260814.mbx

260814.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, August 14, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 162 Headlines 7-ELEVEN INC: Bid to Extend Scheduling Order Dates Tossed ACTAVIS ELIZABETH: Partial Summary Judgment on Two Counts Tossed ADTALEM GLOBAL: Bid to Continue Trial in Shields Granted AEGIS FIDUCIARY: Summary Judgment Bid Deadlines Continued AGGREKO LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castillo Suit Alleges AMERICAN RENAL: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Initial Nod AMGEN INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Anderson Suit Alleges AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Plaintiff Wins Class Cert Bid ARIZONA LABOR: Class Settlement in Bozek Suit Gets Initial Nod BETTERHELP INC: Omnibus Sealing Order Entered in C.M. Class Suit BIG THINK: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Cardenas Suit Claims BOOTS RETAIL: Proposed Scheduling Order in Rosa Suit Tossed BRIGHTSTAR GROUP: M.D. Seeks Damages for Loss of Privacy CARL'S JR: Class Certification Filing Continued to Jan. 8, 2027 CARL'S JR: Extension of Class Cert Filing to Jan. 8, 2027 Sought CHARLES SITRIN: Bid to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Tossed CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Smith Sues Over Data Privacy Violations CLARKSON INSURANCE: Court Partially Denies Bid to Dismiss "Mangum" CME INTERNATIONAL: Del Salto Sues Over Data Privacy Violations CNO FINANCIAL: Bench Ruling on Alter Ego Pending in Indiana Court COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Fails to Secure Private Info, Perkins Says CONCHO RESOURCES: Class Certified in Securities Suit CORMEDIX INC: Derivative Settlement Hearing Scheduled for Sept. 23 CROCS INC: Ravizee Seeks Final OK of $300K Settlement DNOW INC: Ferraioli Sues Over Share Price Drop Following MRC Merger DOW CHEMICAL: Thibodeaux Class Suit Removed to M.D. La. EDUCATIONAL COMPUTER: Class Settlement in Hood Gets Initial Nod EL DORADO LF: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jaurigui Alleges EVERQUOTE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Hossfeld Suit EXPERIAN DATA: Class Certification Filing Modified to June 4, 2027 EXPLORATION CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baca Alleges FADE & FACET: Hudson Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination FIVE9 INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lucid Suit Due Nov. 20 FREEPORT, NY: Whaley Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action GENOMIC HEALTH: Continuance of Class Cert Deadline Sought GERBER PAYROLL: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Continued GIVEBUTTER INC: Summeril Sues Over Deceptive Processing Fees GREIF INC: Ryan Seeks to Impound Portions of Class Exhibit GRITSTONE BIO: Class Settlement in Beal Suit Gets Initial Nod HAIN CELESTIAL: $35MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 28 HAMILTON FOX: Court Dismisses Eisenberg Amended Complaint HIALEAH INDUSTRIAL: Pardo Suit Administratively Closed HOLLEY INC: $12.75MM Securities Deal Has Prelim OK HOLLY RIDGE, NC: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply HOME CARE: Joint Bid to Stay Deadlines Tossed HUMANA INC: Bid for Consolidation Tossed as Moot IGLOO PRODUCTS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due May 24, 2027 INCLUDED HEALTH: Class Cert. Filing in Peer Due March 22, 2027 INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Status Report in Wise Suit Due August 21 IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: $45MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 5 J.A. ARGETAKIS: Ramirez Wins Conditional Certification Bid J.A.K.'S PUPPIES: Carey Plaintiffs Win Class Certification JOHN'S HOME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bouwkamp Suit Alleges KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY: Bank Sues Over Mislabeled Flash Drives KOCH INC: JSB's Fertilizer Price-fixing Suit Transferred to D. Kan. KRISTI NOEM: Perdomo Seeks to Certify Classes LIFESPARK MANAGEMENT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Selmer Claims LIFT LENDING: Class Cert Filing in Laccinole Due August 6, 2027 LORETTO HEALTH: Plaintiffs Win Bid for Class Certification LOWE'S COMPANIES: Barbre Sues Over Defective Power Tools MARSHALL RETAIL: Bid to Continue Case Deadlines Tossed MATHWORKS INC: Consolidated Complaint Must be Filed by August 26 MCGILL FAIRLESS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 9, 2027 MERCARI INC: Engaged in Illegal Drip Pricing, Derose Alleges MIKE BLOOMBERG: Class Settlement in Sinclair Suit Gets Initial Nod MIKE BLOOMBERG: Class Settlement in Wood Suit Gets Initial Nod MINDVALLEY INC: Fact Discovery in Larsen Suit Closes March 23, 2027 MONARCH CASINO: Hyde Seeks to Recover Card Dealers' Unpaid Wages MOODY BIBLE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Seabolt Alleges MOTHER'S MARKET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Alleges MOUNTAINSIDE FITNESS: Seeks Denial of Wilson Class Cert Bid NATIONAL PRESTO: Time to File Class Cert Opposition Extended NCAA: Wisne Wins Bid for Class Certification NIRVANA ENTERPRISES: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due June 18, 2027 NORSAN RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Taylor Alleges OHIO NATIONAL: Class Settlement in Veritas Suit Gets Final Nod PAIDWORK LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Barnes Alleges PHIL LONG: Bid for Conditional Certification Due Feb. 15, 2027 PHOENIX RETAIL: Dalton Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Bids for Summary Judgment Due Sept. 8 POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Kennedy Balks at Artificial Pre-Recorded Calls PRIMAL QUEEN: Class Cert Bid Filing in Blank Suit Due Dec. 14 RAISING CANE'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cifuentes Alleges READING INT'L: Class Certification Briefing Deadlines Remain SANFORD SURROUNDED: Class Cert. Bid in Foxworth Due Nov. 16 SELENE FINANCE: Class Cert Bid Response Extended to August 31 SHELL TRADING: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Sept. 7, 2027 SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Franchi Bid for Class Cert Tossed as Moot SMURFIT WESTROCK: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in Ill. SONOCO PRODUCTS: Faces Jimenez Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. SOUTHEAST CONNECTIONS: Bid to Seal Document OK'd SOUTHWEST JANITORIAL: Court Sustains Collective Action Status SOUTHWEST POWER: Final Scheduling Order Entered in Spickes Suit STRIDELINE LLC: Young Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind TETRA TECH: Pennington Class Action Closed TOMOCREDIT INC: Class Cert. Filing in Johnson Due March 17, 2027 UNITED STATES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due July 30, 2027 US MED DIRECT: Class Certification Bid in Leedy Suit Due Nov. 1 VANGUARD PARKING: Sullivan Wins Provisional Class Cert Bid VIRTA HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Childress Alleges WESCO INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Shonce Alleges WHISKEY SKIES: Intercepts Users' Electronic Data, Johnson Says WILSON ELECTRIC: Bid to Seal Confidential Materials OK'd ZEREP MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Covarrubias Alleges Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Has 525 Product Liability Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus Has $5.1MM Estimated Asbestos Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Defends Asbestos Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Defends Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Defends 986 Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Accrues $16.3MM in Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Smurfit Westrock Defends 825 PI Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Technologies Faces Product Liability Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trimas Corp. Reports 655 Pending Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Uniroyal Files Ch. 11 to Resolve Asbestos Claims ********* 7-ELEVEN INC: Bid to Extend Scheduling Order Dates Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON ANDERSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-03577-AJB-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Battaglia entered an order denying without prejudice the parties' joint motion to extend scheduling order deadlines. Any future motion must comply with all applicable Federal, Local, and Chambers rules. The Court cautions the parties that if a future motion to amend the scheduling order is not supported with specific details demonstrating diligence, the Court will deny the motion. The requested extension of three-quarters or more of a year is an extreme request, which the parties fail to support with sufficient details for the Court to ascertain either the parties' diligence up to this point or the necessity of such a lengthy extension, the Court says. The parties also fail to address excusable neglect for the untimeliness of the motion, which was filed only three days prior to the first deadline the parties seek to change, the Court adds. 7-Eleven is an American convenience store chain. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GzV86W at no extra charge.[CC] ACTAVIS ELIZABETH: Partial Summary Judgment on Two Counts Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUMANA INC. v. ACTAVIS ELIZABETH, LLC et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-03299-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Rufe entered a judgment denying the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment as to Counts 91 and 106 of the second amended complaint. For the purpose of summary judgment, Humana has shown that it exercised due diligence in pursuing the suspicious increases of drugs it observed in 2013. After observing several price hikes, it developed strategies to confront the problem and followed trade publications reporting on it. Humana has raised a genuine, substantive dispute of fact as to whether the Defendants schemed to conceal agreements between them to control the price and supply of generic drugs, and whether before Aug. 3, 2014, that scheme prevented Humana from learning, as opposed to speculating, that the high prices it paid resulted from those conspiracies. The issue of when Humana was on notice it had Sherman Act claims concerning both Theophylline and the overarching conspiracy is for a jury to decide. This matter is one case in a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") concerning price-fixing by numerous generic drug manufacturers Count 91 alleges Defendants engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to drive up the prices of Theophylline in violation of Count I of the Sherman Act. Count 106 alleges Defendants participated in an overarching conspiracy with one another to drive up the prices of several generic drugs. Actavis produces and manufactures a wide assortment of generic drug products. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Aug. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TgxjYf at no extra charge.[CC] ADTALEM GLOBAL: Bid to Continue Trial in Shields Granted -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NALEXUS SHIELDS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ADTALEM GLOBAL EDUCATION, INC, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-20504-MD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Melissa Damian entered an order granting the motion to continue trial and extend pretrial deadlines. The case is RESET for Jury Trial during the Court's two-week trial calendar beginning Feb. 7, 2028. Counsel for all parties shall also appear at a Calendar Call at 1:30 p.m. on Feb. 1, 2028. The Trial and Calendar Call will be held in person in Courtroom 4 in the James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building, 99 Northeast 4th Street, 10th Floor, Miami, Florida 33132. The parties shall adhere to the following modified schedule: Jan. 28, 2027 Mediation shall be completed. June 9, 2027 The parties shall exchange expert witness summaries or reports. June 23, 2027 The parties shall exchange rebuttal expert witness summaries or reports. July 23, 2027 All discovery, including expert discovery, shall be completed. Aug. 19, 2027 The Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification. Sept. 21, 2027 The parties shall file all pre-trial motions, including motions for summary judgment, Daubert motions, and motions for a bench trial. Dec. 10, 2027 The parties shall file any motions in limine (other than Daubert motions). Adtalem is a major American for-profit provider of professional healthcare and workforce education. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4376RB at no extra charge.[CC] AEGIS FIDUCIARY: Summary Judgment Bid Deadlines Continued --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONI R. DUMAS, on behalf of Lift, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, v. ROBERT E. LESSER, AEGIS FIDUCIARY SERVICES, LLC, DONALD G. HERMAN, KIRK W. SEARS, and MARK C. JOHNSON, Case No. 5:23-cv-03979-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl entered an order to continue deadlines for motions for summary judgment pending its ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and to set a status conference within 14 days of its ruling on that motion for the purpose of setting further deadlines in this matter. No trial date has been set in this matter, and so delaying summary judgment briefing to allow the Court to first rule on the pending motion for class certification would not prejudice the parties or otherwise interrupt the schedule, the suit says. On March 4, 2025, the Court issued an Order setting case deadlines through the close of fact discovery on Jan. 9, 2026. All discovery concluded in this matter on July 30, 2026. Aegis specializes in providing fiduciary services to clients. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=60YIod at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence J. Lederer Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. Laura E. Babiak, Esq. Patrick O. Muench, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (215) 274-9420 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: llederer@baileyglasser.com gporter@baileyglasser.com rjenny@baileyglasser.com lbabiak@baileyglasser.com pmuench@baileyglasser.com The Defendants are represented by: Joelle C. Sharman, Esq. Michael S. Metta, III, Esq. Michon L. Crawford, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER PLLC 555 North Point Center East, 4th Floor Alpharetta, GA 30022 Telephone: (312) 422-6200 E-mail: jsharman@ohaganmeyer.com mmetta@ohaganmeyer.com mcrawford@ohaganmeyer.com - and - Lars C. Golumbic, Esq. William J. Delany, Esq. Paul J. Rinefierd, Esq. Shai D. Bronshtein, Esq. Theodore A. Van Beek, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED 1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 857-0620 Facsimile: (202) 659-4503 E-mail: lgolumbic@groom.com wdelany@groom.com prinefierd@groom.com sbronshtein@groom.com tvanbeek@groom.com conyeoziri@groom.com AGGREKO LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castillo Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- FERMIN CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AGGREKO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 268TCV24406 (Cal., Super, Aug. 3, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Castillo was employed by the Defendant as a staff. Aggreko, LLC offers temporary power control, and compressed air systems. The Company provides project design planning, installation, commissioning, process enhancement, and maintenance support services. Aggreko serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent Marlis, Esq. Saima Gipson, Esq. THE WORK JUSTICE FIRM 3530 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (323) 775-9000 Facsimile: (323) 775-9000 Email: brent@workjustice.com saima.gipson@workjustice.com AMERICAN RENAL: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re American Renal Management LLC Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 3:25-cv-00248 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Eli Richardson entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. For settlement purposes only and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and (e), the Court certifies a Settlement Class defined as follows: "All persons who were sent a notice from IRC regarding potential impact from the Data Incident discovered by Defendant on or around Feb. 29, 2024, or otherwise determined to have potentially had their personal information impacted by the Data Incident." 2. The Settlement Class includes approximately 59,400 people. The Settlement Class specifically excludes Defendant IRC, any entity in which it has a controlling interest, and IRC’s officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from the Class is any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter, members of their immediate families and their judicial staff, and all persons who validly exclude themselves from the Class. 3. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs Pamela Futrell-Parham, Steevenson Jolicoeur, Jane Doe, and John Doe, will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and are provisionally designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. The Court further finds that J. Gerard Stranch of Stranch, Jennings, & Garvey, PLLC will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) as experienced and adequate counsel and is provisionally designated as Settlement Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1). 4. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held at 9:00 a.m. on Feb. 1, 2027, American Renal is a major U.S. health care provider specializing in dialysis and kidney care services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tavKbj at no extra charge.[CC] AMGEN INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Anderson Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- PEGGY ANDERSON and GLADYS COOPER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMGEN INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-08527 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 3, 2026) alleges violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, despite the promise and its legal obligations to safeguard the Sensitive Private Information entrusted to it by the Plaintiffs and the Class, the Defendant implemented inadequate data security measures and allowed the information of thousands of patients and customers to be stolen by cybercriminals. On July 2026, a group of cybercriminals infiltrated the Defendant's computer systems, accessed and exfiltrated file repositories that contained the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Sensitive Private Information (the "Data Breach"). Amgen Inc. is an independent biotechnology medicines company that discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets medicines for grievous illnesses. The Company focuses on human therapeutics and concentrates on innovating novel medicines based on cellular and molecular biology. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Caleb Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Facsimile: (877) 500-8781 Email: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Benjamin R. Cooper, Esq. Madison M. DeMaris, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com benjamin.cooper@zimmreed.com madison.demaris@zimreed.com AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Plaintiff Wins Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned re AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:17-cv-03154-LAK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kaplan entered an order that the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and other relief is granted to the extent that: 1. The BDO Subclass, defined as: "All purchasers of AmTrust common stock and Series F Preferred Stock between March 3, 2014 and April 10, 2017, inclusive (the "BDO Subclass Period"), who were damaged thereby," is certified under Rules 23(a), (b)(3), and (c)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provided, however, that BDO USA, P.C. and its partners and/or principals, at all relevant times, as well as members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which BDO has or had a controlling interest, are excluded from the BDO Subclass. 2. The North Atlantic Funds and the Living Trust are certified as Class Representatives for the BDO Subclass. 3. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is appointed Class Counsel for the BDO Subclass under Rule 23(g). AmTrust is a multinational speciality property and casualty insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=neTTDc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Robert D. Gerson, Esq. Mark T. Millkey, Esq. Natalie C. Arenella, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com rgerson@rgrdlaw.com - and – Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: Jalieberman@pomlaw.com - and – Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 E 42nd St 46th floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 The Defendant is represented by: Timothy E. Hoeffner, Esq. Jason D. Gerstein, Esq. Fabiola Vega, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP One Vanderbilt Avenue New York, NY 10017-3852 Telephone: (212) 547-5444 E-mail: thoeffner@mwe.com jgerstein@mwe.com ARIZONA LABOR: Class Settlement in Bozek Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Bozek, et al., v. Arizona Labor Force Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00210-SHD (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Desai entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, a Settlement Class consisting of: "all United States residents whose PII may have been compromised in the Data Incident." "Data Incident" refers to when an unknown third-party hacker accessed the Defendants' network and information technology systems on Jan. 3, 2023. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) all persons who are directors, officers, and agents of the Defendants, or their respective subsidiaries and affiliated companies; (ii) governmental entities; and (iii) the Judge assigned to the Action, that Judge's immediate family, and Court staff. 2. The Court preliminarily finds and determines, pursuant to Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the Plaintiffs Daniel Bozek and Brandon Gaines will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Settlement Class in enforcing their rights in the action and appoints them as Settlement Class Representatives. The Court preliminarily finds that they are similarly situated to absent Settlement Class Members and therefore typical of the Settlement Class, and that they will be adequate Settlement Class Representatives. 3. The Court appoints Ben Travis of Ben Travis Law, APC and Joshua Swigart of Swigart Law Group, APC, and Bryan Hodyno of Compassionate Counsel as Class Counsel to act on behalf of the Settlement Class and the Settlement Class Representatives with respect to the Settlement. 4. The Court will hold a final approval hearing on Tuesday Jan. 12, 2027 at 10:00 am. The settlement creates a non-reversionary all-cash common fund of $300,000, from which Settlement Class Member benefits, settlement administration costs, service awards, and any attorneys' fees and costs will be paid, while Defendants separately pay Class Action Fairness Act notice costs up to $2,500. The Plaintiffs Bozek and Gaines, both former employees of Defendants, bring this class action on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of all United States residents whose personally identifiable information ("PII") may have been compromised in a Jan. 3, 2023, cyberattack on the Defendants' computer systems. The Plaintiffs allege that a third‑party hacker accessed the Defendants' network, copied files containing current and former employees’ names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and W-2 information and posted it on the dark web. Arizona Labor is a staffing and recruiting company founded in 1985. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YWkpl2 at no extra charge.[CC] BETTERHELP INC: Omnibus Sealing Order Entered in C.M. Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.M. v. BetterHelp, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01033-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an omnibus sealing order on motions to seal regarding class certification and associated motions to strike expert testimony. BetterHelp provides online mental health therapy services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zFv2Kt at no extra charge.[CC] BIG THINK: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Cardenas Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- ERICA CARDENAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIG THINK CAPITAL INC. Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-04443-CAB-DDL (S.D. Cal., Aug 3, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Think Capital LLC is an investment management firm. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com BOOTS RETAIL: Proposed Scheduling Order in Rosa Suit Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cathy Rosa et al., v. Boots Retail USA Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-03526-MMG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Garnett entered an order denying the joint letter re proposed scheduling order. Despite the Court identifying several concerns about the length of the parties' previous proposed schedule at the initial pretrial conference, and its directive at that conference to bifurcate discovery so that the class discovery would proceed before substantive fact discovery while the motion to dismiss was pending, the parties have inexplicably proposed a revised schedule that is longer than the previous schedule, by several months, even though it is now limited to class discovery and briefing. Accordingly, the Court rejects the parties' proposal and orders the following (already generous) schedule for initial disclosures, class discovery, and class certification briefing: Initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1): by Sept. 4, 2026 Motion to amend/join: Aug 21, 2026 Initial requests for production of documents relevant to class certification: Sept. 18, 2026 Deadline to produce documents responsive to RFP: Nov. 20, 2026 First set of interrogatories relevant to class certification: Oct. 23, 2026 Response to interrogatories: Nov. 20, 2026 Opening class certification motion with supporting experts: March 5, 2027 Opposition to class certification: Apr. 16, 2027 Reply on class certification: May 7, 2027 Boots Retail is a beauty and skincare division of Walgreens Boots Alliance. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mc9J46 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew A. Girardi The Defendant is represented by: Alecia E. Cotton, Esq. ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL 1500 K Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC Telephone: (202) 777-8950 Facsimile: (202) 347-8429 E-mail: acotton@rjo.com BRIGHTSTAR GROUP: M.D. Seeks Damages for Loss of Privacy -------------------------------------------------------- M.D. and M.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRIGHTSTAR GROUP HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a BRIGHTSTAR CARE, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-08981 (N.D. Ill., July 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of federal and state statutes and common law doctrines seeking actual damages, statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement of profit into a constructive trust, pre- and post-judgment interest and reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. The complaint relates that through its consumer-facing website at www.brightstarcare.com, BrightStar encourages prospective patients and their families to research Alzheimer's disease, dementia, memory care, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, autism, pediatric care, skilled nursing, disability assistance, and numerous other healthcare services before requesting additional assistance from BrightStar and its nationwide franchise network. Unknown to Plaintiffs and other reasonable consumers, BrightStar simultaneously operates a highly sophisticated integrated marketing technology ecosystem designed not merely to provide healthcare information, but also to measure consumer engagement, attribute healthcare inquiries to advertising campaigns, evaluate marketing performance, record website events, optimize advertising expenditures and convert individuals seeking healthcare services into qualified healthcare leads. As alleged, BrightStar accomplished these objectives by intentionally deploying multiple third-party advertising, attribution, analytics, customer relationship management and event-recording technologies throughout its website. Thus, while consumers reasonably believed they were privately researching healthcare services and communicating with a trusted healthcare organization, BrightStar simultaneously monetizes users' highly sensitive healthcare information during a time of grief. BrightStar also did not inform consumers that multiple third-party marketing technologies would simultaneously participate in the process, thereby violating federal and state privacy statutes. As a direct and proximate result of BrightStar's violations of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act (WESCA), Plaintiff M.D. and other Class Members suffered harm, including the unauthorized disclosure of their electronic communications concerning highly sensitive healthcare information and the loss of their privacy with respect to this information, says the suit. Plaintiffs M.D. and M.W. visited BrightStar's website because members of their families were confronting exceptionally sensitive healthcare needs. Defendant BrightStar Group Holdings, Inc. d/b/a BrightStar Care presents itself as a trusted nationwide provider of home healthcare services for individuals confronting highly sensitive medical circumstances.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq. REESE LLP 100 W. 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 E-mail: cramirez@reesellp.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 5544 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33707 Telephone: (917) 596-3283 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com CARL'S JR: Class Certification Filing Continued to Jan. 8, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Diana A Bernardo v. Carl's Jr. Restaurants LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00826-CAS-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Snyder entered an order grating motion to continue class certification filing deadline to Jan. 8, 2027. Carl's Jr. is an American fast-food restaurant chain. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=abT7JZ at no extra charge.[CC] CARL'S JR: Extension of Class Cert Filing to Jan. 8, 2027 Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANA A BERNARDO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorney General Act; v. CARL'S JR RESTAURANTS, LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-00826-CAS-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order continuing the motion for class certification filing date as set by this Court from Oct. 9, 2026, to Jan. 8, 2027, or 90 days from the current deadline Despite Plaintiff's repeated good-faith efforts to resolve the parties' discovery disputes, the parties were unable to reach a resolution, requiring the Plaintiff to file a motion to compel further responses to requests for production, set one, and special interrogatories, set one, which remains pending. Absent a continuance of the class certification deadline, the Plaintiff will be substantially prejudiced by being required to file a motion for class certification without the class wide discovery that is the subject of the pending motion to compel. A continuance will allow sufficient time for the Defendant to comply with any order compelling discovery and for the Plaintiff to review and incorporate that discovery into the motion for class certification. Carl's Jr. is a major American fast-food chain famous for its charbroiled thickburgers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 31, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=63k8YO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. Tiffany Hyun, Esq. Andrew Weaver, Esq. Jessica Abreu, Esq. Kaitlyn Fry, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 3 55 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 985-1150 Facsimile: (213) 985-21 E-mail: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com tiffany.hyun@thesentinelfirm.com andrew.weaver@thesentinelfirm.com jessica.abreu@thesentinelfirm.com kaitly.fry@thesentinelfirm.com - and - Sylvia J. Kim, Esq. Matthew C. Kane, Esq. Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Transamerica Pyramid 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 659-2600 Facsimile: (415) 659-2601 E-mail: sjkim@bakerlaw.com mkane@bakerlaw.com abeverlin@bakerlaw.com ksakaue@bakerlaw.com CHARLES SITRIN: Bid to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REGIS COTTON, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. CHARLES T. SITRIN HEALTH CARE CENTER, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-00071-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Hurd entered an order that: 1. The Defendant's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and to strike the Plaintiff's class allegations is denied; and 2. The Defendant shall answer the operative complaint within 14 days of the date of this opinion. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motion and set an answer deadline accordingly. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss this claim will be denied. On Jan. 15, 2025, the plaintiff, a part-time receptionist and health care aide, filed this putative class and collective action against her former employer, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Second Amended Complaint defines the proposed collective and classes as follows: "All non-exempt hourly employees who work for the Defendant between Jan. 15, 2022, and the present in the United States, and who were not paid proper overtime compensation when they worked over 40 hours in a workweek (the "FLSA Collective")." "All non-exempt hourly employees who worked for the Defendant from Jan. 15, 2019, and the present in the [state of] New York, and who were not paid proper overtime compensation when they worked over 40 hours in a workweek (the "Overtime Class")." "All employees who worked for the Defendant between Jan. 1, 2021, and the present and who received two or more rates of pay and used sick time on at least one occasion (the "Sick Time Class")." The Defendant is a health-care facility in New Hartford, New York that provides medical rehabilitation, assisted living, and long-term residential care services to the elderly and individuals with disabilities. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HcamSE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariyam Hussain, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 The Defendant is represented by: Christopher P. Maugans, Esq. GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP 665 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14203 CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Smith Sues Over Data Privacy Violations --------------------------------------------------------- DEZANEE SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 26CV20219 (Cal., Sup., Aug. 3, 2026) alleges violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant owns and operates a website https://www.chipotle.com. When users visit the Website, the Defendant causes numerous trackers and cookies developed and operated by Google, FullStory, Inc. (acquired by Emplifi, 2023), Microsoft Advertising, Twitter/X Ad, Redditstatic, Bing and Amazonaws (the "Trackers") to be installed on Website visitors' internet browsers. The 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 the ECPA, and CIPA, says the suit. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., also known simply as Chipotle, is an American multinational chain of fast casual restaurants specializing in bowls, tacos, and Mission burritos made to order in front of the customer. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. 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 Email: classactions@potterhandy.com CLARKSON INSURANCE: Court Partially Denies Bid to Dismiss "Mangum" ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Jessica Mangum, Peter Mcintyre, and Kaitlin Mize, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Robert H. Clarkson Insurance Agency, LLC and RH Clarkson Financial Services, Inc., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-00414-GNS (W.D. Ky.), Judge Greg N. Stivers of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted in part and denied in part the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The case maintained class action status as the action was brought by the Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The action arose from a third party’s breach of the Defendants’ database, which contained the Plaintiffs’ private information. Cybercriminals gained unauthorized access to the computer network systems, and the Defendants concluded that databases containing personally identifying information, including full legal names and Social Security numbers, had been accessed. On or about June 30, 2025, the Defendants sent notice letters informing the Plaintiffs and class members that their information had been accessed and potentially acquired. Regarding the negligence claim, the Defendants argued that there was no plausible claim of compensatory damages. However, the Court noted that so long as the Plaintiffs showed they were at a material risk of concrete harm, and that they suffered any other harm from that risk, they were entitled to damages for an increased risk of future harm. The Court found the negligence claim was sufficiently pled because it asserted the risk of future identity theft and the stress and anxiety suffered by the Plaintiffs. To establish a breach of implied contract, the Plaintiffs alleged the existence of an enforceable contract created by mutual assent. The Court determined that the Defendants required the Plaintiffs to furnish their private information in exchange for insurance services, which supported a reasonable inference that the Defendants entered an implied contract to safeguard the information. For the unjust enrichment claim, the Court found it could survive because the Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants enriched themselves by saving money not protecting the information. As for the invasion of privacy claim, the Court noted there were no allegations suggesting that any employee of the Defendants directly contributed to the intrusion or intruded themselves. Thus, this element of intrusion upon seclusion was not well-pled and the claim was dismissed. Regarding the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, the Court found the Plaintiffs purchased services and were required to entrust the Defendants with their information, which suggested they purchased services as customers. Accordingly, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The Court ordered that Count IV of the amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wftg75 from PacerMonitor.com CME INTERNATIONAL: Del Salto Sues Over Data Privacy Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER DEL SALTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CME INTERNATIONAL, LLC; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-08053 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 4, 2026) alleges violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint the Defendants owns and operates a website https://www.bobswatches.com (the "Website" or "Bobswatches"). When users visit the Website, the Defendant causes numerous trackers and cookies developed and operated by Meta, Google, Microsoft Corporation, LinkedIn, Criteo, Rubicon Project, AppNexus, PubMatic, The Trade Desk, Taboola and Outbrain (the "Trackers") 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, alleges the suit. CME International LLC, Inc., dba Bob's Watches acts as a shipper's-agent to arrange, organize and/or manage transportation and provide ancillary services, including but not limited to U.S. export filing services (if applicable) and billing solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. 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 Email: classactions@potterhandy.com CNO FINANCIAL: Bench Ruling on Alter Ego Pending in Indiana Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- CNO Financial Group, 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 CNO Financial Group, Inc. and CNO Services, LLC (collectively, the CNO Entities) are defendants in a putative class action captioned "Burnett v. Conseco Life Ins. Co., brought on behalf of certain former interest-sensitive whole life insurance policyholders who surrendered their policies or allowed them to lapse. The action was commenced on Oct. 5, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by plaintiffs William Jeffrey Burnett and Joe H. Camp. Plaintiffs' first amended complaint alleges that the CNO Entities are liable under an alter ego theory for Conseco Life Insurance Company's purported breach of the optional premium payment provision (the Optional Premium Payment) and other provisions of plaintiffs' insurance policies. In January 2018, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. On Aug. 17, 2020, the court denied the CNO Entities' motions to dismiss, allowing the action to proceed. On Jan. 13, 2021, the court granted final approval of a class action settlement between plaintiffs and co-defendant Conseco Life Insurance Company (now known as Wilco Life Insurance Company), and the case remains pending against the CNO Entities. On March 25, 2022, the court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class of under 2,000 policyholders who invoked the policy's Optional Premium Payment prior to October 2008 and who surrendered their policies between Oct. 7, 2008, and Sept. 1, 2011. The court's certification order acknowledged the existence of individualized issues of causation and damages and stated that these issues could be addressed in individualized proceedings following a class trial on the alter ego allegations and the meaning of the subject insurance policy language. A three-day jury trial on causation and damages as to the two class representatives commenced on June 16, 2025, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the class representatives on June 18, 2025, for approximately $0.2 million collectively. The bench trial on alter ego liability was held between Aug. 26 and Sept. 2, 2025, but the court has not yet issued a ruling. The parties prepared and submitted a post-trial briefing, which was completed at the end of December 2025. Any liability of any kind will depend on the outcome of the alter ego trial and, in the event the court rules in favor of plaintiffs on that issue, on whether absent class members participate in follow-on trials to determine whether they are entitled to damages and on the outcomes of those trials. The outcomes of all trials will be subject to appeal, and any follow-on trials and appeals with respect to absent class members may take years to resolve. CNO Financial Group, Inc. is a holding company for a group of insurance businesses that develop, market, and administer annuity, life insurance, and health insurance products. It primarily serves middle-income pre-retiree and retired Americans through its Bankers Life, Colonial Penn, and Washington National brands. COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Fails to Secure Private Info, Perkins Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SONYA PERKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-09254 (N.D. Ill., August 4, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. Defendant CommonSpirit Health is one of the largest healthcare providers in the United States, operating an extensive network of facilities across more than 20 states. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant with the reasonable expectation and on the mutual understanding that Defendant would comply with its obligations to keep such information confidential and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant, in turn, entrusted Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information to Xsolis, a healthcare technology company using artificial intelligence to accelerate collaboration across a connected network of providers and payers. On January 22, 2026, a threat actor gained unauthorized access to Xsolis' network, compromising the Private Information of Plaintiff and the Class. The impacted information includes dates of birth, doctor name, health insurance provider, medical diagnosis information, and medical treatment dates. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals, the complaint asserts. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the suit. The Plaintiff, therefore, brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for negligence; negligence per se; breach of implied contract; and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com CONCHO RESOURCES: Class Certified in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------- ConocoPhillips 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 July 2021 federal securities class action against its affiliate Concho Resources Inc., certain of its officers, and ConocoPhillips as Concho's successor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The action alleges that Concho made materially false and misleading statements regarding its business and operations in violation of the federal securities laws. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, costs, equitable or injunctive relief, and such other relief as may be deemed appropriate. On Oct. 21, 2021, the court issued an order appointing Utah Retirement Systems and the Construction Laborer's Pension Trust for Southern California as lead plaintiffs. On Jan. 7, 2022, these lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint advancing the securities law allegations and associated claims for relief. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on March 8, 2022. On June 23, 2023, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss as to most defendants, including Concho and ConocoPhillips. On April 7, 2025, the court certified a class in the action. ConocoPhillips is a global exploration and production company engaged in the discovery, development, and production of crude oil, bitumen, natural gas, and natural gas liquids. Headquartered in Houston, it operates across multiple continents with a portfolio focused on conventional and unconventional resource plays. CORMEDIX INC: Derivative Settlement Hearing Scheduled for Sept. 23 ------------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY IN RE CORMEDIX INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION C.A. No. 2:21-cv-18493-JXN-LDW (Consolidated with Civil Action No.: 23-cv-00150 and Civil Action No.: 23-cv-00406) TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO HOLD OR BENEFICIALLY OWN, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, CORMEDIX INC. ("CORMEDIX" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK AS OF JANUARY 19, 2026 ("CURRENT CORMEDIX STOCKHOLDERS") PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION (THE "FEDERAL ACTION") BY ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT BY THE COURT AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THESE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FROM PURSUING THE RELEASED CLAIMS. IF YOU HOLD CORMEDIX COMMON STOCK FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER, PLEASE PROMPTLY TRANSMIT THIS DOCUMENT TO SUCH BENEFICIAL OWNER. THE RECITATION OF THE BACKGROUND AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SETTLEMENT CONTAINED HEREIN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT. IT IS BASED ON REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE COURT BY COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. THIS ACTION IS NOT A "CLASS ACTION." THUS, THERE IS NO COMMON FUND UPON WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A CLAIM FOR A MONETARY PAYMENT. Notice is hereby provided to you of the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-referenced stockholder derivative lawsuit as well as a related shareholder derivative action captioned Raval v. Baluch, C.A. UNN-L-3721 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law. Div.) (the "Raval Action" and, together with the Federal Action, the "Actions"). This Notice is provided by Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Court"). It is not an expression of any opinion by the Court. It is to notify you of the terms of the proposed Settlement, and your rights related thereto. I. WHY THE COMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS NOTICE Your rights may be affected by the Settlement of the Actions. Plaintiffs in the Actions, Melissa Voter, Isaac Desalvo, Rose Scullion, and Amit Raval ("Plaintiffs"); defendants Khoso Baluch, Janet D. Dillione, Alan W. Dunton, Myron Kaplan, Steven Lefkowitz, Paulo F. Costa, Greg Duncan, Matthew David, Robert Cook, Joseph Todisco, Phoebe Mounts, and John L. Armstrong (the "Individual Defendants"); and nominal defendant CorMedix (together with the Individual Defendants, the "Defendants") (Plaintiffs and Defendants are collectively referred to as the "Parties") have agreed upon terms to settle the Actions and, through counsel, have signed a written Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement ("Stipulation") memorializing those settlement terms. On September 23, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., at the Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, NJ 07101, Courtroom 5D the Honorable Julien Xavier Neals, U.S.D.J. will hold a hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") in the Federal Action. II .SUMMARY OF THE ACTION A. Description of the Actions CorMedix is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey. CorMedix is a biopharmaceutical company primarily focused on developing and commercializing therapeutic products for life-threatening diseases and conditions, including Neutrolin® ("Neutrolin") (later renamed and referred to herein as DefenCath®). During the "Relevant Period" (October 16, 2019 through August 8, 2022), CorMedix sought approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA") for DefenCath. The Actions arise from allegations that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties as officers and directors of CorMedix during the Relevant Period by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose alleged manufacturing deficiencies that ultimately resulted in delayed approval of the DefenCath New Drug Application ("NDA") which was first made public in March 2021, when CorMedix received a Complete Response Letter from the FDA. The Actions also allege that as a result of these disclosures and the subsequent decline in CorMedix's share price, a securities fraud class action was filed against the Company and certain of its officers captioned, In re CorMedix Secs. Litig., Case No. 2:21-cv-14020 (D.N.J.) ("Securities Class Action"). As a result of the foregoing, the Actions allege that the Company suffered significant harm. B. The Settlement Negotiations The Parties participated in a full day, in person mediation (the "Mediation") with an experienced neutral mediator, Michelle Yoshida, Esq. of Phillips ADR (the "Mediator"), on November 18, 2025. On or around September 18, 2025, Plaintiffs' Counsel sent a settlement proposal to Defendants in advance of the Mediation. During the Mediation, and for several weeks following the Mediation, and with the assistance and oversight of the Mediator, the Parties exchanged and negotiated a number of settlement proposals and counter proposals. The Parties ultimately reached an agreement to resolve the Actions in exchange for the implementation and/or maintenance of corporate governance reforms (the "Reforms"). The agreed-upon Settlement terms were memorialized by the Parties' execution of a Term Sheet on December 20, 2025. Only after the execution of the Term Sheet did the Parties then begin negotiating through the Mediator an amount of attorneys' fees and expenses for Plaintiffs' Counsel. Nevertheless, the Parties have not yet reached an agreement regarding the appropriate amount of attorneys' fees and expenses. Should Plaintiffs file an application for a fee and expense award, Defendants reserve the right to oppose. III. TERMS OF THE PROPOSED DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT The proposed Settlement, as set forth more fully in the Stipulation, requires the Company to adopt, implement, and/or maintain the Reforms that are outlined in Exhibit A to the Stipulation. The Reforms shall be maintained for a minimum period of three and a half (3.5) years as outlined in the Stipulation. The members of CorMedix's Board, including each of the independent, nondefendant members of the Board, advised by counsel and acting in exercise of their business judgment, has determined that the Actions were a material contributing factor in causing the Company to agree to implement the Reforms provided by the Settlement and that the Reforms will confer substantial benefits to CorMedix. This summary should be read in conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, the text of the Stipulation, which has been filed with the Court. IV. PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL'S ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES Only after agreeing on the essential terms of the Settlement at the mediation did the Parties then begin negotiating an amount of attorneys' fees and expenses for Plaintiffs' Counsel in consideration of the substantial benefits achieved for the Company and its current stockholders through the filing, litigation, and settlement of the Actions ("Fee and Expense Amount"). Plaintiffs' Counsel intend to petition the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses not to exceed $3,900,000.00. V. REASONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT The Parties believe that the Settlement, including the Reforms, will confer substantial benefits upon the Company. A. Why Did Plaintiffs Agree to Settle? Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel believe that the claims asserted in the Actions have merit and that their investigations support the claims asserted. However, and without conceding the merit of any of Defendants' defenses or the lack of merit of any of their own allegations, based upon their thorough investigation and evaluation of the relevant evidence, substantive law, procedural rules, and their assessment of the interests of CorMedix and Current CorMedix Stockholders, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel have determined that the Settlement's guarantee of substantial benefits conferred upon CorMedix and Current CorMedix Stockholders in the form of the Reforms is fair, reasonable and adequate consideration for foregoing the pursuit of a potentially superior recovery through further litigation, and serves the best interests of CorMedix and Current CorMedix Stockholders. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel also have taken into account the uncertain outcome and the risk of any litigation, especially complex litigation such as the Actions, as well as the difficulties and delays inherent in such litigation. Plaintiffs' Counsel attest that they conducted an investigation relating to the claims and the underlying events alleged in the Action, including, but not limited to: (i) reviewing and analyzing CorMedix's public filings with the SEC, press releases, announcements, transcripts of investor conference calls, and news articles; (ii) reviewing and analyzing the investigations in publicly-available pleadings against CorMedix related to the allegations in the Actions; (iii) reviewing and analyzing the allegations contained in the related Securities Class Action; (iv) researching, drafting, and filing shareholder derivative complaints; (v) researching the applicable law with respect to the claims asserted (or which could be asserted) in the Actions and the potential defenses thereto; (vi) researching corporate governance issues; (vii) preparing a detailed settlement demand on behalf of Plaintiffs; (viii) drafting a consolidated complaint in the Federal Action; (ix) participating in a mediation on November 18, 2025; (x) engaging in settlement discussions and exchanging corporate governance reforms and counteroffers with the Mediator and counsel for the Defendants; (xi) reviewing and analyzing internal books and records produced by the Company; and (xii) negotiating and drafting the settlement documentation for presentment to the Court. Plaintiffs' Counsel's views are further informed by their experience and thorough analysis of the facts and law governing the applicable derivative standing and pleading requirements, substantive claims and defenses, and damages and disgorgement remedies. Plaintiffs' Counsel's assessment of the facts and legal issues material to their recommendation in favor of the Settlement was honed and refined in the course of drafting pleadings, and during the substantive written and verbal exchanges with Defendants' Counsel and the Mediator. B. Why Did the Defendants Agree to Settle? The Individual Defendants have vigorously denied, and continue to deny vigorously, any and all allegations of wrongdoing or liability with respect to the claims and contentions asserted in the Actions. The Individual Defendants expressly have denied and continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing by or liability against them or any of them arising out of, based upon, or related to, any of the conduct, statements, acts or omissions alleged, or that could have been alleged in the Actions. Without limiting the foregoing, the Individual Defendants have denied and continue to deny, among other things, that they breached their fiduciary duties or any other duty owed to the Company or its stockholders, that the Company or its stockholders suffered any damage or were harmed as a result of any conduct alleged in the Actions or otherwise. The Individual Defendants have further asserted and continue to assert that at all relevant times, they acted in good faith and in a manner they reasonably believed to be in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders. Nonetheless, Defendants also have taken into account the expense, uncertainty, and risks inherent in any litigation, especially in complex cases like the Actions or other shareholder derivative action(s), and that the Settlement would, among other things, bring to an end the expenses, burdens, and uncertainties associated with the continued litigation of the claims asserted in the Actions. Therefore, Defendants have determined that it is desirable and beneficial that the Actions, and all of the Parties' disputes related thereto, be fully and finally settled in the manner and upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation. The Settlement shall in no event be construed as or deemed to be evidence of an admission or concession by Defendants with respect to any claim of fault, liability, wrongdoing, or damage whatsoever. VI. SETTLEMENT HEARING On September 23, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., at the Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, NJ 07101, Courtroom 5D, the Honorable Julien Xavier Neals, U.S.D.J. will hold the Settlement Hearing in the Action. At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will consider, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1, whether (i) the terms of the Stipulation should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) this Notice fully satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 and due process; (iii) to enter the proposed Order and Final Judgment in its entirety, as set forth in Exhibit D to the Stipulation; (iv) to evaluate the Fee and Expense Amount for Plaintiffs' Counsel, as well as service award for Plaintiffs of up to $5,000.00, to be paid from the Fee and Expense Amount; and (v) to determine such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. The Court may: (i) approve the Settlement, with such modifications as may be agreed to by counsel for the Parties consistent with such Settlement, without further notice to Current CorMedix Stockholders; (ii) continue or adjourn the Settlement Hearing from time to time, including by oral announcement at the hearing or at any adjournment thereof, without further notice to Current CorMedix Stockholders; and (iii) conduct the Settlement Hearing remotely without further notice to Current CorMedix Stockholders. VII. RIGHT TO ATTEND SETTLEMENT HEARING Any Current CorMedix Stockholder may, but is not required to, appear in person at the Settlement Hearing. If you want to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, then you must first comply with the procedures for objecting, which are set forth below. The Court has the right to change the hearing dates or times without further notice. Thus, if you are planning to attend the Settlement Hearing, you should confirm the date and time before going to the Court. CURRENT CORMEDIX STOCKHOLDERS WHO HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE SETTLEMENT DO NOT NEED TO APPEAR AT THE SETTLEMENT HEARING OR TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION. VIII. RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT AND THE PROCEDURES FOR DOING SO You have the right to object to any aspect of the Settlement. You must object in writing, and you may request to be heard at the Settlement Hearing. If you choose to object, then you must follow these procedures. A.You Must Make Detailed Objections in Writing Any objections must be presented in writing and must contain the following information: 1. Your name, legal address, telephone number, and e-mail address; 2. The number of shares of CorMedix stock you currently hold, together with third-party documentary evidence, such as the most recent account statement, showing such share ownership, and proof of being a CorMedix Stockholder as of January 19, 2026 through the present; 3. If the objection is made by the Current CorMedix Stockholder's counsel, the counsel's name, address, telephone number and e-mail address (if available); 4. A statement of specific objections to the Settlement, the grounds therefore, or the reasons for such person desiring to appear and be heard, as well as all documents or writings such person desires the Court to consider; 5. The identities of any witnesses such Person plans on calling at the Settlement Hearing, along with a summary description of their likely testimony; and 6. A list -- including dates, courts, case names and numbers, and disposition -- of any other Settlements to which the individual or entity has been a party to or objected during the previous three (3) years. B. You Must Timely File Written Objections with the Court and Deliver to Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants ANY WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST BE ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT NO LATER THAN September 2, 2026. The Court Clerk's address is: Clerk of Court United States District Court District of New Jersey 50 Walnut Street Newark, NJ 07101 YOU ALSO MUST DELIVER COPIES OF THE MATERIALS TO COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS AND COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS SO THEY ARE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN September 2, 2026. Counsel's addresses are: Counsel for Plaintiffs: GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON Thomas J. McKenna Gregory M. Egleston 260 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 (212) 983-1300 tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER Brett D. Stecker 300 Countryview Dr. Bryn Mawr, PA 19010 (303) 861-3003 brett@shumanlawfirm.com Counsel for Defendants: WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP Andrew J. Lichtman Charles D. Cording 787 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10019 Tel: (212) 728-8000 Fax: (212) 728-8111 alichtman@willkie.com ccording@willkie.com Unless the Court orders otherwise, your objection will not be considered unless it is timely filed with the Court and delivered to the above-referenced counsel for the Parties. Any attorney retained by a person intending to appear, and requesting to be heard, at the Settlement Hearing must, in addition to the requirements set forth above, file with the Clerk of the Court and deliver to counsel listed above for the Parties a notice of appearance, which must be received by no later than September 2, 2026. Any person or entity who fails to object or otherwise request to be heard in the manner prescribed above will be deemed to have waived the right to object to any aspect of the Settlement or otherwise request to be heard (including the right to appeal) and will be forever barred from raising such objection or request to be heard in this or any other action or proceeding. IX. HOW TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION This Notice summarizes the Stipulation. It is not a complete statement of the events of the Action or the Stipulation. For additional information about the claims asserted in the Actions and the terms of the proposed Settlement, please refer to the documents filed with the Court in the Federal Action, the Stipulation and its exhibits (they are filed as an exhibit to the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC and available at www.sec.gov), and this Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Derivative Action. The "Investor Relations" section of CorMedix's website https://cormedix.com/ investors/ provides hyperlinks to the Notice and to the Stipulation and its exhibits. You may obtain further information by contacting any of Plaintiffs' Counsel at the above contact information. PLEASE DO NOT CALL, WRITE, OR OTHERWISE DIRECT QUESTIONS TO EITHER THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL. IT IS ORDERED DATED: 7/24/2026 JULIEN XAVIER NEALS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE CROCS INC: Ravizee Seeks Final OK of $300K Settlement ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRYL RAVIZEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CROCS INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-02657-GPG-CYC (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for approval of Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") settlement. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant failed to properly calculate the regular rate of pay in connection with its overtime payments to the Eligible Employees after incorporating various types of routine and non-discretionary pay into its compensation structure, including bonus pay. The Gross Settlement Amount is $300,000, which is inclusive of payment for: (i) the issuance of monetary payments ("Individual Settlement Payments") to Eligible Employees; (ii) a Service Award to the Named Plaintiff; (iii) payment for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (as approved by this Court and including those in connection with securing Court approval of the Settlement Agreement), and (iv) fees associated with settlement administration. Crocs is an American footwear company based in Broomfield, Colorado. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M7u45P at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com DNOW INC: Ferraioli Sues Over Share Price Drop Following MRC Merger ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRENDAN FERRAIOLI, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DNOW INC., DAVID A. CHERECHINSKY, MARK B. JOHNSON, RICHARD J. ALARIO, TERRY BONNO, GALEN COBB, PAUL COPPINGER, KAREN DAVID-GREEN, RODNEY EADS, and SONYA READ, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-06261 (S.D. Tex., August 3, 2026) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who held DNOW common stock as of the August 5, 2025 record date and were thus entitled to vote at DNOW's September 9, 2025 special meeting on the merger of DNOW and MRC Global Inc., whereby DNOW would acquire MRC Global, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint relates that on June 9, 2025, DNOW issued a press release in which it announced that DNOW and MRC Global Inc. would combine in an all-stock transaction valued at approximately $1.5 billion. On August 5, 2025, DNOW filed with the SEC a joint proxy statement (the "Proxy") on Form 424B3 to solicit votes for the Merger with MRC Global. That same day, the SEC filed a Notice of Effectiveness declaring effective the Proxy, as well as a registration statement dated July 23, 2025 on Form S-4 (the "Registration Statement"), which provided for the issuance of securities in relation to the Merger, and which was signed by the Director Defendants. The Proxy stated that DNOW's board of directors unanimously recommended that DNOW stockholders vote for the Merger. The complaint alleges that some parts of the proxy statement were materially false and/or 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, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants negligently understated the challenge of DNOW's merger with MRC Global Inc. as a result of material issues affecting MRC Global's new enterprise resource planning system, which they knew of or should have known of, and (2) as a result, Defendants' statements about DNOW's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On February 20, 2026, before the market opened, DNOW held its Q4 2025 earnings call, where Defendant Cherechinsky disclosed, among other things, that MRC Global's IT system was such a mess that DNOW was abandoning its use wherever possible. On this news, the price of DNOW stock fell $3.13, or 19.1%, to close at $13.23 on February 20, 2026. The following trading day, it fell a further $1.38 per share, or 10.4%, to close at $11.85 per share on February 23, 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 other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Plaintiff Brendan Ferraioli held DNOW common stock as of the close of business on August 5, 2025. Defendant DNOW Inc. is an energy and industrial solutions provider with a legacy of over 160 years as a distributor of pipe, valves, fittings (PVF), gas products, pumps and fabricated equipment. Defendants Cherechinsky, Alario, Bonno, Cobb, Coppinger, David-Green, Eads, and Reed served as directors and officers of DNOW during the merger.[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 E-mail: philkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com DOW CHEMICAL: Thibodeaux Class Suit Removed to M.D. La. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JUANITA THIBODEAUX, NICHOLAS DUCET, TIMOTHY BARBAY, CINDY HIGGINS, TERRY HIGGINS, LISA LANDRY, LISA COKER, and DWAYNE TULLIER, EACH INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS v. THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY and TURNER INDUSTRIES GROUP LLC, Case No. 83464, was removed from the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Division "B," Parish of Iberville, State of Louisiana, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on August 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00847-EWD-RLB to the proceeding. This is a class action complaint seeking individual and class relief for claims arising out of an alleged chemical release and fire that occurred at Dow's facility in Iberville Parish on July 14, 2023. The Plaintiffs assert a number of claims against Dow and Turner Industries Group LLC, the contractor working on the turnaround at the facility, arising from their alleged exposure to chemicals released during the fire event at the facility. The Dow Chemical Company is an American chemical company.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: David M. Bienvenu, Jr., Esq. F. Charles Marionneaux, Esq. John Allain Viator, Esq. Phillip E. Foco, Esq. Colin P. O'Rourke, Esq. Melissa Jade Avant, Esq. Henry S. Rauschenberger, Esq. 4210 Bluebonnet Blvd. Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225)388-5600 Facsimile: (225)388-5622 E-mail: david.bienvenu@bblawla.com chip.marionneaux@bblawla.com john.viator@bblawla.com phillip.foco@bblawla.com colin.orourke@bblawla.com jade.avant@bblawla.com henry.rauschenberger@bblawla.com EDUCATIONAL COMPUTER: Class Settlement in Hood Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOEL HOOD, ELIAS NEMIRI, GIDEON BAUER, ELIZABETH GOLEC, ALEXYS TAYLOR, ELIAS NEMIRI, and GIDEON BAUERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EDUCATIONAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. ("ECSI"), Case No. 2:24-cv-00666-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order granting the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement: The Court further entered an order: (1) provisionally certifying the class for settlement purposes only; (2) directing notice to be given consistent with the Plaintiffs' notice plan; (3) appointing Nicholas A. Colella of Lynch Carpenter LLP and Nickolas J. Hagman of Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP as class counsel; (4) adopting the opt-out and objections procedures set forth in the settlement; and (5) setting a fairness hearing and associated deadlines. Because Plaintiffs have made a preliminary showing that they can satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the Court will provisionally certify a class of: "All Persons residing within the United States whose Personal Information was potentially accessed in the Security Incident." On May 3, 2024, Mr. Hood filed a class action complaint, asserting claims against the Defendant Educational Computer Systems, Inc. including negligence, negligence per se under the FTC Act, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy. ECSI is a student loan and tax servicing vendor that provides services to universities in the United States. A copy of the Court's opinion dated Aug. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QRCapP at no extra charge.[CC] EL DORADO LF: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jaurigui Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- RODOLFO JAURIGUI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EL DORADO LF, LLC, d/b/a HUSTLER CASINO; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV24611 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 4, 2026) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Jaurigui was employed by the Defendants as a staff. El Dorado LF, LLC, d/b/a Hustler Casino operates a gaming establishment and card club in Gardena, Los Angeles Couty, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aidin D. Ghavimi, Esq. Zachary D. Greenberg, Esq. STARPOINT, LC 15233 Ventura Boulevard, Suite PH16 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (310) 424-9971 Facsimile: (424) 255-4035 Email: service@starpointlaw.com EVERQUOTE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Hossfeld Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hossfeld v. EverQuote, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-11440 (D. Mass., Filed March 25, 2026), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an order: -- denying Farmers Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss; -- denying motion to compel; -- granting in part and denying in part EverQuote's motion to dismiss; -- denying motion to strike. The court will deny defendant Farmers Group, Inc.'s (FGI) motion to dismiss. It argues that the Amended Complaint fails to sufficiently allege any claim for which it is liable because it did not directly make any calls or send any text messages to plaintiff Robert Hossfeld, and neither defendant EverQuote, Inc., nor the Farmers agency owned by non-party Alexander Holmes were acting as agents of FGI when they made calls or sent text messages. The court will also deny the motion to strike. EverQuote does not suggest that Hossfeld has failed to plausibly plead the existence of a definable class. Finally, the court allows in part and denies in part EverQuote's motion to dismiss. The court agrees that Hossfeld's unjust enrichment claim (Count IV) is inadequately pled. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. EverQuote is an online insurance marketplace founded in 2011 and based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.[CC] EXPERIAN DATA: Class Certification Filing Modified to June 4, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gilligan et al., v. EXPERIAN DATA CORPORATION, EXPERIAN PLC, EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., and TAPAD, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-02873-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order granting joint motion to modify scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Joint Letter Identifying Name of Mediator: March 5, 2027 The Plaintiffs' class certification March 22, 2027 expert disclosures: The Defendant's class certification expert April 21, 2027 disclosures: Motion for class certification: June 4, 2027 Opposition to motion for class certification: July 9, 2027 Class certification reply: Aug. 6, 2027 Class certification motion hearing: Aug. 24, 2027 at 10:00 AM Experian is a global information services and data broker company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ucQMpg at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: John A. Vogt, Esq. Ryan D. Ball, Esq. Matthew T. Billeci, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 660 Newport Center Drive Suite 450, 4th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 743-3400 Facsimile: (949) 743-3485 E-mail: javogt@goodwinlaw.com rball@goodwinlaw.com mbilleci@goodwinlaw.com EXPLORATION CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baca Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY BACA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXPLORATION CORP.; SPACE TECHNOLOGIES; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV24428 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug 3, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Baca was employed by the Defendants as a receiving specialist. The Exploration Company is headquartered in the United States. The company's line of business includes performing geophysical, geological, and other exploration services for oil and gas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon Brouillette, ESQ. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 Email: bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com FADE & FACET: Hudson Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------- JASMINE HUDSON, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. FADE & FACET LLC and DAMIAN ROBERTS, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04356-WMR (N.D. Ga., Aug. 3, 2026) is a collective action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated against Defendants for alleged systemic violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as an individual claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pursuant to the FLSA, the Defendants are liable to Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, for unlawfully withheld tips, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities: anxiety, depression, and panic attacks. She additionally alleges that Fade & Facet violated the ADA by (1) discriminating against her because of her disabilities, (2) failing to provide her with a reasonable accommodation, and (3) retaliating against her by terminating her employment after she requested reasonable accommodations. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from January 23, 2025 to July 21, 2025 as a non-exempt employee in the position of bartender. Fade & Facet is a restaurant in the metro Atlanta area in Georgia that offers full-service dining, bar, covered patio and VIP areas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Scott, Esq. Tierra M. Monteiro, Esq. RADFORD SCOTT LLP 125 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 380 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (404) 400-3600 Facsimile: (478) 575-2590 E-mail: jscott@radfordscott.com tmonteiro@radfordscott.com FIVE9 INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lucid Suit Due Nov. 20 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCID ALTERNATIVE FUND, LP, v. FIVE9, INC., et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-08725-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order Based on the Joint Case Management Statement, the following schedule is set for this case: Deadlines Joinder and other amendments: Oct. 9, 2026 Motion for class certification: Nov. 20, 2026 Fact discovery cutoff: April 9, 2027 Expert discovery cutoff: July 16, 2027 Filing of dispositive/Daubert motion(s): Oct. 21, 2027 Trial setting conference: Feb. 15, 2028 Five9 is a provider of cloud contact center software (CCaaS). A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bUqy1Q at no extra charge.[CC] FREEPORT, NY: Whaley Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL WHALEY and ERICK SVENSSON, individually, And on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE VILLAGE OF FREEPORT, MICHAEL SMITH, 25-cv-02720 (DG)(JMW) individually, JCB & SONS, INC. d/b/a NON-STOP TOWING & RECOVERY a/k/a NON-STOP TOWING a/k/a NON-STOP TOWING AND RECOVERY, JEROME BONOMO, Individually, MATTHEW K. SERIDGE, Individually, MARY R. CUESTAS, Individually, RICHARD SAMUEL, Individually, and ROBERT JEMERSON-OLIVER, Individually, Case No. 2:25-cv-02720-DG-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order as follows: (1) Directing (a) the discontinuance of the claims set forth within the amended complaint asserted on behalf of named plaintiff, Erick Svensson, and (b) the discontinuance of Counts THREE and FOUR within the Amended Complaint; (2) Certifying a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), with the class defined as follows: "All vehicle owners whose vehicles were seized and/or impounded by the Village of Freeport Police Department (FPD) as "scofflaw vehicles" having been deemed "scofflaw vehicles" by the Village of Freeport for unpaid/albeit unadjudicated parking tickets, and were seized by the FPD without warrants, executions, and/or or any judicial orders, within period from 5/14/2022 through 5/15/25;" (3) appointing Plaintiff Paul Whaley as Class Representative of the proposed Class; and (4) appointing Campanelli & Associates, P.C., as Lead Counsel for the Class. Freeport is a village in the town of Hempstead, in Nassau County, on the South Shore of Long Island, in New York state. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0k7j7e at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew J. Campanelli, Esq. CAMPANELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Proposed Attorneys for Proposed Class Members 1757 Merrick Ave, Suite 204 Merrick, NY 11566 Telephone: (516) 746-1600 GENOMIC HEALTH: Continuance of Class Cert Deadline Sought --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH ATIENZA, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees, v. GENOMIC HEALTH, INC.; EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION Case No. 4:25-cv-05222-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their stipulation for an order to continue motion for class certification deadline. The Parties request an order continuing the July 31, 2026, deadline for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification to Oct. 29, 2026. The Parties will file a Joint Status Report Regarding the Progress of the Settlement on Sept. 1, 2026, and as further ordered by the Court. In the interest of efficiency and conserving the Court's and the Parties' resources, the Parties agree and request that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification deadline be continued or vacated to allow the Parties and Halloran time to file a Motion for Preliminary Approval in the Halloran Class and PAGA Action. The Plaintiff alleges three claims for (1) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (2) for violation of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"); and (3) violation of the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act ("ICRAA"). Through his UCL claim, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid meal and rest break premiums, and unreimbursed business expenses on behalf of a putative class of the Defendants' California non-exempt employees since May 14, 2021. Genomic is a U.S.-based life science and molecular diagnostics company founded in August 2000. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Kx4MRc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sage S. Stone, Esq. Zachary T. Gershman, Esq. Annabel Blanchard, Esq. Alexandra Rose, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 622-4278 Facsimile: (855) 786-6356 E-mail: sstone@blackstonepc.com zgershman@blackstonepc.com ablanchard@blackstonepc.com arose@blackstonepc.com The Defendants are represented by: Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com GERBER PAYROLL: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Continued --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge S. Kate Vaughan entered an order for continuance of class certification briefing schedule and other pretrial deadlines. The Court will issue a new class certification briefing schedule continuing the current deadlines by six months. The current Class Certification Briefing Schedule and Other Pretrial Deadlines are stricken. The parties request that the Court continue the deadlines in the current Briefing Schedule by six months and to issue a new class certification briefing schedule On March 24, 2026, the parties filed a Stipulated Motion for Continuance of Class Certification Briefing Schedule and Other Pretrial Deadlines. Gerber is a provider of payroll and human resources solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2S8rSb 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 600 University St., Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-3300 E-mail: bsmartell@littler.com brho@littler.com ewhitworth@littler.com GIVEBUTTER INC: Summeril Sues Over Deceptive Processing Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ SANDRA SUMMERIL, LYNETTE HUBERT, DANIELLE IVORY, and EBONY BAKER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GIVEBUTTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-04455-LL-VET (S.D. Cal., Aug. 4, 2026) alleges violation of the Delaware Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is engaged in automatically and surreptitiously adding Tips and processing fees to consumers' carts without affirmative consent; and misrepresenting the purpose of its Tips and processing fees as an extra donation to the charity of choice. The Plaintiffs and Class members justifiably relied upon Givebutter's deceptive, false and misleading representations concerning Tips and processing fees in making their decisions to donate to their charity of choice.The Plaintiffs and Class members would not have paid Defendant's Tips and processing fees absent the Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions, which include, but are not limited to, its deceptive interface design, says the suit. Givebutter, Inc. operates as a nonprofit fundraising and donor management platform. The Company offers platform specializes in raising funds, tracking progress, engaging supporters and the community with personalized emails, and driving growth with donor data to make informed decisions with free CRM tools. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sophia G. Gold, Esq. Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, Suite 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielgold.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com -and- Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 Email: Jkaliel@kalielpllc.com GREIF INC: Ryan Seeks to Impound Portions of Class Exhibit ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 asks the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file certain portions of exhibits to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under impoundment. The Plaintiffs seek leave to impound documents deemed confidential pursuant to the parties' stipulated protective order. The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of themselves and proposed class members and generally allege that their property has been contaminated by PFAS6 as a result of Defendants' conduct. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and request injunctive relief in the form of a medical monitoring program. On or before August 3, 2026, Plaintiffs will file their Motion for Class Certification, a Memorandum of Law in Support, and supporting exhibits including deposition transcripts, expert reports, and documents produced in discovery. Greif is a producer of industrial packaging products and services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 31, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RoWZuo 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 GRITSTONE BIO: Class Settlement in Beal Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Beal v. Gritstone bio, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-03640-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Charles R. Breyer entered an order preliminarily approving settlement and providing for notice: 1. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement, as embodied in the Stipulation, as being fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, subject to further assessment at the Settlement Hearing to be conducted as described below. 2. Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for purposes of the Settlement only, the Action is preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class consisting of: "All persons and entities that purchased publicly traded Gritstone securities between March 9, 2023 and April 2, 2024, both dates inclusive, and were allegedly damaged thereby." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) persons and entities that suffered no compensable losses; and (b) (i) Defendant and members of his Immediate Family; (ii) any person who served as a control person, officer, and/or director of Gritstone during the Settlement Class Period and members of his or her Immediate Family; (iii) present and former parents, subsidiaries, assigns, successors, affiliates, and predecessors of Gritstone; (iv) any entity in which Defendant has or had a controlling interest; (v) any trust of which Defendant is the settlor or which is for the benefit of Defendant and/or member(s) of his Immediate Family; (vi) Defendant's liability insurance carriers; and (vii) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of any person or entity excluded under provisions (i) through (vi) hereof. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are any persons and entities who or which properly exclude themselves from the Settlement Class by filing a valid and timely request for exclusion that is accepted by the Court. 3. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, preliminarily and for purposes of the Settlement of the Action only, Plaintiff is certified as the Class Representative on behalf of the Settlement Class and the Plaintiff's Counsel, selected by the Plaintiff, are appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. Gritstone bio was a clinical-stage American biotechnology company which attempted to develop cancer and infectious disease immunotherapies and vaccines. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ySi3SD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Catherine Kevane, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP One Front Street, 33rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-2392 E-mail: ckevane@fenwick.com HAIN CELESTIAL: $35MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 28 ------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP and Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP issued a statement regarding notice of a proposed class action settlement. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 2:16-cv-04581-JS-LGD Hon. Lee G. Dunst SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Hain Celestial Group, Inc., and exchange traded call and put options on such publicly traded common stock (collectively, "Hain Securities"), during the period from November 5, 2013 through February 10, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were allegedly damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class") YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, that Lead Plaintiffs Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel (collectively, "Lead Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and all other members of the proposed Settlement Class, and The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. ("Hain" or the "Company"), Irwin D. Simon, Pasquale Conte, John Carroll, and Stephen J. Smith (the "Individual Defendants," and, together with Hain, "Defendants"), have reached a proposed full and complete settlement of the claims in the class action (the "Action") and related claims in the amount of $35,000,000 (the "Settlement"). The Court will conduct a hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") on October 28, 2026, at 11:00 A.M. (E.T.) via telephone (to join the hearing, dial 669-254-5252, enter Meeting ID: 165 624 3344, and enter Passcode: 921609) to determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice, as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated June 25, 2026; (iii) for purposes of the Settlement only, finally certify the Settlement Class, finally certify Lead Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class, and finally appoint the law firms of Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP, Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP, the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, and Schall, Brown & Schwartz LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iv) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement Fund") to Settlement Class Members; and (v) approve Co-Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Postcard Notice, you may obtain a copy, and the more detailed long-form Notice and Claim Form, by visiting the website for the Settlement, www.HainCelestialSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Hain Celestial Securities Settlement c/o Verita Global, LLC P.O. Box 301171 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1171 888-808-6316 info@HainCelestialSecuritiesSettlement.com www.HainCelestialSecuritiesSettlement.com Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to: LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP Christine M. Fox, Esq. 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 settlementquestions@labaton.com 888-219-6877 GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP Leanne Heine Solish, Esq. 1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 settlements@glancylaw.com 310-201-9150 If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than October 13, 2026. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be entitled to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, except as otherwise ordered by the Court or allowed by Co-Lead Counsel in its discretion, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions in the long-form Notice so that it is received no later than October 7, 2026. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable, but you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Co-Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the parties in accordance with the instructions in the long-form Notice so that they are received no later than October 7, 2026. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: August 10, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HAMILTON FOX: Court Dismisses Eisenberg Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL D.J. EISENBERG, v. HAMILTON FOX, III, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-01435-RCL (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Lamberth entered a judgment that will grant the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Pro se plaintiff Michael D.J. Eisenberg, Esq., filed this lawsuit advancing constitutional and other legal challenges to actions that officials at the District of Columbia Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility took while he was petitioning for a negotiated discipline regarding attorney misconduct allegations. He also challenges actions that they might take during a disciplinary hearing scheduled to take place this month before a Hearing Committee acting under the auspices of the Board on Professional Responsibility. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Aug. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MTEOQG at no extra charge.[CC] HIALEAH INDUSTRIAL: Pardo Suit Administratively Closed ------------------------------------------------------ A case filed by Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo against ARTISTAS RESTAURANT INC., HIALEAH INDUSTRIAL PORTFOLIO LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on August 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-25223 was administratively closed on August 4, 2026. The docket states that the case is administratively closed as the case style does not match the complaint filed which is captioned JOSE MARINO, Plaintiff v. HIALEAH INDUSTRIAL PORTFOLIO LLC and ARTISTAS RESTAURANT INC D/B/A ARTISTAS RESTAURANT A/K/A ARTISTAS CAFE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-25223 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 3, 2026). In this complaint, Plaintiff Marino, an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleges that he encountered architectural barriers at the Defendant Hialeah Industrial Portfolio LLC's commercial property located in Hialeah Gardens, Florida. These barriers to access are related to parking space access aisles as well as entrance access and path of travel. Marino seeks injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs, for violation of the ADA, which he says have denied or diminished his ability to visit the commercial property and have endangered his safety.[BN] Plaintiff Marino is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary e-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary e-mail: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com mds@ajperezlawgroup.com HOLLEY INC: $12.75MM Securities Deal Has Prelim OK -------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees’ Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Holley Inc. f/k/a Empower Ltd. et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:23-CV-00148-GNS (W.D. Ky.), Judge Greg N. Stivers of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted the Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Plaintiff brought this action as Lead Plaintiff on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Court preliminarily certified the litigation as a class action for purposes of settlement. The Retirement System alleged that the Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding its distribution strategy and integration of acquired companies. Following discovery, mediation, and many months of negotiation, the Parties reached a settlement agreement. The proposed class consisted of all Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Holley securities between July 21, 2021, and February 6, 2023, inclusive, and were allegedly damaged thereby. Under the terms of the Agreement, class members shared in a settlement in the amount of $12,750,000. This amount was an all-in number and was reduced by attorneys’ fees, administrative expenses, and any lead plaintiff award, among other things. Class members who participated in the settlement were bound by the terms of a release and released any and all claims against the Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation. Before the settlement was approved, the Court conducted a rigorous analysis that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) were satisfied. The Court found the numerosity requirement satisfied because millions of shares traded each week during the Class Period meant there were likely thousands of potential class members, making joinder impracticable. Commonality was met as the potential class members’ injuries all arose from the Defendants' allegedly false or misleading statements made in violation of federal securities laws. Typicality was satisfied because the claims all arose out of the alleged false statements that inflated the value of the stock. Regarding adequacy of representation, the Court noted that the injuries alleged by the Retirement System were substantially the same as the potential class’s injuries. The Court appointed Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as class counsel for purposes of settlement, finding they had significant experience litigating class action matters and serving as class counsel. Furthermore, the Court concluded that a class action was superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy because the injury incurred by each class member would not justify pursuing individual lawsuits. Upon careful examination, the Court determined the proposed settlement agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The agreement was the product of an arm’s-length transaction reached after a full-day mediation followed by months of continued negotiation with the assistance of a mediator. The Court also found the proposed rate of attorneys’ fees of up to one-fourth of the value of the settlement appeared reasonable. The arrangement reflected treatment that was equitable relative to the level of injury suffered by each potential class member. Accordingly, the Court preliminarily approved the Stipulation and Settlement and appointed Verita Global as the Claims Administrator to supervise and administer the notice procedure. A Settlement Hearing was scheduled for November 9, 2026, to determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved. Class members who wished to participate in the settlement were ordered to complete and submit a Proof of Claim and Release no later than November 19, 2026. Any member of the class who wished to exclude themselves was ordered to request exclusion such that it was received no later than October 19, 2026. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BPd1iU from PacerMonitor.com HOLLY RIDGE, NC: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANA PAULL, individually; BRIANA PAULL, as guardian of A.P, A.P., R.K. Jr., and A.F., her minor children; and BRIANA PAULL, as class representative on behalf of the class defined herein, v. THE TOWN OF HOLLY RIDGE; THE PENDERGRAPH COMPANIES, LLC; PENDERGRAPH DEVELOPMENT, LLC; PENDERGRAPH MANAGEMENT, LLC; FRANKIE W. PENDERGRAPH; and JOHN DOE CONTRACTORS 1 through 10, Case No. 7:23-cv-01625-M-RJ (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the time to file their reply in support of their class certification motion until Oct. 5, 2026. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on Sept. 4, 2025. Holly Ridge is a town in Onslow County, North Carolina. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9WjoJj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin S. Chesson, Esq. Anna C. Majestro, Esq. BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP 505 N. Church Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 755-6010 E-mail: bchesson@brookspierce.com amajestro@brookspierce.com - and - David S. Miller Jr., Esq. MILLER LAW, LLC 81 Columbus Street, Unit A Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 822-131 E-mail: david@attorneymiller.com - and - Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. POWELL &MAJESTRO PLLC 405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 346-2889 Facsimile: (304) 346-2895 E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com HOME CARE: Joint Bid to Stay Deadlines Tossed --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mayhew v. Home Care Pulse, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02657 (D. Kan., Filed Nov. 10, 2025), the Hon. Judge Holly L Teeter entered an order denying joint motion to stay deadlines. The parties have not demonstrated good cause for a stay. The court already extended the class-certification deadlines once based in part on the parties' representation that: "The parties have met and conferred and expect to be able to complete the necessary discovery bearing on class certification with a modest 45-day extension." Further, after reviewing the parties' confidential settlement reports in early June, the court declined to order mediation -- in part because the parties were so far apart in their respective assessments of the case. At this point, the parties have had ample time to conduct discovery on class-certification issues and, more to the point, ample opportunity to participate in mediation. Nothing prohibits the parties from proceeding with class-certification briefing and expert disclosures in tandem with participating in mediation on September 3, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Home Care is a software company that specializes in the post-acute and long-term care market.[CC] HUMANA INC: Bid for Consolidation Tossed as Moot ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID ELLIOT, v. HUMANA INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00329-RGJ-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Jennings entered an order as follows: 1. Humana's motion for reassignment and consolidation is denied as moot as to reassignment and denied as to consolidation. 2. Humana's motion to withdraw motion for summary judgment with leave to renew or, alternatively, to stay resolution is denied without prejudice. Accordingly, having considered the relevant Cantrell factors, the Court finds that consolidation is inappropriate. Humana's motion to consolidate is denied. This is a class action arising from alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"). The complaint alleges that Humana placed unsolicited prerecorded or artificial voice calls to non‑customers' cellular phones without consent, failed to provide a compliant opt‑out mechanism, and failed to maintain or honor an internal do‑not‑call registry. On April 9, 2025, this Court granted class certification and certified the following modified Prerecorded Calls Class: "All persons or entities through the United States (1) to whom Humana placed, or caused to be placed, a call (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to a current account holder of Humana or a person who consented to receive calls on behalf of an account holder (3) in connection with which Humana used an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) four years from the filing of this action through the date of class certification. Humana is a corporation headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky, that sells health insurance and related services. [ A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Aug. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=97at1Q at no extra charge.[CC] IGLOO PRODUCTS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due May 24, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit Re Igloo Products Cooler Recall Litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-00298 (D. Del., Filed March 11, 2025), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Hall entered an order re stipulation to Extend Time. -- Fact Discovery completed by Jan. 29, 2027 -- Opening Expert Reports due by Feb. 26, 2027 -- Rebuttal Expert Reports due by Feb. 2, 2027 -- Expert Discovery due by April 30, 2027 -- Motion for class certification due by May 24, 2027 The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Igloo offers a wide range of coolers and ice chests for various uses.[CC] INCLUDED HEALTH: Class Cert. Filing in Peer Due March 22, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE PEER, v. INCLUDED HEALTH INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-03908-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Amendment of pleadings/joinder: Oct. 5, 2026 Close of fact discovery; Jan. 4, 2027 Exchange of opening expert reports: Jan. 19, 2027 Exchange of rebuttal expert reports: Feb. 3, 2027 Close of expert discovery: Feb. 18, 2027 Class certification filing deadline: March 22, 2027 Class certification hearing: May 6, 2027, at 2:00 p.m. These dates may only be altered by order of the Court and only upon a showing of good cause. The parties are directed to review and comply with this Court's standing orders. Included Health provides healthcare services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yBINf3 at no extra charge.[CC] INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Status Report in Wise Suit Due August 21 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wise v. InterContinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-01161 (N.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 26, 2024), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order that the status report shall be submitted by no later than noon on August 21, 2026. On September 30, 2024, the Court granted Defendants' request for a stay pending resolution of class certification in another case. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. IterContinental operates a chain of hotels.[CC] IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: $45MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP announced that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of common stock of iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: IRTC): UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GLAZING EMPLOYERS AND GLAZIERS' UNION LOCAL #27 PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. iRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 3:24-cv-706-JSC CLASS ACTION Judge: Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired iRhythm Technologies, Inc. ("iRhythm") common stock from July 25, 2022 through August 9, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were allegedly damaged thereby ("Settlement Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ("Court"), that the securities class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, on behalf of itself and the Settlement Class, and Defendants iRhythm Technologies, Inc. ("iRhythm" or the "Company") and Quentin Blackford (together, "Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the Action on behalf of the Settlement Class for $45,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action. In the Action, Lead Plaintiff asserts federal securities law claims against iRhythm and its Chief Executive Officer, Quentin Blackford, arising from allegedly materially false and misleading statements or omissions during the Class Period concerning iRhythm's Zio AT heart monitoring device. Lead Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' alleged misstatements violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and that Mr. Blackford controlled iRhythm when the misstatements were made, in violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Defendants expressly deny that Lead Plaintiff has asserted any valid claims as to either of them, and expressly deny any and all allegations of fault, liability, wrongdoing, or damages whatsoever in connection with the Action. Issues and defenses at issue in the Action included, among others, (i) whether Defendants made materially false statements or omissions; (ii) whether Defendants made the statements with the required state of mind; (iii) whether the alleged misstatements caused class members' losses; and (iv) the amount of damages, if any. A hearing ("Settlement Hearing") will be held on November 5, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time, before the Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley, United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of California, by Zoom videoconference, to determine, among other things: (i) whether, for purposes of settlement, the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiff should be appointed as the class representative for the Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as class counsel for the Settlement Class; (ii) whether the Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, and should be finally approved by the Court; (iii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants and the releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 25% of the Settlement Fund (i.e., $11.25 million) and payment of expenses in an amount not to exceed $800,000 (which amount may include a request for reimbursement of the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Lead Plaintiff directly related to its representation of the Settlement Class) should be approved. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including information on how to attend the Zoom video conference and any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the website for the Settlement, www.iRhythmSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement proceeds. This notice provides only a summary of the information contained in the detailed Notice. You may obtain a copy of the Notice, along with the Claim Form, by: (i) contacting the Claims Administrator at iRhythm Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063, 1-866-457-5539, info@iRhythmSecuritiesLitigation.com; or (ii) downloading them from the website for the Settlement, www.iRhythmSecuritiesLitigation.com. To be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must be a member of the Settlement Class and submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or online, no later than October 1, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Claim Form. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the Settlement proceeds, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than October 1, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not receive any benefits from the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses, must be submitted to the Court. Objections must be filed or postmarked (if mailed) no later than October 1, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to the Claims Administrator: iRhythm Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205 Media, PA 19063 1-866-457-5539 info@iRhythmSecuritiesLitigation.com www.iRhythmSecuritiesLitigation.com All other inquiries should be made to Lead Counsel: Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP Katherine M. Sinderson 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 1-800-380-8496 settlements@blbglaw.com BY ORDER OF THE COURT United States District Court Northern District of California J.A. ARGETAKIS: Ramirez Wins Conditional Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LETICIA RAMIREZ, et al., v. J.A. ARGETAKIS CONTRACTING CO., INC., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03910-JRR (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Rubin entered a judgment that the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of collective action and Court-approved notice is granted. The court grants Plaintiffs' request for conditional certification and substantially approves the Plaintiffs' proposed notice plan with one modification to the form of the proposed notice, which is to be submitted to the court within seven (7) days of entry of the accompanying order. The Plaintiffs' proposed collective consists of: "all individual[s] employed by [J.A. Argetakis and Mr. Argetakis] as non-supervisory employees engaged in construction work at J.A. Argetakis's construction sites, at any time from Nov. 26, 2022 to the present." On Nov. 26, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against the Defendants, alleging failure to pay overtime wages under the FLSA; and failure to pay prevailing wages, overtime wages, and fringe benefits under Maryland Wage and Hour Law (MWHL), Maryland Prevailing Wage Law (MPWL), Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (MWPCL), Delaware Prevailing Wage Law (DPWL), and Delaware Wage Payment and Collection Law (DWPCL). J.A. Argetakis is a Maryland-based construction contractor specializing in interior finishing. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Aug. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QaruIb at no extra charge.[CC] J.A.K.'S PUPPIES: Carey Plaintiffs Win Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rebecca Carey et al., v. J.A.K.'s Puppies, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-02095-WLH-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hsu entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs' Proposed Class is certified as follows: "All persons who, on or after Jan. 1, 2019, purchased from a pet store in the State of California one or more dogs supplied by J.A.K.'s Puppies, Inc.," excluding (1) Defendants and their legal representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and successors and (2) the Court and Court staff. On Feb. 18, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs included new allegations regarding the Defendants' recent involvement in the puppy-selling business. The Plaintiffs' primary causes of action allege violations of (1) the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), (2) California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and (3) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (the "RICO Act"). JAK's specializes in breeding and selling puppies. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=moBZcq at no extra charge.[CC] JOHN'S HOME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bouwkamp Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- MACKENZIE J. BOUWKAMP; HOWARD B. CLARK; TYLER SCHONEBERG; JESSICA HOLCOMBE; JAMES LATULIPPE; and CAMERON McCLEERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHN'S HOME AND YARD SERVICE, LLC d/b/a JOHN'S HOME & YARD SERVICE; and MATTHEW SINGER, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00068-TJC (D. Mont., Aug. 3, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Bouwkamp was employed by the Defendants as landscape department manager. Plaintiff Clark was employed as landscaper helper. Plaintiff Holcombe was employed as lawn crew foreman. Plaintiff Latulippe was employed as landscaper. Plaintiff Schoneberg was employed as landscape foreman. Plaintiff McCleery was employed as fertilizer technician. John's Home and Yard Service, LLC offers a variety of landscaping and yard care services. Their offerings include lawn aeration, fertilization, weed control, lawn maintenance, landscaping, power raking, shrub trimming, sprinkler systems, and snow removal. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adrienne M. Tranel, Esq. AT LEGAL PC 401 Washington Street, Suite 301 Missoula, MT 59802 Telephone: (406) 218-4850 Facsimile: (406) 218-4941 Email: atranel@atlegalmt.com lgonzalez@atlegalmt.com KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY: Bank Sues Over Mislabeled Flash Drives ----------------------------------------------------------- TODD C. BANK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04702 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2026) alleges that the Defendant misrepresented the capacity of its flash drives. According to the complaint, the Defendant's Product Listing, a number followed by "GB," i.e., "128 GB," "256 GB," or "512 GB," appeared next to the term "Memory Storage Capacity" (these items, collectively with the corresponding items described in the preceding paragraph, are hereinafter referred to as the "Capacity Representations" or the "Represented Capacities"). Based upon the Capacity Representations, a significant portion of the purchasers of the Flash Drives reasonably believed that they would be able to store the applicable Represented Capacity of data on the Flash Drives (these purchasers are hereinafter referred to as the "Reasonable Belief Purchasers"); that is, these purchasers believed that the Flash Drives had a user storage capacity ("User Storage Capacity") of the applicable Represented Capacity. The actual User Storage Capacities of the Flash Drives are materially less than the Represented Capacities (the "Discrepancies"). The Discrepancies are caused by "over-provisioning," which is the sealing off, or reserving, of a portion of the Flash Drives' storage capacity for various functions of the Flash Drives, says the suit. Kingston Technology Company, Inc. manufactures memory product and storage solutions. The Company designs products like DRAM, SSDs, and USB flash drives. Kingston Technology Company serves customers in Worldwide. [bn] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd C. Bank, Esq. TODD C. BANK ATTORNEY AT LAW PC 119-40 Union Turnpike Fourth Floor Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 520-7125 KOCH INC: JSB's Fertilizer Price-fixing Suit Transferred to D. Kan. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned JSB FARMS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOCH INC., F/K/A KOCH INDUSTRIES, LLC; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER WEVER, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; THE MOSAIC COMPANY; CANPOTEX LTD.; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES INC.; CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; and YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 6:2026cv01239 (N.D. Ill., May 19, 2026) was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-05759 on August 5, 2026. This lawsuit arises from Defendants' coordinated efforts to manipulate, increase, stabilize, or artificially maintain the prices of NPK Fertilizers. Defendants - Mosaic, Yara, Nutrien, Canpotex, CF Industries, and Koch – are direct competitors and rank among the largest producers and distributors of NPK Fertilizers in the United States. Defendants allegedly began conspiring to artificially inflate NPK Fertilizer prices as early as January 1, 2021, though the exact start date remains unknown to Plaintiff, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' price-fixing conspiracy, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant financial harm. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten profits, and reimbursement of litigation costs, including attorneys' fees. The claims include violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and breaches of state antitrust laws. The Plaintiff seeks to represent all indirect purchasers of NPK Fertilizers in the United States to recover damages caused by Defendants' anticompetitive conduct. Plaintiff JSB Farms, LLC purchased NPK Fertilizers indirectly from one or more Defendants for its own use and suffered damages due to inflated prices caused by Defendants' antitrust violations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles R. Watkins, Esq. GUIN & EVANS, LLC 805 Lake St. #226 Oak Park, IL 60301 Telephone: (312) 878-8391 E-mail: cwatkins@guineveans.com - and - Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Brant D. Penney, Esq. Roberta A. Yard, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com b.penney@rwblawfirm.com r.yard@rwblawfirm.com KRISTI NOEM: Perdomo Seeks to Certify Classes --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, et al., v. Kristi Noem et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Sept. 24, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court for an order: -- Certifying the Suspicionless Stops Class and First Discriminatory Treatment Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), -- Appointing Plaintiffs Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, Carlos Alexander Osorto, Isaac Villegas Molina, Jorge Hernandez Viramontes, Jason Brian Gavidia, and Los Angeles Worker Center Network, United Farm Workers, and Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights as class representatives, and -- Appointing as class counsel the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties, the UC Irvine School of Law Immigrant and Racial Justice Solidarity Clinic, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, the Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin, and Public Counsel under Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (g). The proposed class definitions are as follows: Suspicionless Stops Class: "All persons who, since June 6, 2025, have been or will be subjected to a detentive stop by federal agents or officers for purposes of immigration enforcement in this District, other than at a port of entry, checkpoint, or other functional equivalent of the border, based on their apparent status as low-income or working-class and Latino, instead of a pre-stop, individualized assessment of reasonable suspicion that the person to be stopped (1) is engaged in an offense against the United States or (2) is a noncitizen unlawfully present in the United States." First Discriminatory Treatment Class: "All persons in this District who, since June 6, 2025, have been or will be subjected to a detentive stop by federal agents or officers at least in part because of their apparent Latino race, color, and/or ethnicity, the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order other than at a port of entry, checkpoint, or other functional equivalent of the border, or in connection with a known target description if there are other objective bases to believe that the individual is the target." On July 27, 2026, the Stop/Arrest Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Defendants' policy and practice of conducting suspicionless and discriminatory detentive stops based on apparent Latino ethnicity. Kristi Noem is an American politician serving as the United States special envoy for the Shield of the Americas since 2026. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wxrWy0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stacy Tolchin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STACY TOLCHIN 776 E. Green St., Suite 210 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 622-7450 Facsimile: (213) 622-7233 E-mail: stacy@tolchinimmigration.com - and - Mohammad Tajsar, Esq. Mayra Joachin, Esq. Dae Keun Kwon, Esq. Stephanie Padilla, Esq. Alyssa Morones, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Los Angeles, CA 90081-0007 Telephone: (213) 977-9500 Facsimile: (213) 915-0219 E-mail: mtajsar@aclusocal.org mjoachin@aclusocal.org akwon@aclusocal.org spadilla@aclusocal.org amorones@aclusocal.org - and - Mark Rosenbaum, Esq. Rebecca Brown, Esq. Ritu Mahajan, Esq. Gina Amato, Esq. Amanda Mangaser Savage PUBLIC COUNSEL 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 Telephone: (213) 385-2977 E-mail: mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org rbrown@publiccounsel.org rmahajan@publiccounsel.org gamato@publiccounsel.org asavage@publiccounsel.org - and - Anne Lai, Esq. UC IRVINE SCHOOL OF LAW IMMIGRANT AND RACIAL JUSTICE SOLIDARITY CLINIC Irvine, CA 92616-5479 Telephone: (949) 824-9894 Facsimile: (949) 824-2747 E-mail: alai@law.uci.edu - and - Jacob S. Kreilkamp, Esq. David Fry, Esq. Adam B. Weiss, Esq. Sara H. Worth, Esq. Laura R. Perry, Esq. Henry D. Shreffler, Esq. Lauren E. Kuhn, Esq. Angela Uribe, Esq. Maggie Bushell, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 S. Grand Ave., 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 683-9100 E-mail: jacob.kreilkamp@mto.com david.fry@mto.com adam.weiss@mto.com sara.worth@mto.com laura.perrystone@mto.com henry.shreffler@mto.com lauren.kuhn@mto.com angela.uribe@mto.com maggie.bushell@mto.com - and - Bree Bernwanger, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 621-2493 E-mail: bbernwanger@aclunc.org - and - Brisa Velazquez Oatis, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES San Diego, CA 92138-7131 Telephone: (619) 398-4199 E-mail: bvoatis@aclu-sdic.org - and - Edgar Aguilasochov, Esq. MARTÍNEZ AGUILASOCHO LAW, INC. 900 Truxtun Ave, Suite 300 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Telephone: (661) 859-1174 E-mail: eaguilasocho@farmworkerlaw.com - and - Jessica Karp Bansal, Esq. Lauren Michel Wilfong, Esq. Jia Fu, Esq. NATIONAL DAY LABORER ORGANIZING NETWORK 1030 S. Arroyo Parkway, Suite 106 Pasadena, CA 91105 Telephone: (626) 214-5689 E-mail: jessica@ndlon.org lwilfong@ndlon.org jennifer@ndlon.org - and - Matthew J. Craig, Esq. Mack E. Jenkins, Esq. HECKER FINK LLP 1150 South Olive Street, Suite 10-140 Los Angeles, CA 90015 Telephone: (212) 763-0883 Facsimile: (212) 564-0883 E-mail: mcraig@heckerfink.com mjenkins@heckerfink.com - and - Carl Bergquist, Esq. COALITION FOR HUMANE IMMIGRANT RIGHTS 2351 Hempstead Road Ottawa Hills, OH 43606 Telephone: (310) 279-6025 E-mail: cbergquist@chirla.org - and - Alvaro M. Huerta, Esq. Brynna Bolt, Esq. Alison Steffel, Esq. IMMIGRANT DEFENDERS LAW CENTER 634 S. Spring St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 634-0999 E-mail: ahuerta@immdef.org bbolt@immdef.org asteffel@immdef.org LIFESPARK MANAGEMENT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Selmer Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- RUSSELL SELMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIFESPARK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 27-CV-26-13481 (D. Minn., Aug. 4, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information, stored within Defendant's information network. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PHI/PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, says the suit. Lifespark Management Services, LLC is a healthcare company providing whole-person senior care, home care, hospice, and primary care services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Moore, Esq. REESE LLP 121 N. Washington Ave., 2nd Floor Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Email: cmoore@reesellp.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com LIFT LENDING: Class Cert Filing in Laccinole Due August 6, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER LACCINOLE, on behalf of himself and all for others similarly situated, v. LIFT LENDING, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-01661-K (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ed Kinkeade entered a class certification scheduling order as follows: 1. Any party seeking an extension of a deadline set forth in this Class Certification Scheduling Order must file a formal written motion and shall make the required showing for such relief. 2. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 16.3(a), the parties shall enter into settlement negotiations as early as possible. The parties are ordered to formally mediate this matter by Dec. 4, 2026, and to file a joint mediation report describing the status of settlement negotiations by Dec. 11, 2026. 3. All motions requesting leave to join parties or to amend pleadings shall be filed by Oc. 30, 2026. 4. The Plaintiffs and defendant shall file a written designation of the name and address of each expert witness for purposes of Class Certification and shall otherwise comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by April 1, 2027. 5. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification by Aug. 6, 2027. Responses shall be filed by Sept. 21, 2027, and Replies shall be filed by Oct. 21, 2027. 6. All motions challenging or seeking to disqualify class certification expert witnesses (e.g., Daubert motions) must be filed by Aug. 6, 2027. Lift Lending specializes in providing unsecured personal loans designed to alleviate financial stress. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FbSgE5 at no extra charge.[CC] LORETTO HEALTH: Plaintiffs Win Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADEYEMI ADEROHUNMU and ALLIYAH RAWLINS, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. LORETTO HEALTH & REHABILITATION CENTER, And CPS RECRUITMENT, and Any related entities, Case No. 5:24-cv-00731-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Hurd entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and for leave to file the second amended complaint is granted; 2. The Plaintiffs shall file and serve the second amended complaint; 3. The Defendants shall answer the second amended complaint within 14 days of the date on which the pleading is filed and served; 4. The Plaintiffs' proposed notice and consent forms are authorized to be published (the Plaintiffs' Exhibits U and V); and 5. The Defendants shall produce a full and complete class list of all class members in accordance with the proposed publication order ("Plaintiffs' Exhibit W). The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motion. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following collective under the FLSA: "All current and former employees who worked at Loretto Health & Rehabilitation Center as Licensed Practical Nurses, Certified Nursing Assistants, and/or other personal care support at any time from Jan. 17, 2022, through the date of final judgment (the "Putative Class" or "Putative Class Members")." Corporate officers, shareholders, directors, and administrative employees shall not be part of the proposed class. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following NYLL class under Rule 23: "All current and former employees who worked at Loretto Health & Rehabilitation Center as Licensed Practical Nurses, Certified Nursing Assistants, and/or other personal care support at any time from May 31, 2018, through the date of final judgment (the "Putative Class" or "Putative Class Members")." Corporate officers, shareholders, directors, and administrative employees shall not be part of the proposed class. The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint alleges that they and similarly situated healthcare workers employed by Loretto (or jointly employed by CPS) were paid hourly wages that had thirty-minute meal breaks automatically deducted from their paychecks even though they were regularly required to work through those breaks. Loretto operates residential nursing homes and medical care services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gUhwBh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alanna Rose Sakovits, Esq. Jenny S. Brejt, Esq. Ladonna Lusher, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com - and - Frank S. Gattuso, Esq. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC The White House 7030 East Genesee Street Fayetteville, NY 13066 The Defendants are represented by: Suzanne M. Messer, Esq. Leah Dawit, Esq. Liza R. Magley, Esq. BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC One Lincoln Center Syracuse, NY 13202-1355 Telephone: (315) 218-8226 E-mail: lmagley@bsk.com - and - Scott D. Piper, Esq. William M.X. Wolfe, Esq. HARRIS BEACH MURTHA CULLINA, PLLC 99 Garnsey Road Pittsford, NY 14534 LOWE'S COMPANIES: Barbre Sues Over Defective Power Tools -------------------------------------------------------- BENNIE BARBRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC.; and GREENWORKS NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01037-DWD (S.D. Ill., Aug. 3, 2026) is an action alleging the Defendants' false and misleading representations regarding the safety of its Kobaltbranded 24V and 48V yard power tools with USB-C batteries. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Products contain a dangerous defect. Specifically, the Products are 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, posing a severe risk of fire and serious injury to consumers (the "Defect"). The Defendants represented that the Products were safe and reliable, despite being aware that design and manufacturing defects rendered them hazardous. As a direct result of these misrepresentations, Plaintiff and Class Members purchased defective Products that failed to perform as advertised and posed a substantial risk of serious injury, says the suit. Lowe's Companies, Inc. operates as a home improvement store. The Company offers tools, appliances, building supplies, carpet, bathroom, and lighting products. Lowe`s serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Theodore B. Bell, Esq. Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Sultzer & Lipari, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Tel:( 845) 483-7100 Email: bellt@thesutltzerlawgroup.com sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. 134 Mineola Blvd. – 2nd Floor Mineola, NY 11501 Tel: (516) 873-9550 Email: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com MARSHALL RETAIL: Bid to Continue Case Deadlines Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Moncrease v. Marshall Retail Group LLC et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-10940 (N.D. Cal., Filed Dec. 23, 2025), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order denying stipulation to continue case deadlines. The Court issued a Scheduling Order in this case on April 17, 2026. Instead of working towards those court-ordered deadlines or seeking advance court approval, the parties "agreed to engage in informal discovery in advance of mediation" and "agreed in principle to continue the case management dates previously set." This is not good cause to extend the existing case schedule, which in any event, leaves sufficient time between the scheduled September 21, 2026, mediation, and the January 25, 2027, deadline for plaintiffs to move for class certification. Accordingly, the parties' stipulation to continue case deadlines is denied. The Court notes that Defendant removed the case to this Court and reminds the parties that they are free to stipulate to remand the matter to state court. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. Marshall Retail is a major specialty travel retailer in North America.[CC] MATHWORKS INC: Consolidated Complaint Must be Filed by August 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Graessle, et al., v. The MathWorks, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-40140 (D. Mass., Filed May 21, 2026), the Hon. Judge Brian E. Murphy entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to consolidate. The Plaintiffs are instructed to file a consolidated complaint by August 26, 2026. The Defendants' responsive pleading shall be filed by September 16, 2026. The case concerns the MathWorks 401(k) Retirement Plan alleging that Defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in their management of the Plan. The Plaintiffs filed suit on May 21, 2026. On July 2, 2026, a second putative class action was filed in a different session of this Court, Lowry v. The MathWorks, Inc. , Case No. 1:26-cv-13065-DLC. MathWorks is a developer of mathematical computing software. [CC] MCGILL FAIRLESS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 9, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN KEIL, et al., v. MCGILL FAIRLESS HILLS, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-05823-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro entered an order as follows: 1. The parties may request a referral to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski, United States District Court, to schedule a settlement conference. Counsel, the parties, and/or persons with full settlement authority must appear at the conference unless excused in advance by Magistrate Judge Sitarski. 2. All individual fact and class discovery shall be completed by Dec. 16, 2026. 3. Any motion for class certification under shall be filed by April 9, 2027, with a proposed schedule. Any response shall be filed within 30 days of the filing of the motion with a proposed schedule for class certification. 4. In the event a class action schedule is not requested, the Plaintiff's expert reports shall be provided to opposing counsel by April 26, 2027, and any responsive expert report shall be provided within 30 days of receipt. 5. Any dispositive motions shall be filed by May 24, 2027; any response to the dispositive motions shall be filed within 21 days of the filing of the motion. 6. A final pretrial conference will be scheduled, if necessary, following the Court’s resolution of any dispositive motions. Any failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions. The Defendant is a large, fully enclosed commercial composting and organic waste management facility. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HCj93s at no extra charge.[CC] MERCARI INC: Engaged in Illegal Drip Pricing, Derose Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ SIERRA DEROSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCARI, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV24625 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 4, 2026) alleges violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is engaged in drip pricing, where the Defendant advertised, displayed and offered a price for a good or service that does not include all mandatory fees or charges. Mercari, Inc. operates as an electronic commercial company. The Company offers electronic commercial software, operation management, marketing planning, and other marketplace services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Calvin Bryne, Esq. Jack Day, Esq. DAY BRYNE & MCINTOSH 129 W. Wilson Street, Suite 105 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Telephone: (949) 650-2827 Facsimile: (949) 722-1137 Email: calvin@dbm.law jack@dbm.law MIKE BLOOMBERG: Class Settlement in Sinclair Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODNEY SINCLAIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MIKE BLOOMBERG 2020, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-04528-LTS-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Swain entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to consolidate cases and for preliminary approval of class and collective action settlement, certification of a Massachusetts Class for settlement purposes, and approval of the Plaintiffs' proposed revised notice of settlement 1. For settlement purposes only, the Court provisionally certifies the following Massachusetts Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e): "All individuals who worked as a Field Organizer for the Campaign in Massachusetts between Nov. 7, 2019 and April 30, 2020." 2. The Court appoints Plaintiff Sinclair as the Class Representative of the Massachusetts Class, and appoints Outten & Golden LLP and Shavitz Law Group, P.A. as Massachusetts Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). 3. The Court approves, as to form and content, the proposed Revised Notice of Settlement (docket entry no. 615-3) subject to the additional changes marked on the Notice pages appended hereto as Exhibit A, the Request for Exclusion form, and the Reminder Notices. 4. The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on Jan. 12, 2027 at 2:30 PM. 5. This Order resolves docket entry no. 605. This action and the related action, Sinclair v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc., 20-CV-4528-LTS-GWG, shall be consolidated pursuant to the Order filed contemporaneously herewith. This Order resolves docket entry no. 605. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CaR9bZ at no extra charge.[CC] MIKE BLOOMBERG: Class Settlement in Wood Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA WOOD, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MIKE BLOOMBERG 2020, INC., Case No. 20-cv-2489 (LTS)(GWG) (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Swain entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to consolidate cases and for preliminary approval of class and collective action settlement, certification of a Massachusetts Class for settlement purposes, and approval of the Plaintiffs' proposed revised notice of settlement 1. For settlement purposes only, the Court provisionally certifies the following Massachusetts Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e): "All individuals who worked as a Field Organizer for the Campaign in Massachusetts between Nov. 7, 2019 and April 30, 2020." 2. The Court appoints Plaintiff Sinclair as the Class Representative of the Massachusetts Class, and appoints Outten & Golden LLP and Shavitz Law Group, P.A. as Massachusetts Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). 3. The Court approves, as to form and content, the proposed Revised Notice of Settlement (docket entry no. 615-3) subject to the additional changes marked on the Notice pages appended hereto as Exhibit A, the Request for Exclusion form, and the Reminder Notices. 4. The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on Jan. 12, 2027 at 2:30 PM. 5. This Order resolves docket entry no. 605. This action and the related action, Sinclair v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc., 20-CV-4528-LTS-GWG, shall be consolidated pursuant to the Order filed contemporaneously herewith. This Order resolves docket entry no. 605. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xk2mmp at no extra charge.[CC] MINDVALLEY INC: Fact Discovery in Larsen Suit Closes March 23, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Larsen v. Mindvalley, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-02426 (E.D.N.Y., Filed April 23, 2026), the Hon. Judge Carol Bagley Amon entered a scheduling order as follows: The parties must note that all discovery depositions must be completed at least 30 days before the close of fact discovery. Fact discovery closes March 23, 2027. If the parties engage in expert discovery, initial expert disclosures must be served by April 26, 2027, initial expert reports by May 28, 2027, and rebuttal expert reports by July 30, 2027. Expert discovery closes on Sept. 3, 2027. By the same date, the parties must file a joint letter certifying the close of all discovery. Dispositive motion practice must commence on or before Oct. 1, 2027 or the proposed JPTO must be filed on or before Nov. 5, 2027, in accordance with the assigned judge's individual rules. The parties anticipate coordinating discovery with similar cases brought in other jurisdictions, included the Jones cases. Counsel expect to share Jones discovery in this case pursuant to a protective order. The nature of suit states Torts - Personal Property - Other Fraud. Mindvalley operates as a personal transformation platform that extends beyond traditional education to support lifelong learning.[CC] MONARCH CASINO: Hyde Seeks to Recover Card Dealers' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN HYDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONARCH CASINO & RESORT, INC. and MONARCH BLACK HAWK, INC. Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03505 (D. Colo., Aug. 3, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Colorado Constitution, the Colorado Wage Act, the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order, as well as the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff brings this suit implicating Monarch Casino's and Monarch Black Hawk's violations of the tip credit requirements under Colorado Wage-and-Hour Law and the FLSA. As a result, Monarch Casino and Monarch Black Hawk failed to pay their employees at the minimum wage rate for all hours worked, says the complaint. Additionally, the Defendants violated the Colorado Healthy Families and Workplaces Act which guarantees workers up to 48 hours of paid leave per year that is to be paid at the same hourly rate the employee normally earns for hours worked. Monarch Black Hawk and Monarch Casino failed to provide the 48 hours of paid leave each year since the law was enacted, failed to provide the required notice about each employee's right to receive the 48 hours of paid leave, and failed to pay the wages owed, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Hyde worked for the Defendants as a card dealer. Monarch Casino and Monarch Black Hawk operate gaming, dining, and hospitality facilities, including in Colorado and Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. FOTY LAW GROUP 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@fotylawgroup.com - and - Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET LAW PC 2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 999-5200 E-mail: matt@parmet.law MOODY BIBLE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Seabolt Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- EVELYNA SEABOLT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-09317 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 4, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information1, culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately protect the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and failed to ensure that it would maintain adequate safeguards to protect its customers' Private Information. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information is in the hands of cybercriminals who will continue to use the stolen Private Information for nefarious purposes for the rest of their lives. Due to the Defendant's negligent failure to secure and protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, cybercriminals have stolen and obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, says the suit. Moody Bible Institute offers accredited Christian higher education in Chicago, Washington, Michigan and online, with college, seminary and Bible programs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com MOTHER'S MARKET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- SOBEIDA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOTHER'S MARKET & KITCHEN, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV24640 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 4, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Garcia was employed by the Defendants as a server. Mother's Market & Kitchen, Inc. operates as a supermarket. The Company offers organic fruits and vegetables, vitamins, minerals, amino acids, herbs, sports nutrition, condition-specific supplements, shampoos, soaps, grains, beans, legumes, milk, cheeses, eggs, dental care items, nut butters, juices, and books. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sayuri P. Espinosa, Esq. Shaheen A. Etemadi, Esq. SOUTHWICK LAW, APC 7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 750-4167 Email: sayuri@southwick.law shawn@southwick.law MOUNTAINSIDE FITNESS: Seeks Denial of Wilson Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chet Michael Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Mountainside Fitness Acquisition, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01481-MTL (D. Ariz.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order denying the class certification and permitting this case to proceed only as it always was: one individual's one-off claim about accidental texts to a 999-9999 number. The Plaintiff Chet Wilson and his lawyers are abusing the class action mechanism and the federal court system for personal profit, to the exclusion of any class. The Court should find them inadequate under Rule 23 and deny class certification now, the Defendant contends. Wilson's own violent threats separately disqualify him from serving as a fiduciary. The evidence shows that Wilson only cares about himself, and the contractual terms his lawyer imposed only make that worse. If anyone is inadequate to be a fiduciary of a class, it is Wilson, the Defendant adds. Mountainside operates fitness clubs. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AepbKe at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Ryan D. Watstein, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP 75 14th Street NE, Suite 2600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 783-0695 E-mail: ryan@wtlaw.com - and - John M. O'Neal, Esq. Zachary S. Foster, Esq. John H. Contrera, Esq. QUARLES & BRADY LLP One Renaissance Square Two North Central Avenue Suite 600 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2322 Telephone: (602) 229-5200 E-mail: John.Oneal@quarles.com Zachary.Foster@quarles.com Jack.Contrera@quarles.com NATIONAL PRESTO: Time to File Class Cert Opposition Extended ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCabe v. National Presto Industries, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-06552 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Sept. 18, 2024), the Hon. Judge Ann M. Donnelly entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file opposition to class certification motion: The nature of suit states Torts - Personal Property - Other Personal Property Damage. National Presto engages in the manufacture of housewares, small appliances, defense, and absorbent products.[CC] NCAA: Wisne Wins Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROCK WISNE, AIDAN SHAW, AISLIN MALCOLM, CADE TYSON, ABIGAIL JEFFERIES, ANTHONY JOHNSON, LOUIE JORDAN, JEFFERSON DE LA CRUZ MONEGRO, ISAIAH JONES, DIMOND LOOSLI, BRETT GRIFFITHS, and JAKE MORELL on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-03063-CNS-KAS (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Sweeney entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23(b)(2) class certification. The Plaintiffs' class as proposed in the motion is certified, specifically: "All persons in the United States who began to play in collegiate sports in the 2022–2023 season, competed in NCAA Division I sports, and completed four years of eligibility as defined by the NCAA's prior rules by the conclusion of the 2025–2026 season, and are therefore barred from playing a fifth season due to the NCAA's adoption and immediate implementation of the Five-Year Eligibility Rule." The Plaintiffs are named as class representatives. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), Robert K. Shelquist of Cuneo Gilbert Flannery & LaDuca, LLP, is appointed lead counsel for the certified class, and all Cuneo Gilbert Flannery & LaDuca, LLP attorneys who have appeared in this matter as counsel of record for Plaintiffs are appointed as cocounsel for the certified class. Certification of the Plaintiffs' proposed class is appropriate. Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2)'s requirements by a preponderance of the evidence. This case is about Plaintiffs and putative class members' exclusion from playing another season of Division I athletics due to the NCAA's June 24, 2026 eligibility rule (the Rule), which the Plaintiffs contend violates federal antitrust law. The Defendant governs college athletics across more than 1,100 schools in the US and Canada. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kIqZsi at no extra charge.[CC] NIRVANA ENTERPRISES: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due June 18, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vanessa Mason, et al., v. Nirvana Enterprises AZ LLC, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00446-KML (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Lanham entered an order no later than August 12, 2026, the parties shall file a stipulation or their positions regarding conditional certification. The Court further entered an order no later than June 18, 2027, the Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification. -- The deadline for completion of fact discovery, including discovery by subpoena and all disclosures required under Rule 26(a)(3), shall be April 30, 2027. -- The party with the burden of proof on an issue shall provide full and complete expert disclosures, as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no later than June 18, 2027. -- Expert depositions shall be completed no later than Sept. 24, 2027. -- Any motion to decertify the class shall be filed no later than Oct. 15, 2027. Dispositive motions shall be filed on the later of Oct. 22, 2027, if no dispositive motion is filed, or thirty days after the court rules on a motion to decertify. Nirvana provides IT Services, staffing and consulting solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7ZlklX at no extra charge.[CC] NORSAN RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Taylor Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- KELAN TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORSAN RESTAURANTS, LLC d/b/a H&W STEAKHOUSE, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04412-MHC (N.D. Ga., Aug. 4, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Taylor was employed by the Defendant as a restaurant staff. Norsan Restaurants, LLC d/b/a H&W Steakhouse is a fine-dining restaurant located at 5242 Peachtree Parkway in Peachtree Corners, Georgia. It specializes in prime steaks, fresh seafood, and fine wine, offering upscale dinner service. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com OHIO NATIONAL: Class Settlement in Veritas Suit Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VERITAS INDEPENDENT PARTNERS, LLC, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE OHIO NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00769-JPH (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) granting final approval of the class action Settlement; (2) finally certifying the Settlement Sub-Classes for settlement purposes under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3); (3) finding that the notice program satisfied Rule 23 and due process; and (4) entering the proposed Final Approval Order submitted herewith. On March 30, 2026, the Court granted preliminary approval of the class action Settlement between Plaintiff and Ohio National and provisionally certified two Settlement Sub-classes. The Plaintiff filed this putative class action on Nov. 8, 2018, alleging that Ohio National breached its form Selling Agreements with a class of broker-dealers by ceasing to pay trail commissions on certain ON Variable Annuities after terminating those agreements without cause, effective December 2018. Ohio National was a mutual insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7IbgO6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian K. Murphy, Esq. Joseph F. Murray, Esq. Geoffrey J. Moul, Esq. Jonathan P. Misny, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 488-0400 Facsimile: (614) 488-0401 E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com murray@mmmb.com moul@mmmb.com misny@mmmb.com PAIDWORK LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Barnes Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- ALEXIS BARNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAIDWORK LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-at-01302 (E.D. Cal., Aug 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of individuals that was compromised in a cyber incident. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive and confidential PII, which they entrusted to the Defendant on the mutual understanding that the Defendant would protect it against disclosure, was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The PII compromised in the Data Breach was targeted and exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target PII for its value to identity thieves, says the suit. Paidwork LLC is a California-based platform that allows users to earn money by completing online tasks, also known as "microtasks." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com PHIL LONG: Bid for Conditional Certification Due Feb. 15, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MCCRERY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PHIL LONG DEALERSHIPS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01276-RMR-MDB (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Braswell entered a scheduling order as follows: -- The Plaintiff shall file any motion for conditional certification and court-authorized FLSA notice on or before Feb. 15, 2027. The Defendant shall file any opposition within 30 days of the Plaintiff's motion, and the Plaintiff shall file any reply within 15 days of the Defendant's opposition. -- The parties shall file a Joint Status Report on or before Oct. 28, 2026, updating the Court on the first phase of discovery and outlining a plan for any remaining first-phase discovery. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant employed the Plaintiff and other similarly situated Technicians in automobile dealership service departments and failed to pay all overtime compensation owed for hours worked over forty in a workweek. Phil Long is an automotive dealer group based in Colorado. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N9faYe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Raymond Conlon, Esq. Michael Ross Rinderman, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5279 E-mail: Michael.rinderman@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: John J. Michels Jr., Esq. Russell Seymour Kalvelage, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER PLLC 1331 17th Street, Suite 350 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 652-5871 E-mail: jmichels@ohaganmeyer.com rkalvelage@ohaganmeyer.com PHOENIX RETAIL: Dalton Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Phoenix Retail, LLC dba Bonobos, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-03503-NEB-JFD (D. Minn., August 4, 2026) arises because Defendant's Website www.bonobos.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. The complaint relates that in July of 2026, Plaintiff visited the Website while shopping for shorts for her husband. Unfortunately, Plaintiff was unable to access the contents of the "main" drop-down menu, because the Website was not screen-reader compatible. This left Plaintiff frustrated, unable to understand content on the Website, and prevented her from shopping on the Website as she had intended to. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, asserts the complaint. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to the Minnesota Statute. Plaintiff Julie Dalton is blind and low-vision individual and is reliant upon screen reader technology to navigate the Internet. Defendant Phoenix Retail, LLC owns, operates, and/or controls its Website that offers men's apparel and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, shirts, tees, pants, jeans, shorts, swimwear, sweaters, outerwear, golf apparel, belts, socks, hats, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Bids for Summary Judgment Due Sept. 8 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ECHOTA C. WOLFCLAN, et al., v. PIERCE COUNTY, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05399-TSZ-SKV (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge S. Kate Vaughan entered an order as follows: On July 28, 2026, the Court held a status conference and heard the parties' positions on class notification, setting a case schedule, and court-facilitated settlement discussions. Being fully informed, the Court now sets the following deadlines: -- The Court will not require that notice of class certification be sent to the entire class. However, in view of the many individual cases by class members that have been stayed while this case proceeds, the Court will require appointed class counsel to notify those class members with stayed cases by Sept. 14, 2026. -- The case schedule will be limited to a briefing schedule for summary judgment motions as requested by the parties. Motions for summary judgment are due by Sept. 8, 2026. Responses are due by Sept. 29, 2026. Replies are due by Oct. 6, 2026. -- In view of the parties' request for a settlement conference before a United States Magistrate Judge, the Court will set a noting date for any motions for summary judgment, if warranted, after conclusion of the settlement conference. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to the parties and to the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly. The Defendant is a large state government agency that provides safety net programs, financial aid, food benefits, long-term care, and behavioral health services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nks3pB at no extra charge.[CC] POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Kennedy Balks at Artificial Pre-Recorded Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- KATHLEEN KENNEDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02679-JAM-CSK (E.D. Cal., Aug. 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brings this action under the TCPA alleging that the Defendant called her using a pre-recorded voice. The calls were made without the call recipient's prior express written consent. Because the calls were transmitted using technology capable of generating thousands of similar calls per day, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who were sent the same illegal calls. Powerschool Group, LLC is an education technology software company that develops cloud-based software for school districts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex N. Jilizian, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (213) 866-5293 Facsimile: (508) 318-8100 E-mail: Alex@paronichlaw.com PRIMAL QUEEN: Class Cert Bid Filing in Blank Suit Due Dec. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON BLANK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PRIMAL QUEEN, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-02810-KK-AYP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kato entered an order granting joint stipulation to set a schedule for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Event Date The Plaintiff's motion for class Dec. 14, 2026 certification and expert disclosure and report deadline: The Defendant's opposition and rebuttal Jan. 21, 2027 expert disclosure and report deadline: The Plaintiff's reply deadline: Feb. 11, 2027 Hearing: March 25, 2027, at 9:30 a.m. 2. All other dates set forth in the Court's Civil Trial Scheduling Order remain unchanged. Primal Queen offers female-focused nutritional supplements including organ-based capsules and creatine gummies designed specifically for women's health needs. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nNXj7e at no extra charge.[CC] RAISING CANE'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cifuentes Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ YARENIS CIFUENTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. RAISING CANE'S USA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV24569 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 3, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Cifuentes was employed by the Defendant as a staff. Raising Cane's Restaurants, LLC, doing business as Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers, is an American fast-food chain specializing in chicken fingers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot J. Siegel, Esq. Julian Burns King, Esq. KING & SIEGEL LLP 724 South Spring Street, Suite 201 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone:(213) 465-4802 - and - Navid Barahmand, Esq. BARAHMAND LAW GROUP 23801 Calabasas Road, Suite 2034 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 574-3355 Email: elliot@kingsiegel.com julian@kingsiegel.com navid@barahmandlaw.com READING INT'L: Class Certification Briefing Deadlines Remain ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HALEY BERRYMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. READING INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00750-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer entered an order as follows: -- All deadlines related to class certification briefing, including the oral argument in connection with that motion, remain as stated in the revised case management plan. -- The Court adjourns the pre-motion conference. Having received Reading's pre-motion letter and Berryman's response, the court will take up a schedule related to any summary judgment motion at the October argument. The Court has determined that class certification briefing should precede summary judgment briefing. This sequencing promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that any summary judgment decision will bind putative class members. Reading has not offered a compelling justification for proceeding in the reverse order. On May 1, 2026, the Court issued a revised case management plan. On June 15, 2026, Berryman filed a motion for class certification. Reading is an entertainment and real estate company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=204ftA at no extra charge.[CC] SANFORD SURROUNDED: Class Cert. Bid in Foxworth Due Nov. 16 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACIE FOXWORTH, v. SANFORD SURROUNDED, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00818-LAF-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Peake entered an order that: -- The deadline for Plaintiff's expert reports under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and disclosures under Rule 26(a)(2)(C) is Sept. 14, 2026, the deadline for the Defendants' expert reports under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and disclosures under Rule 26(a)(2)(C) is Oct. 12, 2026, -- The deadline for the close of discovery is Nov. 2, 2026, and the deadline for conducting mediation is Nov. 27, 2026. -- The deadline for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification remains Nov. 16, 2026. -- The deadline for the Defendants' response in opposition remains Dec. 14, 2026. Sanford Surrounded is a veteran owned real estate firm serving Sanford and the surrounding areas. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QWZunK at no extra charge.[CC] SELENE FINANCE: Class Cert Bid Response Extended to August 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTEL ENGLAND, KAREN MEYERS, and ANGELA JOYNERPERRY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SELENE FINANCE, LP, Case No. 1:23-cv-00847-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting the motion for an extension of the deadline by which it must respond to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion up through and including Aug. 31, 2026, as well as corresponding extension of the Plaintiffs' reply to the same up through and including Sept. 28, 2026. The suit says that, while the Defendant has been working diligently to prepare its response in opposition, the Defendant requires additional time to sufficiently evaluate the arguments and properly respond. The Plaintiffs commenced this action against the Defendant on Oct. 4, 2023 asserting claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the North Carolina Collection Agency Act (NCCAA), and for negligent misrepresentation. Selene operates as a residential mortgage company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6v8zHS at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: D. Kyle Deak, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 301 S. College Street, 34th Floor Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (919) 835-4133 E-mail: kyle.deak@troutman.com SHELL TRADING: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Sept. 7, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LHB VENTURES LLC, on behalf of itself and those similarly situated, v. SHELL TRADING (US) COMPANY and BLACK BEAR OIL CORPORATION, Case No. 2:26-cv-00052-SWS (D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Klosterman entered a class certification scheduling order as follows: Event Schedule Motions for leave to amend or add Nov. 4, 2026 additional parties: All Pre-Class Certification Decision Aug. 25, 2027 expert depositions to be completed: The Plaintiff's class certification Sept. 7, 2027 motion: Defendants' Class Certification Oct. 22, 2027 Response Class Certification Hearing Jan. 26, 2028, through Jan. 27, 2028, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. This class action case concerns Black Bear's and Shell Trading's past and ongoing violations of the Wyoming Royalty Payment Act ("WRPA"), and the Defendants' continuing breaches of their royalty payment obligations to payees regarding oil produced from wells located in Wyoming. Shell Trading is one of the largest physical hydrocarbon and energy trading organizations in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KEJMge at no extra charge.[CC] US MED DIRECT: SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Franchi Bid for Class Cert Tossed as Moot -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM FRANCHI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, INC., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00962 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Jeffery S. Frensley entered an order denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IiuAgo at no extra charge.[CC] SMURFIT WESTROCK: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Smurfit Westrock plc 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 the Company continues to defend itself from antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Smurfit Westrock plc, Smurfit Kappa North America LLC, WestRock CP, LLC and seven other industry participants were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit filed on July 29, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of U.S. antitrust laws. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act, asserting that the defendants conspired to fix, raise and maintain supracompetitive prices for containerboard sheets, linerboard sheets, and finished packaging products made from containerboard and/or linerboard in the United States. The complaint seeks damages, including treble damages under the Clayton Act, pre- and post-judgment interest, injunctive relief and litigation expenses and attorneys' fees. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses and intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. While the Company is currently unable to determine the ultimate outcome of this matter or estimate the range of potential loss due to the early stage of this proceeding, it is possible that an adverse outcome could have a material impact on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. On Oct. 17, 2025, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Smurfit Westrock plc from the lawsuit without prejudice to seek to rejoin it at a later date. The Company's subsidiaries Smurfit Kappa North America LLC and WestRock CP, LLC remain defendants in the lawsuit. On Oct. 20, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and briefing on that motion was completed on Jan. 20, 2026. The Company expects the court to rule on the motion to dismiss in 2026. In addition, the Company notes that it is a defendant in a number of other lawsuits and claims arising out of the conduct of its business. Although the ultimate outcomes of these suits or other proceedings cannot be predicted as of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the Company currently believes that the resolution of these other matters will not have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Smurfit Westrock plc is a global paper and packaging company formed through the combination of Smurfit Kappa and WestRock, providing sustainable, fiber-based packaging solutions to customers across a range of industries worldwide. It operates an integrated network of mills, converting plants and recycling facilities serving customers primarily in the Americas and Europe. SONOCO PRODUCTS: Faces Jimenez Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN JIMENEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY, a South Carolina corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV24401 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 3, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants have a policy or practice of failing to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in the State of California; failing to accurately track and/or pay for all hours actually worked; engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work off the clock (including directing employees to clock out and continue working, among other violations); failing to pay overtime hours at the proper overtime rate of pay, including, without limitation, by paying overtime hours at the improper rate of pay and/or recharacterizing overtime hours worked to appear that they worked at a different time or pay period; failing to pay for reporting time pay; and manipulating or editing time records to show lesser hours than actually worked during the pay period, to the detriment of Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. The Plaintiffs were also not properly paid sick time pay, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee performing duties as a general laborer starting in July 2023. Sonoco Products Company is a major American global packaging provider founded in 1899 in Hartsville, South Carolina.[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: orobinson@rdwlaw.com mrobinson@rdwlaw.com SOUTHEAST CONNECTIONS: Bid to Seal Document OK'd ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON STALLWORTH, et al., v. SOUTHEAST CONNECTIONS LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04106-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered an order granting the motion to seal the document. The Defendant file a redacted version of the document within five days of the entry of this Order. Failure to timely file the redacted version of the document may result in the document being disregarded in the Court's adjudication of the associated motions. The Clerk is directed to place Exhibit C to Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for final FLSA certification, and Exhibit D to Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for Rule 23 class certification, under seal until further order of the Court, and to remove the provisional seal from the other documents filed at Docket Entries 278 and 280. To the extent that it becomes necessary to cite previously sealed documents in future filings, the parties shall NOT file additional copies of those documents but instead shall cite the existing documents by docket entry. The Clerk is DIRECTED to submit this matter to the undersigned six days from the entry of this Order. The Court finds good cause to seal the confidential information contained in the exhibit but does not find that good cause has been shown to seal the entire document. The Defendant is a provider of infrastructure solutions within the natural gas industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i53mVR at no extra charge.[CC] SOUTHWEST JANITORIAL: Court Sustains Collective Action Status ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE OAKLEAF, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. SOUTHWEST JANITORIAL SERVICE LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02493-KHV-JBW (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn H. Vratil entered an order sustaining in part and overruling in part the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for order for conditional certification and preliminary approval of settlement agreement. The Court sustains plaintiff's request for preliminary collective action certification. The Court overrules plaintiff's request for preliminary approval of the parties' collective action settlement. The Court reminds the parties that this case will proceed to trial on January 4, 2027. The Court will not continue the trial in order for the parties to effectuate settlement. On October 30, 2024, Mike Oakleaf, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed his complaint against Southwest Janitorial Service LLC, alleging that defendant failed to pay him overtime. Complaint. The Plaintiff sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act On October 31, 2024, Oakleaf filed suit against Southwest, alleging that it misclassified him and similarly situated workers as independent contractors and failed to pay overtime as the FLSA required. In the proposed settlement agreement, the putative collective class members are defined as "All persons working for Southwest Janitorial Service LLC and classified as independent contractors, at any point from Oct. 30, 2021, through Nov. 20, 2025." The settlement agreement requires Southwest to pay $250,000 into a settlement fund administered by an independent settlement administrator, which will be used to pay settlement awards, a representative plaintiff’s service award, collective counsel fees and expenses and the cost of the settlement administrator Southwest provides cleaning services for commercial businesses and government entities. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uTFsBa at no extra charge.[CC] SOUTHWEST POWER: Final Scheduling Order Entered in Spickes Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIE SPICKES, v. SOUTHWEST POWER POOL, Case No. 4:26-cv-00162-KGB (E.D. Ark.), the Court entered a final scheduling order as follows: -- This case is scheduled for jury trial before United States District Judge Kristine G. Baker commencing at 9:00 a.m. sometime during the week of May 10, 2027, in the Richard Sheppard Arnold United States Courthouse, Courtroom #4D, 500 West Capitol, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. -- Leave to add parties or amend pleadings must be sought no later than Nov. 16, 2026. -- Discovery should be completed no later than Feb. 24, 2027. -- All motions, except motions for class certification and motions in limine, must be filed on or before March 11, 2027. -- Pursuant to Local Rule 26.1, motions for class certification must be filed 90 days after the Rule 26(f) conference; therefore, any motions for class certification are due on or before Sept. 14, 2026. -- Motions in limine must be filed on or before April 26, 2027 and responses must be filed seven (7) days thereafter. -- All requests for a settlement conference must be made on or before March 26, 2027. -- All trial briefs must be filed no later than April 19, 2027. Responding trial briefs must be filed no later than April 26, 2027. Southwest Power is a regional transmission organization that manages the electric grid and wholesale power market for much of the central United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fkbp2t at no extra charge.[CC] STRIDELINE LLC: Young Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRIDELINE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06640 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 4, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.strideline.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Strideline LLC is an athletic footware company. The Company specializes in custom and branded athletic socks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal TETRA TECH: Pennington Class Action Closed ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA PARKER PENNINGTON, et al., v. TETRA TECH EC, INC., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-05330-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Donato entered an order declining to reach the Defendants' alternative arguments for summary judgment. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' request for judicial notice is terminated as moot. Judgment will be entered for defendants and the case closed . In fact, plaintiffs forthrightly agreed that, even if they had pleaded a “nuclear incident,” defendants were probably right that plaintiffs “have not presented evidence sufficient to meet the standards of a ‘nuclear incident’ to state a public liability action,” and so there “is no public liability action” under the PAA. The Plaintiffs made no effort to demonstrate prejudice beyond the fact that Tetra Tech surprised them with an "obscure legal theory" based on a "seldom-litigated statute," which, if raised earlier, could have saved both sides from years of litigation. Raising a defense late is not prejudicial simply because it "'would have been dispositive' if asserted 'when the action was filed.'" In this long-running consolidated action, plaintiffs are current and former homeowners who purchased a home in Parcel A of the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard (HPNS). Plaintiffs say their home values were diminished because of the "continuing toxic nature of the Superfund and former nuclear testing site upon and near Plaintiffs' homes." Tetra Tech is an environmental construction company located in San Diego. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VfCYf9 at no extra charge.[CC] TOMOCREDIT INC: Class Cert. Filing in Johnson Due March 17, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DESHAUN JOHNSON, v. TOMOCREDIT, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-01172-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Amendment of pleadings/joinder: Oct. 5, 2026 Close of fact discovery: Feb. 26, 2027 Exchange of opening expert reports: March 17, 2027 Exchange of rebuttal expert reports: April 14, 2027 Close of expert discovery: April 28, 2027 Class certification filing deadline: March 17, 2027 Class certification hearing: May 6, 2027, at 2:00 p.m. These dates may only be altered by order of the Court and only upon a showing of good cause. The parties are directed to review and comply with this Court’s standing orders. IT IS SO ORDERED. TomoCredit provides financial services focused on payment and credit management tools. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1Nr6qd at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due July 30, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID O'CONNELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, Case No. 1:20-cv-01365-JMC (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Cobb entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Proposed Protective Order, ESI Order, Rule 502 Order: Aug. 14, 2026 -- Close of Class Certification Discovery: May 28, 2027 -- Post-discovery status report: June 4, 2027 -- Motion for class certification: July 30, 2027 -- Opposition to motion for class certification: Oct. 28, 2027 -- Reply ISO Motion for class certification: Dec. 3, 2027 -- Daubert Motion(s) for Class Certification: Dec. 3, 2027 The Court further ordered that the Parties shall appear in person in Courtroom 3 for an oral hearing on the motion for class certification on Dec. 16, 2027 at 10:30 AM. The Defendant is the episcopal conference of the Catholic Church in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L5CZdR at no extra charge.[CC] US MED DIRECT: Class Certification Bid in Leedy Suit Due Nov. 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA LEEDY, v. US MED DIRECT, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00631-PGB-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Byron entered a 2nd amended case management and scheduling order as follows: Discovery – Class Action: Oct. 1, 2026 Motion for class certification: Nov. 1, 2026 Response to motion for class Dec. 1, 2026 certification: Reply to response to motion for Dec. 15, 2026 class certification: Discovery deadline: Dec. 1, 2026 Dispositive Motions, Daubert, and Jan. 4, 2027 Markman Motions: Final Pretrial Conference: May 18, 2027 US MED is a provider of medical supplies. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PZA4YH at no extra charge.[CC] VANGUARD PARKING: Sullivan Wins Provisional Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANNE SULLIVAN, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. VANGUARD PARKING SOLUTIONS INC., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-02015-TNM (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for provisional class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs seek provisional certification of a class of: "drivers whose personal information obtained from a motor vehicle record was or will be disclosed or used by the Defendants for purposes not listed in the DPPA." The Court should therefore grant provisional certification of the Plaintiffs' proposed class to protect the privacy of class members subjected to the Defendants' illegal practices during the pendency of this litigation. The Defendants have allegedly established a scheme whereby they obtain, use, and disclose drivers' personal information from motor vehicle records, in violation of the Drivers Privacy Production Act ("DPPA") at two parking garages located, respectively, in Washington D.C. and Annapolis, Maryland, in order to generate a substantial profit in the form of inflated parking fines. The Defendants retain the personal information of many of these drivers, resulting in ongoing privacy violations. Vanguard is a private parking compliance and management company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KAoE8d at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul S. Caiola, Esq. Jean M. Zachariasiewicz, Esq. Joe Dugan, Esq. Sarah R. Simmons, Esq. GALLAGHER LLP 650 S. Exeter St., Suite 1200 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 727-7702 Facsimile: (410) 468-2786 E-mail: pcaiola@gallagherllp.com jzachariasiewicz@gallagherllp.com jdugan@gallagherllp.com ssimmons@gallagherllp.com VIRTA HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Childress Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JOBY CHILDRESS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIRTA HEALTH CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03513 (D. Col., Aug. 3, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information1 and protected health information, culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a result of the Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and necessary data security practices, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems and stole the Private Information of the Plaintiff and Class Members. Due to the Defendant's negligent failure to secure and protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, cybercriminals have stolen and obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, says the suit. Virta Health Corp. provides healthcare technology solutions specializing in metabolic disease reversal and weight loss through nutrition and remote care. The company delivers personalized nutrition-first programs and continuous remote medical supervision via a digital app. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com WESCO INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Shonce Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT SHONCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESCO INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01647-NR (W.D. Pa., Aug. 4, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information that was impacted in a data breach experienced by WESCO in or about July 2026. According to the complaint, the Defendant owed the Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information they maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, the Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals, says the suit. WESCO International, Inc. distributes electrical products and other industrial maintenance, repair, and operating supplies. The Company also provides integrated supply services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Scott J. Falgoust, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU DEMAY, PLLC 5301 Canal Boulevard New Orleans, LA 70124 Telephone: (919) 585-4634 Email: sfalgoust@brysonpllc.com WHISKEY SKIES: Intercepts Users' Electronic Data, Johnson Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHISKEY SKIES/IN THE IVY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-04429-AJB-BJW (S.D. Cal., Aug. 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the right to privacy guaranteed by Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution, and the California common law prohibiting intrusion upon seclusion. The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendant for intercepting, recording, decoding, capturing, disclosing, and using the contents of Plaintiff's and Class Members' electronic communications with Defendant's website https://www.whiskeyskies.com as well as their routing, addressing, and signaling information, and for aiding Meta Platforms, Inc. to do the same, by means of a tracking pixel and related tracking technologies embedded in Defendant's website. The Meta Pixel and related technologies did more than capture routing and signaling data. As Plaintiff's own off-Facebook activity confirms, they intercepted the contents of Plaintiff's and Class Members' communications with the website -- including the full URL strings, search queries, and the specific products and content they viewed -- and transmitted those contents to Meta and other third parties contemporaneously with, and as a duplicate of, the users' communications with Defendant, says the suit. Whiskey Skies/In the Ivy LLC is an online women's boutique based in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN LEMIEUX, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Kevin T. Lemieux, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN LEMIEUX, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 E-mail: Kevin@LawyerKevin.com WILSON ELECTRIC: Bid to Seal Confidential Materials OK'd -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel D Andrews, et al., v. Wilson Electric Services Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00995-DJH (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Diane J. Humetewa entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to seal materials designated as confidential. The documents that Defendants seek to file under seal include either confidential information regarding Defendants' Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP"), such as its finances and investments, or the personal information of the ESOP's participants. Likewise, an individual's personal identifying information and private financial information warrants sealing the necessary documents. Therefore, the Court finds compelling reasons to seal the requested briefing and exhibits. Wilson provides electrical contracting services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=66bNwo at no extra charge.[CC] ZEREP MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Covarrubias Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- ARACELI COVARRUBIAS, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZEREP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; VINCENT'S GENERAL SERVICES, INC.; VALLEY VISTA SERVICES, INC.; GRAND CENTRAL RECYCLING & TRANSFER STATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 26STCV24363 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 3, 2026) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Covarrubias was employed by the Defendants as a welding department supervisor. Zerep Management Corporation was founded in 1970. The Company's line of business includes collection and disposal of refuse systems. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arash Sadat. Esq. Camron Dowlatshahi, Esq. Kathleen Moore, Esq. MILLS SADAT DOWLAT LLP 515 South Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 628-3856 Email: arash@msdlawyers.com camron@msdlawyers.com kathleen@msdlawyers.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Has 525 Product Liability Cases ------------------------------------------------------------------ Colgate-Palmolive Company has been named as a defendant in civil actions alleging that certain of its talcum powder products were contaminated with asbestos and/or caused mesothelioma and other cancers, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As of June 30, 2026, there were 525 individual cases pending against the Company in state and federal courts throughout the United States, as compared to 484 cases as of March 31, 2026 and 453 cases as of December 31, 2025. During the three months ended June 30, 2026, 84 new cases were filed and 43 cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal or settlement. During the six months ended June 30, 2026, 158 new cases were filed and 86 cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal, settlement or dismissal by the court. The value of the settlements in the periods presented was not material, either individually or in the aggregate, to such period’s results of operations. As of June 30, 2026, a portion of the Company’s costs incurred in defending and resolving these claims has been, and the Company believes will continue to be, covered by insurance policies issued by several primary, excess and umbrella insurance carriers, subject to exhaustion, deductibles, exclusions, retentions, policy limits and insurance carrier insolvencies. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/3kbhj7tj ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus Has $5.1MM Estimated Asbestos Liability ----------------------------------------------------------------- Like many industrial manufacturers, Columbus McKinnon Corporation is involved in asbestos-related litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The Company has estimated its net asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs to range between $3,600,000 and $6,500,000, net of insurance recoveries, using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a period of 38 years from June 30, 2026. The Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, net of insurance recoveries, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates $5,191,000. The Company has reflected the liability gross of insurance recoveries of $6,137,000 as a liability in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2026. The recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program. Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability payments of approximately $1,800,000 over the next 12 months. Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over many years, management believes that the potential additional costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future period. "A share of the Company’s previously incurred asbestos-related expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are covered by pre-existing insurance policies. The Company had been engaged in a legal action against the insurance carriers for those policies to recover past expenses and future costs incurred. The Company came to an agreement with the insurance carriers to settle its case against them for recovery of a portion of past costs and future costs for asbestos-related legal defense costs. The agreement was finalized during the quarter ended September 30, 2020. The terms of the settlement require the carriers to pay gross defense costs prior to retro-premiums of 65% for future asbestos-related defense costs subject to an annual cap of $1,650,000 for claims covered by the settlements. "Further, the insurance carriers are expected to cover 100% of indemnity costs related to all covered cases. Estimates of the future cost sharing have been included in the loss reserve calculation as of June 30, 2026 and March 31, 2026. The Company has recorded a receivable for the estimated future cost sharing in Other assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 2026 in the amount of $6,137,000, which offsets its asbestos reserves." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/394hksdw ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Defends Asbestos Exposure Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Crown Holdings, Inc., is one of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. These claims arose from the insulation operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963. Approximately ninety days after the stock purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was later merged into Crown Cork. The outstanding claims in each period exclude approximately 19,000 inactive claims. Due to the passage of time, the Company considers it unlikely that the plaintiffs in these cases will pursue further action against the Company. The exclusion of these inactive claims had no effect on the calculation of the Company’s accrual as the claims were filed in states, as described above, where the Company’s liability is limited by statute. With respect to post-1964 claims, regardless of the existence of asbestos legislation, the Company does not include in its accrual any amounts for settlement of these claims because of increased difficulty of establishing identification of relevant insulation products as the cause of injury. Given the Company's settlement experience with post-1964 claims, it does not believe that an adverse ruling in the Texas or Pennsylvania asbestos litigation cases, or in any other state that has enacted asbestos legislation, would have a material impact on the Company with respect to such claims. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrxefnwp ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Defends Exposure Cases ---------------------------------------------------------- Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) and its predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The costs to resolve cases during the six months ended June 30, 2026 and 2025, were not material individually or in the aggregate. The Company’s estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because such liabilities are influenced by many variables that are inherently difficult to predict. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution of current cases will not have a material effect on its condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/sn4psx8d ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Defends 986 Exposure Cases ----------------------------------------------------------------- Minerals Technologies Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries are among numerous defendants in over nine hundred cases seeking damages for alleged exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc products sold by its subsidiary Oldco, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of July 5, 2026, we had 986 open cases related to certain talc products previously sold by Oldco, which is an increase in volume from previous years." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/3bemdjna ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Accrues $16.3MM in Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------- Olin Corporation, and its subsidiaries, are defendants in various other legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged exposures to asbestos) incidental to its past and current business activities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of June 30, 2026, December 31, 2025 and June 30, 2025, our condensed balance sheets included accrued liabilities for these other legal actions of $16.3 million, $20.1 million and $18.8 million, respectively. These liabilities do not include costs associated with legal representation. Based on our analysis, and considering the inherent uncertainties associated with litigation, we do not believe that it is reasonably possible that these legal actions will materially adversely affect our financial position, cash flows or results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/mncc75zr ASBESTOS UPDATE: Smurfit Westrock Defends 825 PI Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------- Smurfit Westrock plc has been named as a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury litigation, primarily in relation to the historical operations of certain companies acquired by the Company, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of June 30, 2026, there were approximately 825 such lawsuits. We believe that we have substantial insurance coverage, subject to applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos claims. We also believe we have valid defenses to these asbestos-related personal injury claims and intend to continue to contest these matters vigorously. Should the Company’s litigation profile change substantially, or if there are adverse developments in applicable law, it is possible that the Company could incur significantly more costs resolving these cases. We record asbestos-related insurance recoveries that are deemed probable. In assessing the probability of insurance recovery, we make judgments concerning insurance coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency issues surrounding the insurers. The Company currently does not expect the resolution of pending asbestos litigation and proceedings to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. As of June 30, 2026, the Company had estimated liabilities in respect of these matters of $83 million and estimated insurance recoveries of $53 million." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/mw9sruxh ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Technologies Faces Product Liability Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Certain indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries and former companies of Trane Technologies PLC have been named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other companies have also been named as defendants. The vast majority of those claims were filed against predecessors of Aldrich and Murray and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by predecessors of Aldrich or Murray, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes. None of the Company's existing or previously-owned businesses were a producer or manufacturer of asbestos." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/mwj5udc4 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trimas Corp. Reports 655 Pending Exposure Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- As of June 30, 2026, the Trimas Corporation was a party to 655 pending cases involving an aggregate of 5,197 claimants primarily alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by its former Lamons division and certain other related subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical, refining and exploration industries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos-related claims in the future, and will aggressively defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate. The cost of settling cases in which product identification can be made may increase, and the Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The cost of claims varies as claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the amount sought. Of the 5,197 claims pending at June 30, 2026, 40 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the statutory minimum or maximum). At June 30, 2026, of the 40 claims that set forth specific amounts, there were no claims seeking more than $5 million for punitive damages. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/ndckcpau ASBESTOS UPDATE: Uniroyal Files Ch. 11 to Resolve Asbestos Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kirk O'Neil of The Street reports that Uniroyal Holding Inc., the legacy successor to the once-prominent Uniroyal tire and rubber business, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection as it seeks to wind down its remaining operations and resolve decades-old liabilities. The filing marks the final chapter for one of America's most recognizable tire brands, which ceased manufacturing years ago but continues to face legacy legal obligations. The Naugatuck, Connecticut-based company filed its petition on July 31, 2026 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, listing estimated assets of $10 million to $50 million and liabilities of $50 million to $100 million. The company said the Chapter 11 process will be used to resolve asbestos-related personal injury and wrongful death claims, satisfy remaining retiree obligations, and distribute assets to creditors before dissolving. Court records show that 30 law firms account for the largest share of pending asbestos litigation against the company. The claims are listed as unliquidated, with Weitz & Luxenberg representing the largest number of cases at 22,754, while Wallace & Graham P.A. filed 32 claims. Since its formation more than 41 years ago, Uniroyal Holding has faced 516,656 asbestos-related personal injury and wrongful death claims. The company has resolved 216,994 cases with payments totaling nearly $500 million, while another 264,232 claims were dismissed, leaving more than 35,000 claims still pending, the report states. ********* 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 ***