals, concert venues, and sporting events nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Kacey E. Cook. Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, California 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com jklein@lelawfirm.com kcook@lelawfirm.com DOLGEN MIDWEST: Christensen Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Christensen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dolgen Midwest, LLC Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01827-JPC (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 4, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. According to the complaint, Defendant Dollar General has paid Plaintiff only three weeks of her employment despite working for approximately eight months, paid Plaintiff less than the federal minimum wage for all hours worked in any given workweek, and failed to keep accurate time and pay records for Plaintiff as required by federal and Ohio law. Plaintiff Christensen is a resident of Ohio and worked for Dollar General as an in-store helper from approximately October 1, 2025 through approximately June 18, 2026. Dolgen Midwest, LLC is an operating subsidiary and business name for Dollar General Corporation, managing discount retail store operations in parts of the midwestern United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 DOUG BLAUVELT: Boulier Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WAYNE EDWARD BOULIER II, v. DOUG BLAUVELT, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00250-JAW (D. Me.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of similarly situated individuals who were subjected to unconstitutional strip searches following virtual court proceedings conducted within the Franklin County Detection Center ("FCDC"). The proposed class consists of: "All person who, after March 20, 2020, were incarcerated at FCDC and subjected to a strip search after participating in a virtual court proceeding conducted inside the facility, regardless of the specific location where the proceeding occurred, including but not limited to Room P-10, the Intake Office, the Library, or any other internal location utilized for virtual court appearances." The evidence before the Court demonstrates that this action presents a common constitutional issue affecting multiple similarly situated individuals. The Plaintiff's claims arise from standardized institutional practice, supported by the sworn testimony of former FCDC Interim Sergeant Brooks and independently recognized by the Franklin County Board of Visitors. The Plaintiff was subjected to one of the searches following a virtual court proceeding on May 30, 2024. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g4SGoP at no extra charge. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC] DOXA INSURANCE: Padavick Files Suit in N.D. Indiana --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DOXA Insurance Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Christioher Padavick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DOXA Insurance Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00360 (N.D. Ind., Aug. 3, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. DOXA Insurance Holdings -- https://doxa.com/ -- is a private equity fund acquiring small- to medium-size managing general agents.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com DR. HAKAKIAN DENTAL: Quinonez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Blanca Quinonez, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Dr. Hakakian Dental Group, Inc. dba Magic Dental Office; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV24402 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 3, 2026), is brought to recover, among other things, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, restitution, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and penalties alleging that the Defendants have engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, and California Business and Professions Code that have damaged Plaintiff and Class Members, and contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair competition The Defendants have violated and continue to violate state wage and hour laws by, among other things: failing to pay all wages (including minimum, straight time, and overtime wages); failing to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failing to authorize or permit rest periods or provide compensation in lieu thereof; failing to reimburse necessary business expenses; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and failing to pay all wages due upon separation of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee during the Class Period and PAGA Period. The Defendants provide dental services in Los Angeles County, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Hyun, Esq. Shelly Song, Esq. Shaheen Anthony Etemadi, Esq. ARIS LLP 1 Park Plaza, Ste. 600 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: 949.807.4467 Facsimile: 949.807.4469 Email: dhyun@arisllp.com ssong@arisllp.com setemadi@arisllp.com DXC TECHNOLOGY: Settlement in Securities Class Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ DXC Technology Co. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated July 30, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2026, that, in June 2026, the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, entered an order granting final approval of a settlement of a purported securities class action lawsuit filed on Aug. 20, 2019, in said court. The action was brought against the company, certain of its directors, and a former officer of the company, among other defendants, and asserts claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The lawsuit is based on allegedly false and/or misleading statements and alleged non-disclosure of material facts concerning the company's prospects and expected performance. The putative class of plaintiffs consists of former shareholders of Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) who exchanged their CSC shares for the company's common stock. These exchanges were made pursuant to offering documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the April 2017 transaction that formed DXC. The action seeks relief on behalf of this class based on the alleged deficiencies in those offering documents and related disclosures. This had been stayed pending the outcome of a substantially similar federal action filed in the Northern District of California. The federal action was dismissed with prejudice in December 2021. Thereafter, the state court lifted the stay and entered an order permitting additional briefing by the parties. In March 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the company moved to dismiss, and in August 2022 the court granted the company's motion to dismiss but permitted plaintiffs to amend and refile their complaint. In September 2022, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which the company again moved to dismiss, and in January 2023 the court issued an order denying the company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Subsequently, in March 2023, the court entered a scheduling order setting a trial date for September 2025, which was later extended to May 2026. In May 2024, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and in July 2024, notice was provided to potential class members. In June 2025, the company reached an agreement in principle to resolve all claims in the action, and in October 2025 the parties executed a stipulation of settlement and submitted it to the court for approval. In December 2025, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement, and notice of the pending settlement was thereafter sent to class members. DXC Technology Co. is a global IT services company that provides consulting, outsourcing, and digital transformation solutions to commercial and public sector clients. It delivers services across analytics, cloud, security, and application modernization to help organizations manage and modernize their mission-critical systems. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Seeks Leave to File Supplement to Opposition ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY SCHUMAN and KYLE KELLEY, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.; AND WAL-MART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02093-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 ("Opposition"). 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=fnXkXQ 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 EPOCH HOSPITALITY: Puroll Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Carolyn Puroll, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees v. EPOCH HOSPITALITY, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-12670-BRM-EAS (E.D. Mich., Aug. 3, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and Michigan's Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act ("IWOWA") to recover unpaid overtime wages and other compensation unlawfully withheld from her and all similarly situated workers. The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week but was not paid overtime compensation. She was denied meal and rest breaks, and when she requested a break, her manager responded by asking, "Does your pussy hurt?" before ordering her back to work. Plaintiff was also required to perform work before clocking in and after clocking out, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for three years performing unskilled, non-exempt, hourly labor as part of Defendant's regular business operations. EPOCH Hospitality, LLC d/b/a EPOCH Catering contracts to manage and operate food and beverage services at the facility, including catering operations, event staffing, training and supervision of food-service employees, special-event staffing, administration, support, and related operational tasks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq. Colin H. Wilkin, Esq. HURWITZ LAW PLLC 340 Beakes St., Ste. 125 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Phone: (844) 487-9489 Email: noah@hurwitzlaw.com colin@hurwitzlaw.com F5 INC: Class Suit Dismissal Bid Filed, Deriv. Actions Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------------- F5, 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. 6, 2026, that class action and derivative lawsuits are ongoing in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. A putative securities class action filed against F5, Inc. and certain of its executives in said court captioned "Smith v. F5, Inc., et al." purportedly on behalf of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock on Oct. 27 to 28, 2025. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its executives made false or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 regarding the Company's cybersecurity capabilities. It requests monetary damages, including interest, reasonable attorney fees, expert fees, and other costs. On March 13, 2026, the court appointed Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor het Bakkersbedrijf and Stichting Bedrijfstakpensioenfonds voor de Zoetwarenindustrie as lead plaintiffs. These lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 20, 2026, asserting the same claims for the same putative class period. On July 22, 2026, the company and certain of its executives filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Additionally, two derivative lawsuits related to the securities class action were filed in February 2026 in the same court. The first lawsuit is a stockholder derivative complaint, purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the company's officers and directors, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment and requests restitution and money damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs. The other alleges violations of federal securities laws, breaches of fiduciary duty, and related state law claims, as well as a claim for contribution under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act for any liability the Company may incur as a result of the securities class action. It requests monetary damages, including interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs, and certain reforms to F5's corporate governance. On March 11, 2026, the Western District of Washington consolidated the two stockholder derivative actions under the caption In re F5 Inc. Derivative Litigation, and the derivative claims, are stayed until all motions to dismiss the securities class action have been fully resolved. F5, Inc. is a technology company that provides multi-cloud application security, delivery, and networking solutions to enterprises, service providers, and government organizations worldwide. It offers software and hardware products and services designed to ensure applications are fast, available, and secure across on-premises, cloud, and edge environments. FABLETICS LLC: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Gabrielli Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN GABRIELLI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FABLETICS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive Defendants, Case No. 26CV202657 (Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Cal., August 3, 2026) is a class action to prevent Defendant from further violating the privacy rights of California residents, and to recover statutory damages for Defendant's violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") and the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). Defendant Fabletics, LLC owns and operates the website https://www.fabletics.com Plaintiff Jonathan Gabrielli visited the Website in November 2025, during the Black Friday promotional period, to review products and promotional offers available through the Website. The complaint relates that when users visit the Website, Defendant causes numerous trackers and cookies developed and operated by Meta, Google, ContentSquare (Contentsquare SAS), LogRocket, Inc., LinkedIn, Twitter/X, Taboola, Amazon, Microsoft, TikTok, Snapchat, Pinterest, Sentry, OneTrust, AppLovin, Rokt, Afterpay, Builder.io, Site24x7, Nextdoor, Reddit, Bing, LaunchDarkly, Gonift, jsDelivr to be installed on Website visitors' internet browsers. Defendant then uses these Trackers to collect Website visitors' identifying information, as well as dozens of other data points that reveal the users' behavior and activity on the Website, subjecting the user to unwanted and intrusive communications by would-be advertisers trying to sell the same or similar product to the user over and over and over again. Because the Trackers intercept information about the Website visitors' interactions with the Website, the Trackers constitute unlawful wiretapping under ECPA and CIPA, asserts the complaint. Because the Trackers also capture Website visitors' "routing, addressing, or signaling information," the Trackers each constitute a "pen register" under CIPA. By installing and using the Trackers without Plaintiff's prior consent and without a court order, Defendant violated CIPA, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Potter, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. Isabel Rose Masanque, Esq. Naomi Butler, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine St., Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 534-1911 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 E-mail: classactions@potterhandy.com FARMERS GROUP: Wiretaps Users' Private Info, Barajas Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MARIELA BARAJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FARMERS GROUP, INC., a Nevada corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. Case 2:26-cv-08605 (C.D. Cal.; Aug. 4, 2026) is a class action over Farmer Group's installation and use of advertising platform software of data brokers and social media/advertising companies on its website without authorization of the visitors which violates the California Penal Code, California's Trap and Trace Law and applicable common law. According to the complaint, the software secretly collect data about visitors to the Defendants' website, http://farmers.comtheir devices, geolocations and activity to identify who they are, target them with unwanted marketing and track their internet browsing on an ongoing basis. The software compile the collected data and correlates it with extensive external records these third parties already have about the Californians in order to learn the identity of the Website visitors, says the suit. Plaintiff Barajas is a resident of San Francisco, California who visited the website on January 2, 2026. Farmers Group is the proprietor of the website that offers a wide range of insurance products including auto, home, and life coverage. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter K. Chu, Esq. Jaimee Hocker, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 Email: pchu@taulersmith.com jhocker@taulersmith.com FEDERAL EXPRESS: Agrees to Settle Military Leave Suit for $900,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Derricke Dennis of Military.com reports that a legal fight is preliminarily over between Federal Express Corp., the world's largest express transportation company, and two of its employees over short-term military leave. A federal court filing in Georgia shows FedEx has agreed to pay $900,000 to settle a class-action lawsuit that claimed the company failed to pay workers for military leave despite paying for other short-term leave benefits, including for jury duty and bereavement time. The plaintiffs were Charlinda Williams, now a former FedEx worker, and Richard Quichocho, a current employee. A court filing on July 31 requests preliminary approval of the settlement they struck with FedEx to end the claim filed under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. The workers argued that service members did not receive the same benefits as their civilian colleagues, which violates anti-discrimination provisions of the USERRA. Other military personnel have sued their respective employers for allegedly skirting USERRA laws. A legal fight is preliminarily over between Federal Express Corp., the world's largest express transportation company, and two of its employees over short-term military leave. A federal court filing in Georgia shows FedEx has agreed to pay $900,000 to settle a class-action lawsuit that claimed the company failed to pay workers for military leave despite paying for other short-term leave benefits, including for jury duty and bereavement time. The plaintiffs were Charlinda Williams, now a former FedEx worker, and Richard Quichocho, a current employee. A court filing on July 31 requests preliminary approval of the settlement they struck with FedEx to end the claim filed under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. The workers argued that service members did not receive the same benefits as their civilian colleagues, which violates anti-discrimination provisions of the USERRA. Other military personnel have sued their respective employers for allegedly skirting USERRA laws. "Given the uncertainty of establishing both liability and the amount of monetary relief, and as the settlement represents between 46% and 90% what the pay class would likely recover…the settlement represents a fair, reasonable and adequate result for the classes and should receive preliminary approval," Quichocho and Williams wrote in their court filing. Federal Law Allows Paid Leave For Service Members Under USERRA, an employee who takes leave to serve in the armed forces shall be permitted to use any accrued vacation or paid sick leave before such service. An employer may not require such an employee to use his or her vacation or paid sick leave during his or her service in the Armed Forces. Also, when an employee returns from military leave, he or she is entitled to the rights and benefits that he or she would have attained if he or she had remained continuously employed with the company. "Approval of a class-action settlement is a two-step process," the plaintiffs' attorney, R. Joseph Barton, of the Barton Firm LLC, told Military.com. "First, preliminary approval followed by notice to the class, and then final approval after class members have had an opportunity to comment on or object to the settlement." Williams filed suit against FedEx in March 2024. As a sergeant in the Air National Guard, Williams said she did not receive pay from FedEx when she had to take a few weeks off per year from her courier position for training exercises. Quichocho was added to the suit as a member of the U.S. Coast Guard Reserves who works for FedEx as a senior aviation maintenance technician. He claimed he lost pay while taking short-term military leave, even as other civilian FedEx workers were compensated for jury duty, bereavement and sick leave. According to last week's court filing, FedEx has agreed to provide paid short-term military leave benefits to service members, amounting to 80 hours of paid leave for full-time, non-pilot workers, in addition to 40 hours of paid leave for part-time, non-pilot workers every year. FedEx Responds to Class Action Settlement Filing In a statement released to Military.com, FedEx expressed its commitment to military member employees. "FedEx is proud of our long history of supporting team members who serve in the armed forces," the statement read. "We continue to comply with all state and federal laws with regard to military leave, and we look forward to continuing to support our team members' short-term military leave needs." The $900,000 payout will be shared among a class of about 1,100 current and former non-pilot FedEx workers who took unpaid short-term military leave from Jan. 1, 2023 through Dec. 31, 2024. When subtracting the approximate total of $300,000 in attorney fees, the plaintiffs in the case could see average payouts of about $350 per person. "We believe this is an excellent result for the classes because it provides most of the monetary relief that the pay class members could have likely obtained, and also provides (the class) with a significant amount for future paid short-term military leave," Barton said. "We commend FedEx for adopting such a policy in connection with this settlement that really shows that FedEx really values the efforts and sacrifices of its service member employees." FedEx, which is headquartered in Memphis, Tenn., employs more than 500,000 workers across the globe, according to its website. [GN] FIRST ADVANTAGE: Davis FCRA Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATASHA DAVIS, v. First Advantage Background Services Corp., Case No. 0:25-cv-62281-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a nationwide class of, hundreds, if not thousands, consumers whose consumer reports containing inaccurate, adverse criminal information were disseminated by the Defendant to third parties, in violation of the Fair Consumer Reporting Act ("FCRA"). The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: "All natural persons residing in the United States on whom, from two years prior to the filing of this Complaint to the date a class is certified, Sterling furnished a consumer report containing criminal case record entries which do not belong to that person based on an "alias" match." The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint her as Class Representative, and appoint the undersigned counsel as Class Counsel. Sterling has systematically and recklessly produced and disseminated countless consumer reports containing improperly associated adverse criminal record information regarding consumers based solely on an "alias" designation match in the relevant court records. This uniform practice is patently unreasonable and fails to ensure the maximal possible accuracy required under 15 USC 1681e(b), the suit alleges. The Defendant delivers background checks and drug screening. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jh75fR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Kanee, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 1508 SW 23 Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315 Telephone: (848) 346-4358 E-mail: joseph@marcuszelman.com FIRST CHOICE: Scheduling Conference in Enslow Suit Set for Oct. 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY ENSLOW, v. FIRST CHOICE HEALTH COMPANY LLC, et al. Case No. 5:26-cv-00153-SSS-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sykes entered an order setting scheduling conference as follows: Date: October 9, 2026 Time: 1:00 p.m. Held via Zoom videoconference The matter is set for a Scheduling Conference on the above date via Zoom videoconference. If Plaintiff has not already served the operative complaint on all Defendants, Plaintiff shall do so promptly and shall file proofs of service of the summons and complaint within three (3) days thereafter. The Joint Rule 26(f) Report must be filed at least fourteen (14) days before the Scheduling Conference A request to continue the Scheduling Conference will be granted only for good cause. The parties should refer to the Court’s Standing Order for additional guidance regarding requests for continuances. Disclosures to Clients Counsel are ordered to deliver to their clients a copy of this Order and of the Court’s Scheduling Order, which will contain the schedule the Court sets at the Scheduling Conference. Court's Website This and all other generally applicable orders of this Court are available on the Central District of California website, https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/. The Local Rules are also available on the Court’s website at https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/ court-procedures/local-rules. First Choice specializes in health plan administration, employee assistance programs and medical management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pSqrOj at no extra charge.[CC] FIVE BELOW: Himes Wins Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER HIMES, et al., v. FIVE BELOW, INC., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-03638-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge McHugh entered a judgment that will grant the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have proven that class certification is appropriate. They have established all the Rule 23(a) elements, as well as the necessary elements of Rules 23(b)(3) and 23(g). The proposed class includes: "All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Five Below, Inc. from Dec. 1, 2022 through July 16, 2024." Lead Plaintiffs have a financial interest that is representative of class members, having alleged a combined loss of more than $5 million due to the Defendants' alleged course of conduct during the class period. The Court therefore concludes that Lead Plaintiffs' interests and incentives are adequate and representative of the class. The Plaintiffs' allegations concern several allegedly false or misleading statements made with respect to (1) Defendants' "trend-right" strategy and its execution and (2) the cause and extent of inventory loss that Five Below was experiencing, i.e., "shrink," during the class period. Five Below operates as a specialty value retailer in the United States. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Aug. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IEtbY9 at no extra charge.[CC] FIVE BELOW: Must Return Unlawfully Charged Tariff Refunds --------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Tyasia Johns filed a class action lawsuit against Five Below Inc. Why: Johns claims Five Below failed to return tariff refunds it received from the federal government to consumers who bore the brunt of the tariff costs. Where: The Five Below class action lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Five Below of retaining tariff refunds from the federal government rather than returning them to consumers who bore the cost of the tariffs. Plaintiff Tyasia Johns claims Five Below passed on the cost of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economy Powers Act (IEEPA) to consumers in the form of increased pricing and failed to pass on the refunds to them. Johns argues that while the U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down the IEEPA-based tariffs, Five Below is positioned to recoup all such duties since only the importer of record can obtain tariff refunds from the government. "Companies, even those which passed the entirety of their tariff burdens onto their customers, nonetheless remain fully empowered to recover a complete refund for any unlawful tariffs paid," the Five Below class action lawsuit says. Johns wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased any goods subject to the IEEPA-based tariffs through any Five Below retail channel. She demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual damages for herself and all class members. Tariff lawsuit alleges refunds used to insulate and increase profits Johns argues Five Below was able to insulate profits from the IEEPA tariffs and successfully leverage the tariffs to increase profits at the expense of its U.S. consumer base. "As a direct result of [Five Below's] pass-through pricing, [the] plaintiff and class members paid more for tariffed goods than they would have absent the unlawful IEEPA tariffs," the Five Below class action lawsuit says. Johns claims in her tariff lawsuit that Five Below is entitled to seek a refund of the IEEPA tariffs and duties it paid and passed onto its customers by way of price increases. The plaintiff argues, however, that Five Below has not confirmed whether it has applied for refunds of the IEEPA tariffs and duties it paid or if it intends to provide its customers with any refunds for any increased prices paid as a result of the IEEPA tariffs. In a continuing wave of tariff-related lawsuits, IKEA is also facing a class action lawsuit alleging it unlawfully passed costs on to consumers. The plaintiff is represented by Andrew W. Ferich of Ahdoot & Wolfson P.C. The Five Below class action lawsuit is Johns v. Five Below Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-04954, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. [GN] GENWORTH LIFE: TVPX Wins Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for CONSOLIDATED WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, V. GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:25-cv-00184-JAG (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. entered an order that: 1. Grants the motion for class certification filed by the plaintiff, TVPX ARS, Inc.; 2. Denies in part the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Co., as it relates to standing, and grants in part that motion as it relates to the merits of the breach of contract claim; 3. Denies as moot the remaining pretrial motions in the case; and 4. Directs the Clerk to close the case. Let the Clerk send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record. Genworth offers life, accident, and health insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fkvHxH at no extra charge.[CC] GERBER PAYROLL: Continuance of Class Cert Briefing Sched Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH COGHILL, MAXWELL TAMMEN, KANDICE MAYER, SHILO FISH, KALEN TINDALL; SHANIYA BRANNON; AND SYDNEY HESS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. GERBER PAYROLL SERVICES, a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00759-SKV (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion for a six-month continuance of the Court's second order setting class certification briefing schedule and other pretrial deadlines, and for the issuance of a new class certification briefing schedule and pretrial deadlines. The parties have agreed to mediate this lawsuit and a related putative class action lawsuit, Berschauer et al. v. Gerber Payroll Services et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-01805-TLF (W.D. Wash.), which was filed on April 17, 2026, and is currently pending before the Honorable Theresa Fricke. Berschauer and this instant case are both putative class action lawsuits. The requested continuance will ensure that the parties have adequate time to coordinate the scheduling of mediation, exchange information and data relevant to mediation, have their experts analyze any data, and prepare for and conduct mediation of these two putative class action cases. Should the mediation prove unsuccessful, the parties will need additional time to complete discovery related to class-certification briefing, expert discovery, and briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification Gerber is an internal corporate payroll and human resources administration entity. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E73FfN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nolan Lim, Esq. NOLAN LIM LAW FIRM, PS 1111 3rd Avenue, Suite 1850 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 774-8874 E-mail: nolan@nolanlimlaw.com - and - Morgan Mentzer, Esq. MX LAW 710 Pacific Ave. #8 Tacoma, WA 98402 E-mail: morgan@mxlaw.net - and - Victoria Ainsworth, Esq. Jamie Serb, Esq. Zachary Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 92 Lenora St., Suite 179 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 E-mail: tori@crosnerlegal.com jamie@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Breanne Martell, Esq. Brian H. Rho, Esq. Eliza Whitworth, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 600 University St., Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-3300 E-mail: bsmartell@littler.com brho@littler.com ewhitworth@littler.com GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS: Carroll Sues Over Unsafe Therapy Products ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHARON CARROLL, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS INC., USA, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00327 (E.D. Wash., Aug. 4, 2026) is a class action arising from Glenmark's manufacture, distribution and sale of Carvedilol, a front-line therapy for the treatment of high blood pressure, congestive heart failure, and other heart-related conditions. According to the complaint, Carvedilol was contaminated with nitrosamine impurities and manufactured in manner that was not compliant with current Good Manufacturing Practices. Glenmark willfully disregarded the scientific and industry guidance, and knowingly and fraudulently manufactured, sold, labeled, marketed, or distributed adulterated or misbranded Carvedilol for purchase in the United States by consumers and third-party payors, says the suit. Plaintiff Carroll is a resident of Washington who purchased Carvedilol on or about March 16, 2024, October 4, 2024, March 31, 2025, and July 2, 2025. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. is a major pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, and distributes generic and specialty drugs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Cecily C. Jordan, Esq. 1200 5th Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 Email: kstephens@tousley.com cjordan@tousley.com - and - Ruben Honik, Esq. David J. Stanoch, Esq. HONIK LLC 1515 Market St., Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 435-1300 Email: ruben@honiklaw.com david@honiklaw.com GOOGLE LLC: $7.5MM Settlement Final Court OK Hearing Set Oct. 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that YouTube has agreed to a $7.5 million class action settlement to resolve claims it violated California's automatic renewal law with its YouTube TV subscriptions. The YouTube settlement benefits California residents who enrolled in and paid for at least one renewal term of a YouTube TV subscription between Feb. 1, 2017, and Oct. 29, 2021, excluding those who enrolled through iOS apps, had their subscriptions canceled during a free trial or received a full refund for their subscriptions. A class action lawsuit accused YouTube and Google of failing to follow California's automatic renewal law when selling YouTube TV subscriptions. This law requires companies to provide clear and conspicuous disclosures about subscription renewals and to obtain affirmative consent from consumers before charging them for renewed subscriptions. YouTube is the online video platform owned by Google. YouTube TV is a subscription service that allows users to stream live TV from various networks. YouTube has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $7.5 million to resolve the YouTube TV class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the YouTube settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Payments will be calculated on a pro rata basis. According to the YouTube TV subscription settlement website, each class member is estimated to receive $92.26. Exact payments may be higher or lower depending on the number of participating class members. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 30, 2026. The final approval hearing for the YouTube TV settlement is scheduled for Oct. 15, 2026. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 30, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits California residents who, between Feb. 1, 2017, and Oct. 29, 2021, enrolled in and paid for at least one renewal term of a YouTube TV subscription purchased via YouTube billing for personal, family or household purposes, excluding those who enrolled in YouTube TV through iOS-based mobile applications from Apple's App Store, YouTube TV subscriptions that were canceled during a free trial and YouTube TV subscriptions that were fully refunded by the defendants. Potential Award Estimated $92.26 Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 08/30/2026 Case Name Dutcher, et al. v. Google LLC d/b/a YouTube, Case No. 20CV366905, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara Final Hearing 10/15/2026 Settlement Website YouTubeTVSettlement.com Claims Administrator Dutcher v. Google LLC, et al. c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 25191 Santa Ana, CA 92799-9958 info@YouTubeTVSettlement.com (833) 421-7317 Class Counsel Neal J. Deckant Julia K. Venditti BURSOR & FISHER P.A. Defense Counsel Amit Q. Gressel WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI P.C. [GN] GREIF INC: Ryan Seeks to Certify Four Classes --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS RYAN, SUSAN RYAN, SEAN GALLAGHER, ASHLEY SULTAN GALLAGHER, MICHELE BURT, NANCY DONOVAN, and LAUREN LADUE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. GREIF, INC. et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-40089-MRG (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to certify the four classes and appoint Silver Golub & Teitell LLP as Class Counsel. The four classes are defined as follows: (1) Property Damage Class: "All persons who are or were owners of real property on or after Jan. 31, 2022, which property is within the Contamination Plume." (2) Point-of-Entry Treatment Subclass: "All persons within the Property Damage Class who own residential properties where tests done by environmental consultants approved by MassDEP detected PFAS6 at levels above 20 PPT and where point-of-entry treatment water filtration systems have been installed and maintained." (3) Consumer Class: "All persons who have purchased contaminated compost products from MassNatural during the Consumer Class Period." (4) Medical Monitoring Class: "All persons who resided at a home within the Contamination Plume between 1987 and present, and ingested water from the well supplying water to that home contaminated by PFAS6, or any natural child born to a resident who meets and/or met these criteria at the time of the child's birth." The Plaintiffs submit that the requirements of Rule 23(a) are met with respect to each of the proposed classes, and certification of each class is warranted under Rule 23(b). Greif is a producer of industrial packaging products and services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oXGtYB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ian W. Sloss, Esq. Sean K. McElligott, Esq. Johnathan Seredynski, Esq. Krystyna D. Gancoss, Esq. Kate Sayed, Esq. Samantha Blend, Esq. Alexander L. Emmons, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP One Landmark Square, 15th Floor Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 325-4491 Facsimile: (203) 325-3769 E-mail: isloss@sgtlaw.com smcelligott@sgtlaw.com jseredynski@sgtlaw.com kgancoss@sgtlaw.com ksayed@sgtlaw.com sblend@sgtlaw.com aemmons@sgtlaw.com - and - David C. Strouss, Esq. Christian Uehlein, Esq. Justin Carter, Esq. THORNTON LAW FIRM, LLP One Lincoln St., 13th Fl. State Street Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 720-1333 E-mail: dstrouss@tenlaw.com cuehlein@tenlaw.com jcarter@tenlaw.com HALFDAY TONICS: Falsely Advertised Prebiotic Iced Teas, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Halfday Tonics prebiotic iced teas are misleadingly advertised given that the beverages contain more sugar than the amount disclosed on product labels. The 44-page lawsuit contends that although Halfday Tonics touts its ready-to-drink prebiotic iced teas as a "better-for-you," low-sugar and low-calorie alternative to traditional sugary sodas and sweetened teas, with the claim that each can contains only three grams, three to five grams, or a similarly low amount of sugar, the beverages in reality contain far more sugar per can than consumers are led to expect. The Halfday Tonics beverages at issue in the false advertising lawsuit include Raspberry Iced Tea, Peach Iced Tea, Green Iced Tea, Lemon Iced Tea, Tropical Iced Tea, Sweet Iced Tea, Classic Half & Half Iced Tea & Lemonade, Watermelon Half & Half Iced Tea and Watermelon Lemonade. According to the suit, Halfday claims to provide drinks that don't contain the same "sugar burden" of other sweetened beverages, a representation that is repeated as a "central promise" across the defendant's website, packaging, and in promotional materials. The filing highlights Halfday Tonics Raspberry Iced Tea, which bears a bright green front-label callout that says "3g sugar," a claim that is reiterated in the tea's nutrition facts panel, which states "Total Sugars 3g." However, the lawsuit states that independent testing reportedly revealed that the Raspberry Iced Tea contained approximately 9.69 grams of sugar per 355 mL can, over three times the amount represented to consumers. Per the complaint, the discrepancy between the advertised amount of sugar and the actual sugar content of the drinks is more than a minor rounding issue and cannot be explained away by variations in manufacturing. Importantly, the case says that the nutrition facts panel is "not mere marketing copy" but rather a federally mandated, standardized disclosure, and consumers reasonably understand that the statements thereon are not "advertising puffery" but rather objective nutritional facts, an understanding that Halfday Tonics allegedly "exploited." "[Halfday Tonics] placed its low-sugar representations inside the very disclosure system consumers rely on to avoid being misled," the lawsuit says. "This made the representations more credible, more material, and more likely to deceive reasonable consumers seeking healthier alternatives to traditional sugary sodas and sweetened beverages." As the case tells it, Halfday had numerous opportunities to discover the true sugar content of its drinks through the formulation process, including when the company selected the sweeteners and prebiotic blends to be used, determined can sizes, created the nutrition facts panels, and prominently placed low-sugar representations in marketing materials. Many consumers seek out foods that are low in sugar, carbohydrates and calories to control health conditions such as diabetes, prediabetes and insulin resistance, and accurate information about a given food's sugar content and carbohydrates is critical to managing those conditions, the lawsuit mentions. To make matters worse, inaccurate nutrition facts panels undermine consumer trust in nutrition labels, the complaint says. The Halfday Tonics class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the United States who purchased any Halfday prebiotic iced tea beverage represented as containing three grams, three to five grams, or similarly low amounts of sugar per can, including the varieties listed on this page, within the last four years before the filing of the complaint through the date of class certification. [GN] HANG YING: Court Grants Final Opportunity for Discovery in "Luo" ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Quan Luo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hang Ying Li a/k/a Jenny Li, Defendant, 18-CV-3101 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for discovery sanctions,. The Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, and the Court confirmed the case maintained class action status. The litigation originated when the Plaintiff filed this action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York law. Although the Court entered default judgment nearly six years ago after the Defendant failed to appear, it later granted a motion to vacate the judgment,. Discovery subsequently commenced in April 2025, but the legal battle took a turn when the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant failed to comply with her discovery obligations,. The dispute intensified as the Plaintiff moved, pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to strike the Defendant's answer or, in the alternative, for an adverse inference instruction at trial. The Plaintiff claimed the Defendant failed to respond to properly served interrogatories and refused to find a mutually agreeable deposition site,,. According to the record, the Defendant unreasonably insisted on holding the deposition at her preferred location and repeatedly refused to provide her availability. Upon careful examination, the Court noted that all litigants, including those proceeding pro se, have an obligation to comply with court orders. The Court found that the Defendant had not responded to interrogatories nearly eleven months after the deadline and failed to cooperate in scheduling her deposition. The Court determined the Defendant's noncompliance was plainly willful because the instructions were simple and clear, and the Defendant understood them after they were explained in the presence of an interpreter,,. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Defendant's conduct seriously frustrated the progress of the case. While the Court expressed serious doubts that sanctions short of striking the Defendant's Answer would prove efficacious, it determined that she should be given one final opportunity to comply with her discovery obligations and the orders of the Court. Accordingly, the motion for sanctions was denied at this time. The Court ordered that no later than August 10, 2026, the Plaintiff shall re-serve the outstanding interrogatories. The Defendant was ordered to fully respond to those interrogatories and sit for a deposition in the offices of the Plaintiff's counsel no later than September 3, 2026. The Court warned that if she failed to comply with any of the terms of the order, it would almost certainly strike her Answer and re-enter default judgment against her. A copy of the Court's decision dated 03 August, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hU0kPd from PacerMonitor.com HOLLEY INC: Class Settlement in Lauderdale Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. HOLLEY INC. f/k/a EMPOWER LTD. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00148-GNS-HBB (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Stivers entered an order: -- Granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, and -- Denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion to certify class and motion to quash subpoena filed by Jeg's high performance. The Court further orders as follows: -- Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), and for purposes of this Settlement only, the Litigation is preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of: "All Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Holley securities between July 21, 2021, and Feb. 6, 2023, inclusive, and were allegedly damaged thereby." Excluded from the Class are: the Defendants and their Immediate Family Members; the current and Class Period officers, directors, and affiliates of Holley, and their legal representatives, heirs, or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest; and the legal representatives, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-interest or assigns of any such excluded party and any entity in which such excluded persons have or had a controlling interest. Also excluded from the Class is any Person who would otherwise be a Member of the Class but who validly and timely requests exclusion in accordance with the requirements set by the Court in connection with the Settlement. -- Lead Plaintiff City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees' Retirement System is preliminarily certified as Class Representative, and Lead Counsel Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is preliminarily certified as Class Counsel. -- A hearing shall be held before this Court on Nov. 9, 2026, at 9:30 AM CT (the "Settlement Hearing"). The Class members will share in a settlement in the amount of $12,750,000. The Plaintiff City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees' Retirement System filed this putative class action under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") against the Defendants. The Retirement System alleges that Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding Holley's distribution strategy and integration of acquired companies. Holley designs, manufactures, and distributes performance automotive products. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Aug. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UkMVFg at no extra charge.[CC] ILIOS TAVERNA INC: Marinez Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ilios Taverna Inc., et al. The case is styled as Eduardo Marinez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Ilios Taverna Inc., Bellini Italian Restaurant Inc., Astrit Gjini, Zamira Gjini, Christopher Gjini, Case No. 815137/2026E (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., Aug. 3, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Torts (NYLL Article 6, 19)." Ilios Taverna Inc. -- https://iliostaverna.com/ -- is a Mediterranean restaurant that serves authentic Mediterranean and Greek cuisine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Arcadio Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 490 Wheeler Rd., Ste. 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Phone: (631) 204-8845 JOEL ANDERSON: Al-Haqq Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joel Anderson, et al. The case is styled as Bilal A. Al-Haqq, and all similarly situated v. Joel Anderson; Warden Timothy Duncan; Gwen Hall, IGC; Ms. Johnson; A/W Andrews; Mr. Mullins, Medical Director; Ms. Williams, Classification Supv.; Lt. Johnson; Ms. Briggs, HCA; Mr. Thomas, Mental Health Supvs; Ms. Karris, Medical Concern; Mr. Tomas, Medical Concern; Broad River Executive Staff; Dr. Furness; Dr. Days; Ms. Brown, NP; Ms. Cindy, Physical Therapist; Board of Corrections; Ms. Pugh; Adrian Phillips; Dr. Bruce Lobitz; Ms. Eickenberger, Mailroom Supv; Case No. 2:26-cv-03191-SAC-MGB (D.S.C., Aug. 3, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Prison Condition for Civil Rights Act.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. JOSEPH BIDEN: Haitian Bridge Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAITIAN BRIDGE ALLIANCE et al., v. BIDEN et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03317-JMC (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification. Specifically, the Plaintiffs request that the Court certify a proposed class of: "All persons who were in the CBP Encampment near the Del Rio Port of Entry between Sept. 9 and 24, 2021, were expelled to Haiti on or between Sept. 9, 2021 and Dec. 31, 2021, have not been fully screened by the Defendants for withholding of removal or CAT protections, and are physically outside the United States ("Class" or "Class Members")." Class certification is not only appropriate but necessary to ensure the efficient adjudication of Class Members' claims consistent with the purposes of Rule 23—as courts addressing similar class certification motions have repeatedly held, the Plaintiffs aver. The Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendants on Dec. 20, 2021, asserting procedural and substantive due process claims under the Fifth Amendment and claims under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Biden is an American former politician. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8y3Ky0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erik Crew, Esq. HAITIAN BRIDGE ALLIANCE 4560 Alvarado Canyon Road, Suite 1H San Diego, CA 92120 Telephone: (949) 603-7411 E-mail: ecrew@haitianbridge.org - and - Stanley Young, Esq. Alexander L. Schultz, Esq. Maura A. Sokol, Esq. Aurora L. Jaques, Esq. Megan L. Pritchard, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP 3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 632-4704 E-mail: syoung@cov.com aschultz@cov.com msokol@cov.com ajaques@cov.com mpritchard@cov.com - and - Karen C. Tumlin, Esq. Esther H. Sung, Esq. Vanessa Rivas-Bernardy, Esq. Laura Flores-Perilla, Esq. Hillary Li, Esq. Brandon Galli-Graves, Esq. Emily Satifka, Esq. JUSTICE ACTION CENTER Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 316-0944 Facsimile: (323) 450-7276 E-mail: karen.tumlin@justiceactioncenter.org esther.sung@justiceactioncenter.org vanessa.rivasbernardy@justiceactioncenter.org laura.flores-perilla@justiceactioncenter.org hillary.li@justiceactioncenter.org brandon.galli-graves@justiceactioncenter.org emily.satifka@justiceactioncenter.org - and - Stephen Manning, Esq. Rachel Landry, Esq. Jordan Cunnings, Esq. Rosa Saavedra Vanacore, Esq. INNOVATION LAW LAB 333 SW Fifth Avenue #200 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 922-3042 Facsimile: (503) 882-0281 E-mail: stephen@innovationlawlab.org rachel@innovationlawlab.org jordan@innovationlawlab.org rosa@innovationlawlab.org KABC TELEVISION: Williams Sues to Recover Statutory and OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER M. WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KABC TELEVISION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV24525 (Cal., Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 4, 2026) is a class action seeking damages arising from the Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code and unfair business practices. The complaint alleges that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked, failed to provide meal periods, failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff to take uninterrupted rest periods failed to indemnify Plaintiff for necessary business expenses, failed to timely pay all final wages to Plaintiff upon his termination and failed to furnish accurate wage statements to Plaintiff. Plaintiff Williams is a resident of California and worked for Defendants in the County of Los Angeles as an hourly, non-exempt News Writer since approximately December 2023. KABC Television LLC is a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company that operates the ABC owned-and-operated station KABC-TV in Los Angeles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. Tiffany Hyun, Esq. Sean Hardy, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 985-1150 Facsimile: (213) 985-2155 KIA AMERICA: Bicek Sues Over Defective Kia Motor Vehicles --------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS BICEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIA AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-02068 (C.D. Cal., July 31, 2026) alleges violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant Kia's model year 2023-2025 Telluride vehicles equipped with a 12.3-inch fully digital instrument cluster ("Vehicles" or "Class Vehicles") are defective and unsafe. They contain a defective instrument cluster which may cause the display to intermittently flicker, malfunction, become corrupted, turn off, or go completely blank during startup or vehicle operation (the "Cluster Defect" or "Defect"). When the Defect manifests, drivers may lose access to critical information ordinarily displayed through the cluster display screen, including vehicle speed, fuel level, warning lights, turn-signal indicators, tire-pressure warnings, driver-assistance alerts, and other telltales and indicators necessary to operate the Vehicles safely. The unexpected loss of this information distracts drivers, impairs their ability to assess and respond to changing vehicle and roadway conditions, and increases the risk of a collision. Kia Motors America, Inc. operates as an automobile dealer. The Company offers passenger cars, minivans, sports utility vehicles, crossovers, sedans, vans, and cargo trucks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, California 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (917) 336-0171 Facsimile: (917) 336-0177 Email: bking@ahdootwolfson.com LANDRY'S INC: Sandoval Sues to Recover Unpaid Regular and OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ JESUS ARREGUIN SANDOVAL and VICTOR MANUEL RAMIREZ, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiffs v. LANDRY'S, INC., MCCORMICK & SCHMICK RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a MASTRO'S STEAKHOUSE, 675 HUDSON VAULT, LLC, d/b/a DOS CAMINOS, and JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-06670 (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2026) is a collective and class action arising from the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law and for common law claims of breach of contract or unjust enrichment. The complaint cites several causes of actions against the Defendants including failure to pay proper minimum wages and proper overtime rates due to Defendants' invalid tip credit policy and unlawful tip retention, failure to pay all hours worked due to time shaving during purported meal breaks and failure to properly compensate sick leave and paid time off. Plaintiff Sandoval and Ramirez worked as bussers receiving sub minimum wage rates at the restaurants owned by Defendants in New York City. Defendant LANDRY'S INC. owns and operates hundreds of dining, hospitality, entertainment, and gaming brands and destinations throughout the United States through JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-100. The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 LKQ PICK: Parties Must Submit Joint Status Report by Sept. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Short v. LKQ Pick Your Part Central, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-01178 (D. Kan., Filed Aug. 15, 2025), the Hon. Judge Holly L. Teeter entered an order granting in part unopposed motion to stay case-management deadlines. The Court ordered the parties to submit a joint, email status report on or before Sept. 10, 2026. The parties are instructed to inform the Court whether the case has been resolved. If it has not, the parties are to provide the Court with their proposed deadline for the motion for class certification as well as an update on the status of the outstanding discovery issue referenced by defense counsel (including whether a pre-motion conference will be needed). The nature of suit states Diversity-Fraud. LKQ Pick is a regional operating entity and corporate subsidiary associated with the self-service salvage yard network previously owned by LKQ Corporation.[CC] LOWE'S COMPANIES: Consumer Sues Over Defective Kobalt Power Tools ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Robby Yu filed a class action lawsuit against Lowe's Companies Inc. and Greenworks North America LLC. Why: Yu claims the companies designed, marketed, distributed and sold certain Kobalt-branded power tools that have a dangerous battery defect. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Lowe's and Greenworks of selling certain Kobalt-branded power tools that have a dangerous battery defect that poses a serious risk of fire and injury to consumers. Plaintiff Robby Yu claims the companies designed, marketed, distributed and sold certain Kobalt-branded power tools equipped with defective lithium-ion batteries that can short-circuit when charged through the USB-C port while the batteries are inserted in the tools. The class action lawsuit comes after Lowe's and Greenworks recalled 554,780 Kobalt-branded garden tools sold in Lowe's retail stores and on Lowes.com from January 2026 through May 2026. Yu wants to represent a nationwide class and California subclass of consumers who purchased the Kobalt tools for personal use and not for resale. Lowe's, Greenworks allegedly failed to provide consumers with adequate remedy Kobalt issued a recall after the companies received 34 reports of batteries producing smoke, sparking or catching fire due to the defect, Yu claims. Yu argues Lowe's and Greenworks failed to provide consumers with an adequate remedy for the defect, which he claims was present at the point of purchase and leaves the Kobalt tools unsafe, unfit for use and worth substantially less than represented or warranted. "Instead of providing a proper remedy, [the] defendants merely instructed consumers to submit a request to arrange a battery replacement," the Kobalt tools class action lawsuit says. Yu claims Lowe's and Greenworks are guilty of unjust enrichment and breach of implied warranties and violated California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Yu demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, statutory, actual and monetary damages for himself and all class members. Earlier this year, Lowe's Home Centers was hit with a class action lawsuit for allegedly failing to disclose that it adds a separate delivery fee to the total price of products sold online. The plaintiff is represented by Michael Connett, Mason A Barney and Leslie Pescia of Siri & Glimstad LLP and Kevin Laukaitis and Andreas Moffett of Laukaitis Law LLC. The Kobalt tools class action lawsuit is Yu v. Lowe's Companies Inc., et al., Case No. 5:26-cv-07295, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] LOWE'S COMPANIES: Utilitech Lights Pose Serious Burn Risks ---------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of Classaction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Lowe's has failed to properly disclose that its Utilitech 7500-Lumens Halogen Plug-In Stand Work Lights can become dangerously hot during ordinary use, posing a risk of serious burns. The 46-page defective products lawsuit says that although Lowe's represents that the Utilitech work lights at issue are "designed with an eye on safety" and are safe, high-quality, and easy to install for residential or commercial projects, the exterior surface of the product can become "dangerously hot to the touch," such that it can cause severe burns during regular use. The case alleges that Lowe's has failed to warn consumers that the exterior surface of the work lights -- including the die-cast aluminum rear yellow housing, its surrounding surfaces, and the on/off switch -- can become hot enough to immediately burn skin on contact. The suit claims that the only warnings about the Utilitech work lights are "buried" in the instruction and troubleshooting manual, which cannot be viewed until a consumer has already purchased the product. Moreover, the complaint says that the manual includes only generic, inadequate warnings, such as "Be Extremely Careful When Using This Device" or "only touch the power plug or cushioned handle when turning the lamp head ON or OFF," that fail to convey that the lights and their on/off switches can reach extremely hot temperatures. The class action suit claims that Lowe's and Utilitech are "deeply familiar" with the thermal characteristics of halogen lights and knew or should have known that the exterior of the Utilitech product would reach unreasonably hot temperatures. Moreover, Lowe's used Intertek, an independent testing laboratory, to evaluate the lights' performance in wet conditions, but failed to ensure that the product was thermally safe and free from temperature-related defects, the case claims. Importantly, the lawsuit says that several models of Utilitech retail fluorescent lighting sold by Lowe's between 2011 and 2015 were recalled in the United States and Canada after another retailer received numerous complaints of sockets overheating, melting or arcing, posing a serious fire hazard. The filing says that one plaintiff used the light for a home renovation project after reviewing advertising and marketing materials touting the safety of the product. Per the case, "within minutes" of turning on the light, the ambient temperature in the room increased by eight degrees, and within 30 minutes the light caused an approximate 21-degree increase in the ambient temperature. The plaintiff then used an infrared thermometer to measure the "tremendous" amount of heat generated by the halogen work light, which revealed that the front of the lamp had reached approximately 495°F, the rear yellow housing reached approximately 289°F, and the on/off switch reached about 121°F, per the complaint. According to the case, the safety risk is made more apparent when considering that the work lights are often used in bedrooms, garages and workspaces, where individuals, their family members and pets are likely to encounter the exterior surface of the lights. The Lowe's class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the United States who purchased or used the Utilitech 7500-Lumens Halogen Plug-in Stand Work Light, model #1107083, from July 22, 2021 to the present. [GN] LUCID GROUP: Seeks Leave to File Supplement to Opposition --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re Lucid Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:22-cv-02094-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to file the attached three-page supplement in further opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification to address a significant new decision. Leave to file the proposed short supplement will allow defendants to address the import of Boeing and respond to additional argument on this question first raised in the Plaintiff's reply and the accompanying reply report of the Plaintiff's expert, the Defendants say. The requested supplement is limited to three pages and does not reopen the broader class certification briefing. It will allow the Court to evaluate Boeing's application to the existing record, including the arguments first developed in the Plaintiff's reply, without prejudice to the Plaintiff, which remains free to seek leave to submit its own short response. Because focused supplemental briefing will materially assist the Court and impose minimal burden, defendants request that the motion be granted, the Defendants add. Lucid Group is an American automotive and technology company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DUhQIK at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Shon Morgan, Esq. Kurt E. Wolfe, Esq. Ryan P. Gorman, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 E-mail: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com kurtwolfe@quinnemanuel.com ryangorman@quinnemanuel.com LUMINA HEALTHCARE: Cope Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lumina Healthcare LLC, et al. The case is styled as David Cope, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumina Healthcare LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0011424 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Aug. 3, 2026). The case type is stated "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Lumina HealthCare LLC -- https://luminahealthcare.com/ -- is a private mobile healthcare provider headquartered at 5220 Pacific Concourse Drive, Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Yslas, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wishire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 213-255-3937 Email: jyslas@wilshirelawfirm.com MAXIM ERMILOV: Newton Bid for Preliminary Injunction Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEWTON AC/DC FUND, L.P., et al., v. MAXIM ERMILOV, Case No. 5:26-cv-05055-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order denying the motion for a preliminary injunction. The Defendant's response to the amended complaint is due within 30 days of the issuance of this order. Because the plaintiffs do not establish that their suit is likely to succeed on the merits or that the balance of hardships favors them, the Court denies the motion. The balance of hardships does not tip sharply in the plaintiffs' favor, precluding the Court from granting a preliminary injunction under the "serious questions" standard, the Court adds. The Plaintiffs assert their claims on behalf of a proposed class of: "All people and entities who currently hold OVN cryptocurrency tokens." The Plaintiffs allege that Ermilov breached a contract and fraudulently transferred over $15 million in cryptocurrency. They seek a constructive trust over the assets at issue. The Plaintiffs now move for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Ermilov from transferring those assets pending resolution of this action. Ermilov is the founder of Overnight, a company located and domiciled in the Cayman Islands. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VdXuOs at no extra charge.[CC] META PLATFORMS: Class Certification Bid Filing Due August 21 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-04181-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Illston entered an order for class certification briefing and class certification expert disclosure deadlines: Event Deadline The Plaintiff's deadline to File: Aug. 21, 2026 (1) motion for class certification not to exceed 30 pages and (2) expert reports related to class certification: The Defendant's deadline to file: (1) Sept. 25, 2026 response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification not to exceed 30 pages and (2) expert reports related to class certification: The Plaintiff's deadline to file: (1) Oct. 23, 2026 reply in support of class certification not to exceed 18 pages and (2) rebuttal expert reports related to class certification: Hearing on Motion for Class Certification November 20, 2026 Meta is a provider of social networking, advertising, and business insight solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K2nYUU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mike Arias, Esq. Elise R. Sanguinetti, Esq. Arnold C. Wang, Esq. M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq. Craig S. Momita, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TEAM LLP 6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 844-9696 Facsimile: (310) 861-0168 E-mail: mike@aswtlawyers.com elise@aswtlawyers.com arnold@aswtlawyers.com craig@aswtlawyers.com anthony@aswtlawyers.com - and - Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq. Kevin P. Green, Esq. Thomas C. Horscroft, Esq. Daniel S. Levy, Esq. GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C. 2227 South State Route 157 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-5150 E-mail: tom@ghalaw.com kevin@ghalaw.com thorscroft@ghalaw.com daniel@ghalaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. Michael Brandon, Esq. Christopher Chorba, Esq. Diana Feinstein, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com mbrandon@gibsondunn.com cchorba@gibsondunn.com dfeinstein@gibsondunn.com - and - Gary S. Feinerman, Esq. Kathryn K. George, Esq. Robert C. Collins III, Esq. Sean Berkowitz, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 330 N. Wabash Ave., Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 876-7700 E-mail: gary.feinerman@lw.com katie.george@lw.com robert.collins@lw.com sean.berkowitz@lw.com META PLATFORMS: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Hearing ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKHAIL GERSHZON and ANACLETO DELEON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00083-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their stipulation to continue the hearing on the motion for class certification to Sept. 9, 2026, or another date convenient to the Court. After the parties stipulated to the Aug. 26, 2026 hearing date, a personal circumstance arose that renders counsel principally responsible for arguing the Motion for Class Certification on Meta's behalf unavailable on that date. The first date after Aug. 26, 2026 on which such counsel are available is Sept. 9, 2026; they are alternatively available on Sept. 15, 2026; and the Plaintiffs' counsel are available on either date. Meta is a provider of social networking, advertising, and business insight solutions. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CpHcnr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Melissa Gardner, Esq. Michael W. Sobol, Esq. David T. Rudolph, Esq. John D. Maher, Esq. Linnea D. Pittman, Esq. Wesley Dozier, Esq. Melissa Gardner, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: msobol@lchb.com drudolph@lchb.com mgardner@lchb.com jmaher@lchb.com lpittman@lchb.com wdozier@lchb.com mgardner@lchb.com - and - Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq. Allen Carney, Esq. Courtney E. Ross, Esq. Connor Thompson, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com acarney@cbplaw.com cross@cbplaw.com cthompson@cbplaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Melanie Marilyn Blunschi, Esq. Kristin I Sheffield-Whitehead, Esq. Catherine Anne Rizzoni, Esq. Dianne Kim, Esq. Marissa Alter-Nelson, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 Facsimile: (415) 395-8095 E-mail: melanie.blunschi@lw.com kristin.whitehead@lw.com cat.rizzoni@lw.com dianne.kim@lw.com marissa.alter-nelson@lw.com - and - Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. Darcy C. Harris, Esq. Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com dharris@gibsondunn.com emccloskey@gibsondunn.com abarrera@gibsondunn.com MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Class Settlement in Schuman Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER SCHUMAN, et al., v. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-05544-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court acknowledges that the parties submitted a proposed timeline as part of their motion. However, because the proposal included placeholder dates tied to the date of the Preliminary Approval Order, the parties are directed to meet and confer and stipulate to a schedule of dates for each event listed below, which shall be submitted to the Court within seven days of the date of this Order: Deadline for emailing notice to all Class Members Filing deadline for attorneys’ fees and costs motion Filing deadline for incentive awards motion Deadline for Class Members to opt-out or object to settlement and/or application for attorneys’ fees and costs and incentive awards (at least 45 days after the filing of the motion for attorneys’ fees and incentive awards) Filing deadline for final approval motion Final fairness hearing and hearing on motions The parties are further directed to implement the proposed class notice plan with the edits identified above. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants (1) failed to pay severance benefits owed under the Atmel Corporation U.S. Severance Guarantee Benefit Program; and (2) improperly solicited release of claims from class members in exchange for partial benefits under the Plan. The Court previously certified a class defined as: "All former U.S.-based employees of defendant Atmel Corporation who were employed as of the April 4, 2016 closing date of the AtmelMicrochip merger and who were terminated by defendant Microchip Technology Incorporated without cause between April 4, 2016 and March 19, 2017." Microchip is an American publicly traded semiconductor corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=49rY9O at no extra charge.[CC] MILES PARTNERSHIP: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Miles Partnership data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Miles Partnership data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Miles Partnership Security Incident: What Happened? Tourism marketing firm Miles Partnership has reported a data breach involving sensitive information. According to a July 31, 2026 report filed with the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, the Miles Partnership data breach potentially exposed Social Security numbers, financial account information and driver's license data. The incident was reported on the same day to the Vermont Attorney General's Office, which added that credit and debit account information may have also been impacted. A sample notification letter sent to individuals affected by the Miles data breach can be seen below. Miles Partnership, based in Florida, has worked with over 130 destinations, businesses and travel industry clients worldwide, including dozens of domestic tourism markets. What You Can Do After the Miles Partnership Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Miles Partnership data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Miles Partnership to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] MONEY SOURCE: Agrees to Settle Unwanted Calls Class Suit for $1.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that the Money Source (TMS) has agreed to a $1,500,000 settlement to end a class action lawsuit that alleged the mortgage lender and servicer unlawfully called cell phones using an artificial or prerecorded voice after consumers requested that the calls stop. The Money Source class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 25, 2026. The deal covers all individuals in the United States or its territories to whom The Money Source placed, or caused to be placed, a call directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service and that appears on the document produced at TMS005442, in connection with which TMS used an artificial or prerecorded voice after the called party requested that TMS stop placing telephone calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice to their cell phone, as recorded in TMS's business records, from February 6, 2019 through May 7, 2025. The court-approved website for The Money Source class action settlement can be found at MoneySourceTCPAClassAction.com. Settlement class members do not need to take action to automatically receive a pro rata cash payment. The final amount of each class member's cash payout will depend on, among other factors, the number of calls they received after requesting that The Money Source stop placing calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice to their cell phone. Class members who wish to exclude themselves from the TMS settlement must mail a signed letter with the case name, their contact information, the cell phone number where they received a prerecorded voice call, and a request for exclusion to the settlement administrator. All requests for exclusion must be postmarked by October 7, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to The Money Source robocall settlement following a hearing on November 16, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Money Source class action lawsuit alleged that the Arizona-based mortgage lending and loan servicing company violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing prerecorded and/or artificial voice calls to consumers who had already requested that the calls stop. [GN] MONROE ENERGY: Mielnik Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brian Mielnik, Michelle Mielnik, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Monroe Energy, LLC, MIPC, LLC also known as: Monroe Interstate Pipeline Company, Case No. 260701519 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 3, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05487-GJP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land for Real Property. Monroe Energy, LLC -- https://www.monroe-energy.com/ -- operates an oil refinery business.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shanon J. Carson, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market St., Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-4656 Fax: (215) 875-4674 Email: scarson@bergermontague.com The Defendants are represented by: Melanie S. Carter, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP One Logan Square 130 N. 18th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 569-5720 Email: melanie.carter@blankrome.com MORRISVILLE DRY: Davis Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- LEROY DAVIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MORRISVILLE DRY CLEANERS, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00543 (E.D.N.C., August 3, 2026) arises from Defendant's persistent disregard for federal law, specifically, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint relates that to avoid unsolicited telemarketing calls, Plaintiff personally placed his telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call Registry on November 22, 2023. Since then, Plaintiff has not removed his telephone number from the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Plaintiff has never been a customer of Defendant, nor consented to text messages from Defendant. Despite this, Defendant sent text messages to Plaintiff with the purpose of advertising Defendant's business which included dry-cleaning specials. Defendant uses unlawful and invasive telemarketing tactics to drum up business, asserts the complaint. And Defendant flooded Plaintiff with invasive telemarketing solicitations in clear violation of the TCPA. Plaintiff has never consented to receive the alleged telephone solicitations from Defendant, says the suit. The Plaintiff, therefore, brings this class action on behalf of himself and all others harassed by Defendant and its unlawful telemarketing tactics. The Plaintiff and National Do-Not-Call Class Members seek statutory damages for each unlawful telephone call, and seek injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant from making further unlawful telephonic solicitations to Plaintiff and National Do-Not-Call Class Members. Plaintiff LeRoy Davis has been the sole owner of the residential telephone number (312) 320-XXXX. Defendant Morrisville Dry Cleaners is a full-service dry-cleaning business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruth A. Sheehan, Esq. Joel R. Rhine, Esq. Justin P. Hayes, Esq. JoAnna S. Ivey, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C. 1612 Military Cutoff Road Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 772-9960 E-mail: ras@rhinelawfirm.com jrr@rhinelawfirm.com jph@rhinelawfirm.com jsi@rhinelawfirm.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Cassandra P. Miller, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: cmiller@straussborrelli.com MYRTLE BEACH, SC: Court Stays Class Cert Briefing ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as James Daniel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. City of Myrtle Beach SC, Case No. 4:25-cv-01231-SAC (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to stay class certification briefing and staying the current scheduling order until 30 days following the Court's ruling on the parties' pending Cross Motions for Summary Judgment. Because summary judgment may either dispose of the action or narrow the claims at issue, deciding the parties' Cross Motions for Summary Judgment before requiring class certification briefing best serves judicial economy, the Court says. The Defendant filed its motion on July 9, 2026, and the Plaintiff filed a Response on July 23, 2026. Myrtle Beach is a major coastal resort city in Horry County, South Carolina, sitting at the heart of the "Grand Strand"—a continuous 60-mile (97 km) stretch of pristine beach A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vk4bZ6 at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL HOME HEALTH: Yeh Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Home Health Services - West, Inc. The case is styled as Katerina Yeh, Alex Rudakov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Home Health Services - West, Inc., Case No. 26CV202617 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Aug. 3, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." National Home Health Services -- https://nationalhha.com/ -- is a health care provider based in California, United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Tojarieh, Esq. STONEBROOK LAW 10250 Constellation Blvd, Ste 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6251 Phone: 310-553-5533 Fax: 310-553-5536 Email: jft@stonebrooklaw.com NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE: Calderon Suit Stayed Until August 28 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Manuel Angel Calderon v. Network Infrastructure, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-05442-ALC-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered an order granting the joint stipulation for a 30-day stay of the proceedings. This action is stayed until Aug. 28, 2026. No outstanding discovery is impacted by this stay. Network Infrastructure is a NY-based utility contracting company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e5kAKP at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Edward Grimmett, Esq. KAUFMAN DOLOWICH LLP 135 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 201 Woodbury, NY 11797 Telephone: (516) 681-1100 E-mail: egrimmett@kaufmandolowich.com NEW OCCASION BRANDS: Powell Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Occasion Brands, LLC. The case is styled as Maria Powell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. New Occasion Brands, LLC, Case No. 815117/2026E (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., Aug. 3, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Torts (Disability)." New Occasion Brands, LLC -- https://www.occasionbrands.com/ -- is an online source of special occasion fashions, formal ware, dresses, and fashion accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 324-2897 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com NEWARK, NJ: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in "Deleva" ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Vincent Deleva, Jamie Pinto, and Elddy Torres, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of Newark, Defendant, No. 25-cv-2256 (MEF)(SDA) (D.N.J.), Judge Michael E. Farbiarz of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs brought the action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, and the Court noted the Plaintiffs sought to represent a class. Three police department employees sued the city that operated the department. The gist of the lawsuit was that the Plaintiffs were paid less than they were supposed to under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. In particular, the Plaintiffs claimed they received less overtime pay because the Defendant miscalculated their regular rate of pay. Per the Plaintiffs, the Defendant was required to bake certain bonus payments into its calculation of the regular rate of pay, but the Defendant did not do so and the Plaintiffs were shortchanged. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, mainly arguing that the Court should compel arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement. The Defendant argued that the Plaintiffs' claims depended on a disputed interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement provision because any determination as to whether certain bonus payments were included in the regular rate of pay must be drawn from what happens under the employment contract. Upon careful examination, a plaintiff's statutory claims must be arbitrated pursuant to an employment agreement only when the agreement's arbitration provision clearly and unmistakably waives the ability to vindicate statutory rights in court. The Court found that the test was not met here. The Defendant pointed to no provision in the governing collective bargaining agreement that explicitly said anything about arbitration for statutory claims in general. Therefore, the Court concluded that the relevant arbitration provision did not establish a clear and unmistakable waiver of the Plaintiffs' ability to come to court and sue for the alleged violations of their statutory rights. Whether the wage differentials should be included in the regular rate of pay depended not on any labels assigned to them by the agreement, but on whether they fit into one of the statutory exclusions. The Plaintiffs' statutory claims did not depend on the disputed interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement provision. Accordingly, there was no basis for compelling arbitration and the motion was denied. The Court observed that the complaint did not explicitly allege that each Plaintiff received each sort of bonus payment, which may create Article III standing problems. Hence, on or before August 7, the Plaintiffs were ordered to file a letter indicating how they sought to proceed and whether they would seek leave to replead. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/R5GWZMQ/DeLeva_et_al_v_CITY_OF_NEWARK__njdce-25-02256__0022.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA from PacerMonitor.com NEWELL BRANDS: Faces 2 Class Suits Seeking IEEPA Tariff Refunds --------------------------------------------------------------- Newell Brands 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 July 31, 2026, that it has been named as a defendant in two putative class action lawsuits filed on May 22, 2026 and July 6, 2026 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The complaints allege that the company received windfall profits due to price increases taken in response to the invalidated International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) Tariffs and seek a return of the above described IEEPA Tariff refund to affected consumers. Newell Brands Inc. is a global consumer products company that designs, manufactures, and distributes household, commercial, and specialty branded goods across a range of categories. Its portfolio includes well-known brands in home appliances, writing instruments, home fragrance, outdoor and recreation, and home solutions. NIC & ZOE COMPANY: Oh Sues Over Fictitious Regular Prices --------------------------------------------------------- Judy Oh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NIC & ZOE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, d/b/a WWW.NICANDZOE.COM, Case No. (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 3, 2026), is brought under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") against the Defendant who advertises fictitious regular prices (and corresponding phantom discounts) on products sold through its website at www.nicandzoe.com (the "Website"). This practice allows Defendant to fabricate a fake "reference price," and present the actual price as "discounted," when it is not. The result is a sham price disparity that is per se illegal under California law. The Plaintiff s counsel routinely monitored the Product's sales price on Defendant's Website in the period between the two dates referenced in the preceding paragraphs, and has confirmed that the Product purchased by Plaintiff was not offered for sale on Defendant's Website primarily at the reference price during that period, such that the reference price was not the "prevailing price" for the Product during the period. The Defendant knows that the prices for the Product are fake and artificially inflated and intentionally uses them in its deceptive pricing scheme on its Website to increase sales and profits by misleading consumers to believe that they are buying products at a substantial discount. Defendant thereby induces customers to buy products they never would have bought—or at the very least, to pay more for merchandise than they otherwise would have if Defendant was simply being truthful about its "sales," says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a product named "Lucas Jack Resin Band Ring" (the "Product") from Defendant's Website on June 9, 2026. The Defendant, through its Website, offers products for sale to California consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Settles Spam Texts Class Action for $18.8MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that O'Reilly Automotive Inc. has agreed to a more than $18.8 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the auto parts retailer unlawfully sent telemarketing text messages to phone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry without consent. The $18,842,577 O'Reilly Automotive class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 29, 2026. The deal covers all individuals in the United States whose telephone numbers were registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 30 days and who received more than one text message from or on behalf of O'Reilly Automotive within any 12-month period after the telephone number was reassigned to them from April 15, 2021 to June 29, 2026. Individuals who made an online or in-store purchase from O'Reilly Automotive in the 18 months preceding the text messages may have their settlement claims denied, the settlement website states. The court-approved website for the O'Reilly Automotive class action settlement can be found at OReillyRNDSettlement.com. O'Reilly Automotive settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive an estimated $22 cash payment, with no proof required. To submit an O'Reilly Automotive settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the claim ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All O'Reilly Automotive settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by September 28, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the O'Reilly Automotive text message settlement following a hearing on November 5, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The O'Reilly Automotive class action lawsuit alleged that the Springfield, Missouri-based auto parts retailer sent telemarketing text messages to consumers whose phone numbers were on the National Do-Not-Call Registry and who did not consent to receiving the texts, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. [GN] ONEPOINT PATIENT: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.115MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that OnePoint Patient Care has agreed to a $2,115,000 settlement to conclude a class action lawsuit that alleged the hospice pharmacy services provider failed to protect private information in its care from an August 2024 data breach. The more than $2.1 million OnePoint Patient Care class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on May 28, 2026. The deal covers all living United States residents whose private information may have been accessed during the data breach, including all who were sent notice by OnePoint that their information may have been impacted in the cyber incident. Court documents state that approximately 528,452 people are potentially included in the settlement class. The court-approved website for the OnePoint Patient Care class action settlement can be found at OnePointSettlement.com. OnePoint Patient Care settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $3,500 for documented out-of-pocket losses related to the data breach. This benefit covers costs for credit reports, credit monitoring, identity theft insurance, bank fees, long-distance phone charges, certain cell phone and data charges, postage, gasoline for local travel, and more. Class members must submit proof, such as emails or receipts, to receive a documented-loss payment. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members can file a claim form to receive an estimated $100 pro rata cash payment, with no proof required. The final amount of each class member's cash payout may be increased or decreased, depending on the total number of valid claims filed, among other factors. To submit a OnePoint Patient Care settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All OnePoint Patient Care claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by October 8, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the OnePoint settlement following a hearing on September 23, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The OnePoint Patient Care class action lawsuit alleged that the hospice pharmacy and pharmacy benefits manager failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect sensitive information from a data breach on or around August 8, 2024. Court documents state that private information that may have been compromised during the breach included names, addresses, facility locations, and medical information. [GN] OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: $70M Class Deal Funded in ABD Interest Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oppenheimer 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 July 31, 2026, that a putative class action titled "Liberty Capital Group, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Oppenheimer Holdings Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., and Oppenheimer Asset Management Inc." is being settled. On June 6, 2025, said complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff purports to represent customers who had cash deposits or balances in the Advantage Bank Deposit (ABD) program. Plaintiff alleges that the company paid customers unreasonably low interest rates in the ABD program and seeks unspecified damages. On Aug. 8, 2025, Oppenheimer filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on a number of grounds. On Oct. 4, 2025, the court issued an order dismissing Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. and Oppenheimer Asset Management Inc. from the case and granting in part and denying in part Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.'s motion to dismiss. On Oct. 21, 2025, plaintiff moved for class certification, which Oppenheimer opposed. On Dec. 8, 2025, the court issued its decision granting class certification on plaintiff's causes of action for breach of the terms and conditions and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The case was scheduled for trial commencing last June. On April 24, 2026, the parties entered into a settlement of the litigation pursuant to which Oppenheimer agreed to pay $70 million in full and final settlement of all claims brought in the litigation. On May 13, 2026, plaintiff filed in the District Court a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. On May 22, 2026, the court entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Approving Form and Manner of Notice, and Setting Date for Hearing on Final Approval of Settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the Order, on June 8, 2026, Oppenheimer deposited $70 million into an escrow account for the benefit of the class, and the Order set a final approval hearing for Sept. 17, 2026. This provides that the company will receive a release from any and all claims arising from the facts and circumstances alleged in the litigation. The settlement contemplates that the resolution of the matter would be without any admission of liability or wrongdoing. Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. is a New York-based financial services company that, through its operating subsidiaries, provides securities brokerage, investment banking, asset management, and related financial advisory services to retail and institutional clients. It operates primarily in the United States, offering a range of wealth management and capital markets solutions. OREGON: Foust Files Suit in D. Oregon ------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of Oregon, et al. The case is styled as Jessica Anne Marie Foust, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated person v. State of Oregon, Tina Kotek, Oregon Department of Corrections, Mike Reese, Superintendent Joe Woodland, John Doe, Case No. 2:26-cv-01623-AP (D. Ore., Aug. 3, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Oregon -- https://www.oregon.gov/ -- is a state in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. PALMETTO STATE ARMORY: Wilkins Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jared Wilkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situate v. PALMETTO STATE ARMORY, LLC and JJE CAPITAL HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. CIVSB2620551 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-04355. The Plaintiff specifically alleges the following three claims on behalf of himself and the Class: violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); violation of the False Advertising Law ("FAL"); and violation of the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ellen S. Robbins, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 6400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 688-9500 Facsimile: (213) 627-6342 Email: ellen.robbins@akerman.com PAWLEYS ISLAND: Allows Convicted Sex Offender to Work on Campus --------------------------------------------------------------- Colin Russell, writing for ABC News 4, reports that a new federal class-action lawsuit filed first week of August against Pawleys Island Community Church and Pawleys Island Christian Academy alleges church and school leaders knowingly concealed convicted sex offender Warren Perry's presence on campus for years while continuing to market the academy as a safe environment for children. Filed Monday, August 3, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, the lawsuit seeks to represent both students who attended the academy and parents who paid tuition while Warren Perry, a registered sex offender convicted in 2023 of sexual exploitation of a minor, was allegedly allowed to work, volunteer or perform maintenance duties on the church and school campus. Unlike previous lawsuits filed in the wake of the church scandal, the new complaint focuses heavily on what plaintiffs describe as a systematic failure by church and academy leadership to disclose a known safety risk to families. The suit names Pawleys Island Community Church, Pawleys Island Christian Academy, former pastor Don Williams, former academy director Jennifer "Niki" Howard, former church administrator Ginny Williams, members of the church's elder board, Perry, and the Southern Baptist Convention and its Executive Committee as defendants. According to the complaint, parents entrusted their children to the academy based on representations that it was a safe environment staffed by screened adults. Plaintiffs argue those representations were false because Perry, a registered sex offender, allegedly maintained regular access to children on campus. [GN] PEABODY ENERGY: Securities Class Suit Over Centurion Mine Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- Peabody Energy 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. 6, 2026, that a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed on June 25, 2026, against the company and certain current and former executives in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The action is brought on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Peabody Energy common stock from October 14 to May 4, 2026. It alleges that defendants made certain misstatements or omissions in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding the company's ability to resume longwall production at its Centurion mine. The complaint contends that these alleged misstatements or omissions caused harm to investors during the specified class period. Peabody Energy Corp. is a leading global pure-play coal company, supplying thermal and metallurgical coal to electricity generators and steel producers worldwide. It operates mining assets across key coal-producing regions and provides related services to support reliable energy and industrial demand. PENTAIR PLC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP ("GPWR"), announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Aaron Walters v. , et al1:26-cv-06632, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Pentair plc ("Pentair" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PNR) securities between April 28, 2026 and July 14, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR PENTAIR PLC INVESTMENTS, visit https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/pentair-plc/ TO INQUIRE ABOUT POTENTIALLY PURSUING CLAIMS TO RECOVER YOUR LOSS UNDER THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. What Happened? On July 14, 2026, after the market closed, Pentair released its preliminary second quarter 2026 financial results, disclosing that "the [C]ompany estimates that the destocking of inventory in the Pool channel negatively impacted Pool segment sales by approximately $170 million and Pool segment income by approximately $105 million."1 As a result, second quarter 2026 sales were expected to be "down 17 percent versus the prior guide of approximately 1 percent" and full year 2026 "[s]ales are expected to be down approximately 4 percent to 7 percent versus prior guide of up 2 percent to 4 percent[.]" The Company also announced the departure of its Chief Financial Officer, effective immediately. On this news, Pentair's stock price fell $11.35, or 15%, to close at $64.33 per share on July 15, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that between April 28, 2026 and July 14, 2026, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that there was significant destocking of inventory in the Pool channel; (2) that, as a result, the Company's sales and operating income were adversely affected; and (3) 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. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Pentair plc securities between April 28, 2026 and July 14, 2026, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us: Charles Linehan, Esq., Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224 Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] PEOPLE DATA: Agrees to Settle Phone Number Privacy Suit for $6.3MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that People Data Labs (PDL) has agreed to a more than $6.3 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the data aggregation company listed the cell phone numbers of Colorado citizens in a directory without proper consent, in violation of state law. The $6,362,167 People Data Labs class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 30, 2026. Consumers who are eligible to participate in the settlement include all individuals in People Data Labs' database with an inferred mobile number as determined by the information available in PDL's records, a Colorado area code, and an inferred Colorado location (current or historical), whose data was sourced on or after September 2022, and whose information was disclosed at least once from September 2022 to March 3, 2026. Court documents state that, based on PDL's records, 908,881 people are included in the settlement class. The court-approved website for the People Data Labs class action settlement can be found at PDLSettlement.com. People Data Labs settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive a pro rata cash payment, with no proof required. The final amount of each class member's cash payout will be determined based on the total number of valid claims filed, among other factors. To submit a People Data Labs settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the login ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All PDL settlement claim forms must be submitted online or received by mail by September 29, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the People Data Labs settlement following a hearing on November 17, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The People Data Labs class action lawsuit alleged that the business-to-business data provider listed Colorado citizens' cell phone numbers in a directory without first obtaining proper consent from September 1, 2022 through March 3, 2026, in violation of the state's Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act. [GN] PHOENIX GROUP HOME: B.C. Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as B.C. and L.P., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PHOENIX GROUP HOME, LLC d/b/a PATH BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Case No. A 2603513 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of the State of Ohio for the County of Hamilton, to the United States District Court for Southern District of Ohio on Aug. 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00760-DRC. The Plaintiffs allege seven causes of action. These include a cause of action pursuant to Ohio Code Section 2933.51. If successful on this single cause of action, each putative class member would be awarded a minimum of $10,000.00 in liquidated damages along with punitive damages and attorney's fees.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: A. Lauren R. Nichols, Esq. DENTONS BINGHAM GREENEBAUM 300 W. Vine St., Suite 1300 Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: (859) 231-8500 Email: lauren.nichols@dentons.com - and – Michael A. Gehret, Esq. Bryce L. Krieger, Esq. DENTONS DURHAM JONES PINEGAR 1557 W. Innovation Way, Suite 400 Lehi, UT 84045 Phone: (801) 375-6600 Email: mike.gehret@dentons.com bryce.krieger@dentons.com PLANET 13 HOLDINGS: M&A Investigates Merger With Vireo Growth ------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Planet 13 Holdings Inc. (OTCQX: PLNH) related to its merger with Vireo Growth Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Planet 13 shareholders are expected to receive 0.015383618 shares of Vireo for each Planet 13 share. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/planet-13-holdings-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Olin Corporation (NYSE: OLN) related to its merger with Huntsman Corporation. Upon closing of the proposed transaction, Olin shareholders will own approximately 54.5% of the combined company. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for August 25, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/olin-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Huntsman Corporation (NYSE: HUN) related to its sale to Olin Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Huntsman shareholders are expected to receive 0.5476 shares of Olin for each share of Huntsman. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for August 25, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/huntsman-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- First Seacoast Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSEA) related to its sale to Cambridge Financial Group, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, First Seacoast shareholders are expected to receive $17.25 per share in cash. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for August 27, 2026. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/first-seacoast-bancorp-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] POKEMON COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over Ex-Staff Illicit Behavior ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that The Pokemon Company International faces a proposed class action lawsuit after the arrest of a former high-ranking employee accused of installing hidden cameras in a bathroom at the company's Bellevue, Washington, location. The 11-page lawsuit claims that Ben Tsai, 45, who worked for Pokemon in a supervisory role as director of engineering, illegally placed hidden cameras in the defendant's restroom to record individuals, including children, employees and members of the public, in "various states of undress." According to the class action suit, the recordings were made and kept by Tsai for "his sexual gratification, and/or commercial exploitation through distribution of the videos." Per media reports, Tsai, who the case says worked for Pokemon from 2017 to 2026, was charged in January 2026 with first-degree voyeurism after he allegedly hid a recording device aimed toward the toilet in a Starbucks unisex bathroom in Kirkland, Washington. During the investigation, Tsai admitted to placing cameras in a Starbucks store, a Safeway, the Bellevue Pokemon office, and his own home, claiming that he was "curious about transgender people," according to authorities. The class action lawsuit accuses Pokemon Company International, a brand-management subsidiary of The Pokemon Company, of failing to take reasonable efforts to control Tsai, or to otherwise protect proposed class members from "a known risk of harm," and to respond to "indicators of [Tsai's] illicit activities." "The voyeurism and resultant damages were the result of Defendant's failure to control Tsai and to otherwise protect Plaintiffs from his predatory behavior," the lawsuit charges. The case says Pokemon knew or should have known of the risk of voyeurism in its restrooms, particularly because the Bellevue office hosts events where members of the public, specifically children, were invited and encouraged to attend. "Law enforcement has determined that Tsai transmitted at least 200 messages, many of which contained child sexual abuse material," the lawsuit states. Tsai is further accused of distributing such images and videos commercially, and investigators reportedly found that the messaging app Tsai used to send the child sexual abuse material (CSAM) contained 680 videos that included both adult nudity and CSAM, the complaint says. The lawsuit says that Tsai used recording devices to specifically target women and girls, which are considered protected classes under the Washington Law Against Discrimination. In a January 9 filing, prosecutors for King County, Washington, stated that "[t]he defendant's ongoing pattern of voyeuristic conduct, extending over a period of about 9 years, combined with his willingness to target specific marginalized groups and his own children, demonstrates that he is an ongoing safety threat to the community." According to media reports, Tsai was arrested again following a subsequent investigation by the Kirkland Police and faces four new charges, in addition to the initial first-degree voyeurism charge. The additional charges came after Kirkland Police completed months of forensic work and reportedly found more than 100 videos from a bathroom in Tsai's home. The Pokemon Company International class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals, including employees and members of the public, who used the bathroom facilities at Pokemon Company's Bellevue location from 2017 through the present. [GN] POWER SOLUTIONS: Securities Suit Filed Over Data Center Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Power Solutions International, 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. 6, 2026, that it is facing a putative securities class action complaint filed against it and certain of its executive officers. On March 20, 2026, said class action complaint captioned "Dishion v. Power Solutions International, Inc., et al.," Case No. 1:26-cv-03149, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the company and certain of its executive officers. It purports to assert claims on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock between May 8, 2025, and March 2, 2026, inclusive. It alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on alleged misstatements and omissions concerning the company's business, operations, and prospects. The alleged misstatements and omissions relate to matters including demand, manufacturing capacity, and operating inefficiencies for data center product lines. The complaint seeks damages and other relief from the defendants. Power Solutions International, Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and markets engines and power systems for on-road and off-road equipment and industrial and power generation applications worldwide. It offers a broad range of advanced power solutions, including alternative-fuel, diesel, and gasoline engines, serving original equipment manufacturers and end users in multiple industries. PROCEPT BIOROBOTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Sept. 22 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Who: PROCEPT BioRobotics Corporation (NASDAQ: PRCT) What: Securities fraud class action lawsuit filed Class Period: February 28, 2024 through February 25, 2026 Deadline to Seek Lead Plaintiff Status: September 22, 2026 Key Lawsuit Allegations: Material misstatements and/or omissions concerning the company's product demand Investor Action: Contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com) for recovery options Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com),a nationally recognized securities litigation law firm, informs investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against PROCEPT BioRobotics Corporation (PROCEPT) (NASDAQ: PRCT) on behalf of those who purchased or acquired PROCEPT common stock between February 28, 2024 and February 25, 2026, inclusive. The lawsuit is filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and is captioned Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund v. PROCEPT BioRobotics Corporation, No. 26-cv-07691 (N.D. Cal.). Investors have until September 22, 2026, to file for lead plaintiff status. CONTACT KTMC TO DISCUSS YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you purchased or acquired PROCEPT common stock and have lost money on your investment, please provide your information here: https://www.ktmc.com/prct-procept-biorobotics-corporation-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR_Newswire&utm_medium=pressrelease&utm_campaign=prct&mktm=PR You can also contact attorney Jonathan Naji, Esq. by calling (484) 270-1453 or by email at info@ktmc.com. There is no cost or obligation to speak with an attorney. PROCEPT BIOROBOTICS CORPORATION CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT -- COMPLAINT ALLEGATION SUMMARY: PROCEPT is a commercial stage medical technology company focused primarily on the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia ("BPH"), also known as an enlarged prostate. One of the devices that PROCEPT manufactured and sold for the treatment of BPH was an Aquablation therapy system that utilized a single-use handpiece that was disposed of after the procedure. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) PROCEPT utilized a discount program to incentivize customers to place bulk orders in excess of demand; (2) the undisclosed discount program artificially inflated the company's reported U.S. handpiece unit sales; (3) the consistent surplus of U.S. handpiece unit sales results in overstocking and exposed PROCEPT to material undisclosed risks of operational and financial harm; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Why did PROCEPT'S Stock Drop? On February 25, 2026, PROCEPT announced its financial earnings for the year 2025 and the first quarter of 2026. Specifically, PROCEPT revealed that handpiece sales had materially exceeded procedures in every quarter since the first fiscal quarter of 2023, despite consistent reassurances to the contrary. On this news, the price of PROCEPT's common stock fell more than 18%. WHAT PROCEPT BIOROBOTICS CORPORATION INVESTORS CAN DO NOW: 1. File to be lead plaintiff by September 22, 2026. 2. Contact KTMC for a free case evaluation. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. 3. Retain counsel of choice or take no action. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS FOR PROCEPT BIOROBOTICS CORPORATION INVESTORS: PROCEPT investors may, no later than September 22, 2026, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages PROCEPT investors to contact the firm for more information. ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP (KTMC): Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (KTMC) is a leading U.S. plaintiff-side law firm focused on securities-fraud class actions and global investor protection. The firm represents individual investors as well as institutions, such as major pension funds, asset managers, and international investors. KTMC has led some of the largest recoveries in securities litigation and has been recognized by peers and the legal media with numerous accolades, including being recognized in Chambers & Partners USA 2026 as a Band 1 Top Firm in Securities and Class Actions, Legal 500's Tier 1 Rankings for Securities and M&A Litigation, The National Law Journal's Plaintiff's Hot List and Trailblazers in Plaintiffs' Law, BTI Consulting Group's Honor Roll of Most Feared Law Firms, The Legal Intelligencer's Class Action Firm of the Year, Lawdragon's Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers, and Law360's Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar. The firm operates globally with offices in Pennsylvania and California. KTMC has recovered over $25 billion for our clients and the classes they represent. The complaint in this matter was not filed by KTMC. CONTACT: Jonathan Naji, Esq. (484) 270-1453 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 info@ktmc.com [GN] REDDIT INC: Securities Class Suit Pending in California Dist. Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- Reddit, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated July 30, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2026, that in June 2025, the company and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers or acquirers of the company's securities. The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its officers made false or misleading statements and omissions concerning the impact of Google Search and its AI Overviews feature on its business. It seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. Reddit, Inc. operates a global social media and online discussion platform that hosts user-generated, community-based content organized around interests and topics. The company generates revenue primarily through advertising and other monetization tools aimed at brands, developers, and its large, active user base. ROBOT CONSULTING: Putative IPO Class Action Ongoing New York Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robot Consulting Co., Ltd. disclosed in its annual report on Form 20-F, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2026, that, on March 24, 2026, certain plaintiffs filed a putative civil class action complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, requesting judicial intervention. Plaintiffs Patrick Shane Johnson, Jack Pena, and Hitesh Dev, for themselves and others similarly situated, assert claims against approximately 47 issuers, including the company, as well as a large number of underwriters and individuals, and allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 arising from alleged material misrepresentations or omissions in registration statements or prospectuses issued in connection with the defendants' initial public offerings. Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that their shares were susceptible to pump-and-dump schemes that allegedly occurred. On May 21, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Discontinuance and a Stipulation of Discontinuance regarding certain defendants, but both documents were returned by the New York Court for correction and have not yet been corrected or refiled. Robot Consulting Co., Ltd. is a technology company focused on providing consulting and related services in the robotics and automation sectors. It offers solutions aimed at helping clients design, implement, and optimize robotic systems across various industries. SIERRA FORESTRY: Cyphers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sierra Forestry Consulting, LLC. The case is styled as Gary Cyphers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sierra Forestry Consulting, LLC, Case No. MCV099814 (Cal. Super. Ct., Madera Cty., Aug. 3, 2026). The case type is stated "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Sierra Forestry -- https://sierraforestry.com/ -- specializes in utility, fire & environmental management solutions.[BN] STRATEGIC FUNDING: Laccinole Allowed Leave to Conduct Class Cert. ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER LACCINOLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. STRATEGIC FUNDING GROUP, LLC d/b/a Consolifi, Case No. 3:26-cv-01875-E (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ada Brown entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct class certification and damages discovery. The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Conduct Class Certification and Damages Discovery is granted. The Plaintiff shall have 120 days from the date of this order to conduct Class Certification and damages related discovery, including third-party discovery as necessary Strategic is a California-based financial services company specializing in debt consolidation loans, debt settlement, and loan referrals. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qzp9XT at no extra charge.[CC] SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS: M&A Investigates Sale to Indivior Pharma ------------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: SUPN) related to its sale to Indivior Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Supernus shareholders are expected to receive 1.5401 common shares of Indivior for each share of Supernus. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/supernus-pharmaceuticals-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] TOWER EV: Preciado Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ------------------------------------------------- Hugo Preciado, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees v. TOWER EV LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV24370 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 3, 2026), is brought under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), against the Defendants for violations of Labor Codes, and the applicable Wage Orders as a result of unpaid compensations. This is only a Private Attorney General Action Complaint, pursuant to California Labor Codes, on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated who worked for the Defendants in their California locations as non-exempt, hourly employees (herein collectively identified as "AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES") for: failure to provide employment records; failure to pay overtime and double time; failure to provide rest and meal periods; failure to pay minimum wage; failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements; failure to pay reporting time wages in violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 8; failure to pay split shift wages; failure to pay all wages earned on time; failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation in violation of Labor Code; failure to pay all paid time off and vacation time owed upon separation; failure to reimburse necessary, business-related expenses; failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual; all in violation of Labor Codes, and the applicable Wage Orders, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of Driver on March 2024. Tower Ev LLC is a California Limited Liability Company, licensed to do business and actually doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raffi Tapanian, Esq. TAPANIAN LAW, APC 611 N. Brand Blvd Suite 1300 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 433-4977 Fax: (818) 484-2654 Email: raffi@tapanianlaw.com TRUIST FINANCIAL: Class Seeks Up to $930M in Overdraft Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Truist Financial 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 July 31, 2026, that various litigations have been filed against it with regards to its charging of overdraft fees. A class action was filed in Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010, with an amended complaint submitted on Aug. 9, 2010. The amended complaint asserted claims for violations of civil and criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and it sought damages on a class-wide basis. The requested relief included refunds of the challenged overdraft fees and pre-judgment interest. On Oct. 6, 2017, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The court defined the class as every Georgia citizen who had or has one or more accounts with SunTrust Bank and who, from July 12, 2006, to Oct. 6, 2017, had at least one overdraft of $500 or less resulting from an ATM or debit card transaction, paid any overdraft fees as a result of that transaction, and did not receive a refund of those fees. The granting of a certified class was affirmed on appeal. The class sought a return of up to $452 million in paid overdraft fees plus prejudgment interest. Based on this amount of claimed fees, prejudgment interest would have been estimated at approximately $478 million as of June 30, 2026. The claimed amounts reflected potential exposure tied to the defined class period and the nature of the alleged overdraft fee practices. As reported in the same filings, the company is also defending related shareholder derivative actions that arise out of the same alleged overdraft fee practices and the underlying class action proceedings. These derivative suits, brought nominally on behalf of the company against certain current and former directors and officers, generally allege breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, and unjust enrichment in connection with the authorization, implementation, and oversight of the overdraft fee policies at issue in the class case. The derivative plaintiffs typically seek recovery for the company of alleged damages, including restitution of purportedly improper compensation and benefits, as well as corporate governance reforms intended to address the challenged practices. In addition, government regulators, including banking regulators and securities authorities, have conducted inquiries relating to the Company's overdraft fee practices and related disclosures. These inquiries have focused on whether the Company's assessment and disclosure of overdraft fees complied with applicable consumer protection, banking, and securities laws and regulations. While certain of these investigations have been resolved without the admission of wrongdoing, others remain ongoing, and the Company has cooperated with the regulators and may face additional remedial requirements, civil money penalties, or other sanctions as a result of these proceedings. Truist Financial Corp is a financial services company headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., offering consumer and commercial banking, securities brokerage, asset management, mortgage, and insurance products and services through its affiliates. It operates an extensive branch and ATM network and provides digital banking and wealth management solutions across the United States. TRYAX REALTY: Bid for More Time to Complete Discovery OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 Court entered an order granting Letter Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery: Discovery related to damages will take place on a schedule to be decided following the Court's resolution of Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class. 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 UDR INC: Faces Class Suit Over Algorithmic Rent Pricing ------------------------------------------------------- Julie Strupp of MultiFamily Dive reports that UDR, Inc. has been named in a class-action lawsuit in San Diego over algorithmic rent pricing, filed by former tenant Jacob Keller, according to the July 2 complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. -- In San Diego, it is illegal for a landlord to use software that performs calculations using nonpublic competitor data to advise on rental prices or how many units to rent, per municipal code § 98.1103, which became effective June 21, 2025. -- The complaint alleges that the Highlands Ranch, Colorado-based REIT used an algorithmic device to set rental rates and occupancy levels for residential rental properties in San Diego, in violation of that prohibition. Multifamily Dive reached out to UDR for comment but did not hear back by publication time. Dive Insight: San Diego's algorithmic rent-pricing law states that the use of algorithmic devices "has resulted in inflated rental rates and unfair rent increases and contributed to the City's unaffordability for families." The statute cites the Department of Justice's ongoing 2024 lawsuit against RealPage and a slew of landlords, United States et al. v. RealPage et al., and said that city residents cannot wait for its resolution to get relief from inflated rent prices. Per the complaint, Keller entered into a lease on a UDR-managed property around May 2025. He alleges that UDR used one or more RealPage algorithmic devices when setting rents or occupancy levels for residential dwelling units in the city, in violation of the San Diego Municipal Code. Keller and other class members are asking for injunctive relief, damages, civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation as well as costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, according to the complaint. They also want a jury trial. UDR was also named in Washington, D.C.'s lawsuit against RealPage and 14 landlords, filed in November 2023. It accuses the firms of "unlawfully colluding" by collectively adopting the rents set by RealPage's technology and "unlawfully agreeing to exchange competitively sensitive data in violation of the District of Columbia Antitrust Act." The new San Diego case cites findings in D.C.'s antitrust litigation, namely that UDR has admitted that it had used RealPage software. In June of this year, Avenue5 Residential and Bell Partners agreed to pay a combined $1.4 million and change certain business practices in order to resolve D.C.'s allegations. That case is just one in a string of lawsuits related to algorithmic rent-setting that have arisen in recent years. [GN] UNISON AGREEMENT: Faces Suit Over Predatory Home Equity Agreements ------------------------------------------------------------------ NCLC reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of plaintiffs Anne Cuvellier and David Hills against Unison Agreement Corporation, Unison Investment Management, LLC, and Real Estate Equity Exchange, Inc. (collectively, "Unison") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The suit, led by the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) with co-counsel Singleton Schreiber, alleges that Unison lured Massachusetts homeowners into high-cost home equity loans by falsely marketing its product as an interest-free, loan alternative "option contract" -- a characterization the complaint alleges was deliberately designed to evade state consumer credit, mortgage lending, and consumer protection laws. Unison markets its mortgage loan as a simple way for homeowners to access their equity with "no debt," "no interest," and no monthly payments, positioning itself as a financial "partner" with homeowners. According to the complaint, the reality is far different. For example, Anne Cuvellier, a 68-year-old social worker from East Longmeadow, received a net cash advance of approximately $36,329, after Unison deducted more than $20,000 in fees and required debt payments from the original $57,137 advance. In exchange, Ms. Cuvellier granted Unison a 70% stake in her home. Unison estimates that as of September 30, 2025, Ms. Cuvellier owes as much as $241,651, many times more than her initial advance. David Hills, a semi-retired Hyannis resident who has lived in his family home for over 50 years, received a net advance of approximately $61,851 and similarly granted Unison a 70% stake in his home. Unison estimates that Mr. Hill now owes between $236,301 and $331,103, more than five times the original advance. "Unison has built a business model that systematically strips wealth from homeowners and disproportionately impacts older adults and people on fixed incomes who have spent decades building equity in their homes," said Shennan Kavanagh, litigation director at the National Consumer Law Center. "These agreements are loans in every meaningful sense of the word, and Massachusetts law has strong protections for borrowers that Unison has exploited." "We have now seen this same pattern play out across multiple states. Unison markets a deceptively simple product, buries the true costs in nearly 100 pages of complex documents, and walks away with significant returns for its investors while homeowners are left unable to retire, refinance, or exert any meaningful control over their home without Unison's approval," said Elizabeth Aniskevich, senior counsel at Singleton Schreiber. "Massachusetts homeowners deserve the same protections that apply to every other mortgage borrower in this state." The complaint alleges violations of Massachusetts consumer protection laws, including the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, the Massachusetts Consumer Credit Cost Disclosure Act, and Massachusetts mortgage lending and reverse mortgage laws. The proposed class includes all Massachusetts residents who entered into a Unison Homeowner Agreement. [GN] VILLAGE PRACTICE: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the VillageMD data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the VillageMD data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. VillageMD Security Incident: What Happened? Village Practice Management Company, which operates as VillageMD, has disclosed a data breach linked to a December 2025 security incident at Aesto Health, a third-party data analytics and archiving company. VillageMD, which provides primary care services through Village Medical, Summit Health, CityMD and Starling Physicians, reported that the Aesto breach exposed names, Social Security numbers, medical information and dates of birth, according to an August 4, 2026 report filed with the Texas Attorney General's Office. The report further noted that 25,022 residents of the state were impacted. A report regarding the VillageMD data breach was also submitted to the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation on July 31, 2026. A sample letter being mailed to affected patients of Aesto Health's clients, including VillageMD, can be seen below. What You Can Do After the VillageMD Data Breach If your information was exposed in the VillageMD data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force VillageMD to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] VISION PATH: Africa Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WESLEY AFRICA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, v. VISION PATH, INC., d/b/a HUBBLE, a Delaware Corporation; and, DOES 1-25, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-04570-GW-MBK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Oct. 15, 2026, will move the Court for an Order granting Class Certification pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, the Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order: 1. Certifying the Proposed Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3), defined as follows: "All persons residing in California who purchased a subscription for Hubble Classic Daily lenses from hubblecontacts.com between April 25, 2019 and the present who were not prescribed Hubble Classic Daily lenses, and who do not seek personal injury damages." 2. Appointing Plaintiff Wesley Africa as Class Representative; and 3. Appointing the Plaintiff's Counsel, Michael Sullivan & Associates, LLP and the Law Office of Andrew J. Kubik, as Class Counsel. Vision offers direct-to-consumer contact lenses and eye glasses. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TwU9Dh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric H. De Wames, Esq. Ryan J. Carlson, Esq. MICHAEL SULLIVAN & ASSOCIATES, LLP 6203 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 110 San Jose, CA 95119 Telephone: (619) 757-2750 Facsimile: (844) 910-7850 E-mail: edewames@sullivanattorneys.com rcarlson@sullivanattorneys.com - and - Andrew J. Kubik, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW J. KUBIK 10921 Derrydown Way San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 961-8987 E-mail: ajk@andrewkubiklaw.com WATON FINANCIAL: Securities Suit Over IPO Ongoing in NY Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Waton Financial Ltd. disclosed in its annual report on Form 20-F, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated Thursday, July 30, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2026, that a putative civil securities class action filed against it and numerous other defendants is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. On March 24, 2026, plaintiffs Patrick Shane Johnson, Jack Pena, and Hitesh Dev filed a putative civil class action complaint in that court requesting judicial intervention. They asserted claims on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against approximately 47 issuers, including the company, as well as a large number of underwriters and individuals. Although none of the named plaintiffs are alleged to be current or former shareholders of the company, they asserted claims against it for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The claims arise from alleged material misrepresentations or omissions in the company's registration statement or prospectus issued in connection with its initial public offering. More specifically, and similar to all of the named defendant issuers, the plaintiffs alleged that the company purportedly failed to disclose that its shares were susceptible to pump-and-dump schemes. They further alleged that such schemes purportedly occurred and were conducted by unknown individuals. The Request for Judicial Intervention filed by the Plaintiffs was returned for correction by the court, and they have not yet filed a document correcting that filing. On May 21, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Discontinuance and a Stipulation of Discontinuance regarding defendants Jason Lewis Sands and Titan Partners and Bancroft Capital, LLC and Cauldon Dean Quinn, respectively. Both the Notice of Discontinuance and the Stipulation of Discontinuance were returned by the court for correction. The Plaintiffs have not yet filed documents correcting either of those submissions. Waton Financial Ltd. is an international financial services company that provides investment, brokerage, and related advisory services. It operates through subsidiaries focused on capital markets activities in various global jurisdictions. WISE GROUP: Daugherty Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL DAUGHERTY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WISE GROUP PLC; KRISTO KAARMANN; and EMMANUEL THOMASSIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-06582 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2026) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Wise securities between May 11, 2026 and July 23, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"), the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendant's violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the reports submitted by the Defendants to the SEC were materially false and misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) in order to have a successful debut on the NASDAQ, Defendants materially understated Wise's regulatory risks as a result of its materially deficient anti-money laundering efforts, as well as insufficient efforts to prevent the financing of terrorism; and (2) as a result, Defendants' statements about Wise's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Wise U.S.-listed shares fell $0.75 per share, or 6.2 percent, to close at $11.33 per share on July 24, 2026. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Wise PLC designs and develops software solutions. The Company offers platform to make international multi-currency money transfers. Wise serves customers worldwide. [bn] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 Email: philkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenleg.com WISEMAN MINISTRIES: Ford Seeks FLSA Collective Action Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENT FORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TIMOTHY WISEMAN, individually; WISEMAN MINISTRIES INC., d/b/a Isaiah 58 Farms, House of Disciples, Wiseman Life Recovery, and Gifts of Grace Resale Store; WISEMAN TRANSPORT LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00982-JRG (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for certification of Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action and issuance of notice. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "All individuals who, within the three years preceding the filing of this lawsuit through final judgment, participated in any Wiseman Ministries recovery, rehabilitation, or life-recovery program, including but not limited to Isaiah 58 Farms, House of Disciples, Wiseman Life Recovery, Wiseman Lighthouse, Inspiration House, or related programs, and who performed work for Defendants without lawful minimum wages or overtime compensation." The evidentiary record before the Court demonstrates that Defendants operated a centralized and substantially uniform labor system across multiple programs, worksites, and affiliated operations controlled by Defendant Timothy Wiseman, the suit says. The evidence further demonstrates that the central issues in this case are susceptible to collective resolution through common evidence and common legal analysis. Wiseman operates as an income-producing farm and faith-based life recovery center/trade school helping men recover from drug and alcohol addictions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jxvrnT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh B. Maness, Esq. MANESS LAW FIRM, PLLC 480 W. Texas Avenue Waskom, TX 75692 Telephone: (903) 407-8455 Facsimile: (877) 320-5751 E-mail: josh@joshmaness.com - and - J. D. Mcmullen, Esq. THE TEXAS RESOLUTION, PLLC Longview, TX 75606 Telephone: (903) 205-7177 E-mail: jdm@thetxr.com ********* 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 ***