/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210720.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, July 20, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 138
Headlines
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Forshee Claims
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Quinones Claims
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, Mulligan Claims
3M COMPANY: Ball Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Bawol Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Butler Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Cartwright Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Chilcote Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Dogs Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Levine Alleges
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Kitterman Says
3M COMPANY: Faces Fullmer Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Effects
3M COMPANY: Faces Gray Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Components
3M COMPANY: Garris Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Gholson Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Rich Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Sewer District Sues Over Property's PFAS Contamination
3M COMPANY: Stearns Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
6 GROUP LLC: Vera Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Missing Pay Slips
ADT LLC: Doty "Pulse Security System" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
ALPHA FOODS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMAZON.COM INC: Ex Delivery Drivers Withdraw Background Check Suit
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Faces Street Suit Over Sidewalk Devices
AMAZON.COM: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Retail Prices During Pandemic
AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Au Pair Must Arbitrate Wage Claims
AMERICAN RIVER: Parshall Balks at Merger Deal With Marin Bancorp
ANTERO RESOURCES: Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 20 in Grissom Suit
ARGENT TRUST: ESOP Participants Seeks to Restore ERISA Plan Losses
ASSOCIATED PRESS: Winegard Seeks Deaf Users' Equal Website Access
AURORA CANNABIS: Securities Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
BARCLAYS PLC: CAT Hears GBP1-B Forex Market Rigging Class Action
BAREFOOT SCIENCES: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: JSB Farms Suit Moved From D. Minn. to E.D. Mo.
BIXLER'S INC: Roman Seeks Blind Users' Equal Access to Website
CAMPAIGN INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CAPITAL ENERGY: Faces Perrong TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Moore FCRA Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
CAROLINA HERRERA: Labin Sues Over Assistant Managers' Unpaid OT
CAROLINA MOTOR: Johnson, et al. File ERISA Class Action
CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: Altman Suit Seeks Damages Under Florida Laws
CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY: Massaquoi Files Suit in C.D. California
CM THOMPSON: Betras Sues Over Club Dancers' Unpaid Wages and Tips
COLORADO LANDSCAPE: Magallanes Seeks Landscape Laborers' Unpaid OT
CORRECT CARE: Sixth Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Woodcock Suit
CREDIT COLLECTION: Faces Jackson FDCPA Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
DAVENPORT AUTO: Misclassifies Battery Technicians, Geery Claims
DIDI GLOBAL: Berman Tabacco Reminds of September 7 Deadline
DIDI GLOBAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 7 Deadline
DIDI GLOBAL: Kaplan Fox Files Class Action Over Drop in Share Price
DIDI GLOBAL: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of September 7 Deadline
DOW CHEMICAL: Faces Suit Over Chlorpyrifos Linked to Brain Damage
DYNAGAS LNG: $4.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 5
E 16 LAUNDROMAT: Motolinia Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
EDLOE FINCH: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EDWARD D. JONES: Judge Okays $34MM Class Action Settlement
ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Faces Zayas Fraud Suit in E.D. Missouri
EVEREST RECEIVABLE: Faces Montgomery FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
FIDELITY PANDEMIC: Loftus Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Destination, Delivery Fees
FORD MOTOR: Fails to Pay for PZEV Repairs Under Warranty, Ward Says
GEODIS LOGISTICS: Slade FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California
GRACIE MEWS: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Diner Staff
GREENWICH VILLAGE DENTAL: Roman Says Website Not Blind-accessible
GUARANTEED RATE: Rios Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal.
GUINN CORP: Faces Cuadras Employment Suit in California State Ct.
HALLS FERRY: Tierney FLSA Suit Seeks OT Pay for Delivery Drivers
HEALTH ACCESS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Munera PAGA Suit Claims
HENRY LEGAL: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Holmes Class Suit
HEXO CORP: N.Y. State Court Tosses Securities Class Action
HILTON GRAND: Misleads Stockholders to Approve Merger, O'Neill Says
JACK AND MULLIGAN: Fischler Says Website Not Blind-accessible
JAMES DOLAN: Faces Stevens Suit Over Unfair Sale of MSGN by MSGE
JAMES RIVER: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of September 7 Deadline
JAMES RIVER: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 7 Deadline
JAMES RIVER: Retirement Fund Sues Over 26.38% Drop of Stock Price
JELD-WEN INC: Jimenez Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
JOHN'S SHANGHAI: Xue Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA, PMWA
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over OGX Hair Care Products
JPMORGAN CHASE: Overcharges Foreign Exchange Rates, Dahl Claims
K&B MAINTENANCE: Denies Workers Overtime Pay, Yzaguirre Suit Says
KANZHUN LIMITED: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 10 Deadline
KANZHUN LIMITED: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
KAPLAN INC: Pascual Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website
KATANA FITNESS: Pascual Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website
KENNEDY ENDEAVORS: Maeda Appeals Class Certification Bid Denial
KOHL BUILDING: Cante Seeks Final Wages, Damages
KOHL BUILDING: Improperly Pays Janitors, Cante Suit Alleges
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Devices Contain PE-PUR Foam, Starner Suit Says
KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Shelton Suit Over Deceptive Butter Crackers
LOBSTER LLC: Faces Redick ADA Suit in Central Dist. of California
LOCAL LISTING: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
LUCKIN COFFEE: Class Notice Dissemination in Securities Suit Okayed
LUCKIN COFFEE: Winslow Funds Appeals Cohen Securities Suit Ruling
M STREET ENTERTAINMENT: Crowell Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
MARK PATANE: One Rock Suit Transferred From S.D.N.Y. to Connecticut
MARK PATANE: Round Hill Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y. to Connecticut
MARTINELLI MARKETING: PurpleAir Sues Over Forklift's Quality Claims
MCCLURE'S PICKLES: Pascual Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Orange County Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MERCY HEALTH: Peck Seeks Proper Wages, Damages
METROPOLITAN BALTIMORE: Dismissal of Aleti Suit Affirmed in Part
MHR FUND: Faces Brennan Stockholder Suit Over Purchase of Emisphere
MICHIGAN: Beggs Appeals Ruling in Tampon Product Taxes Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Collection Letters Violate Privacy, Espinal Says
MIDLAND CREDIT: Jackson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
MRS BPO: Bigos Consumer Credit Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Court Tosses Luczak Class Certification Bid
NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Florida Judge Tosses Fraud Class Action
NATURE'S PATH: Products Deceptively Labeled, Brown Suit Alleges
NAVY ARMY: Faces Watson Class Suit in Texas District Court
NCAA: Jones Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NCAA: Mac Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NCAA: Morowitz Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NCAA: Parrish Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
NESTLE USA: Coffee Creamer's 140 Servings "False," Ivory Suit Says
OLIPOP INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ORPHAZYME A/S: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 7 Deadline
ORPHAZYME A/S: Busic Sues Over Continuous Decline of ADS Price
ORPHAZYME A/S: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 7 Deadline
OSMOTICA PHARMA: $5.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 9
PACIFIC RIM: Sandoval Seeks Unpaid Wages, Missing Pay Stubs
PAPPAS RESTAURANTS: Shelton Sues Over Improper Wage Calculation
PATRIOT HYUNDAI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martinez Suit Says
PHH MORTGAGE: Faces FDUTPA Suit Over Improper Property Payoff
PHILIPS NA: Ramirez Sues Over Defective Ventilators
PHILIPS NORTH: Devices Contain PE-PUR Foam, Boudreau Suit Says
PICASSO STYLE INC: Davis Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website
PIRGOS FOOD: Does not Properly Pay Workers' Wages, Valentin Says
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Liebman FDCPA Suit Moved to D. New Jersey
PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Suit Says
PSMG INC: Underpays Security Guards, Clark Suit Alleges
QUICKEN LOANS: Mattson Loses Bid for Class Certification
QUICKEN LOANS: Voss Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Mortgagors
RCI HOSPITALITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT, Minimum Wages
RCI HOSPITALITY: Thomas Seeks Unpaid OT, Minimum Wages for Dancers
RCI HOSPITALITY: Villela Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages for Dancers
REFLECTIONS LTD: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Thornburg et al. Claim
REKOR SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
RESTORATION ROBOTICS: September 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Viveiros Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
RLX TECHNOLOGY: ClaimsFiler Reminds of August 9 Deadline
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Carrasco Suit Removed to C.D. California
RPA ENERGY: McCrane Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Call Ads
SABOR BORINQUENO: Sulsona Suit Seeks Overtime Wages
SCULLY & SCULLY: Pascual Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website
SINCERA REPRODUCTIVE: Opris Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
SOBE VEGAN: Lucius Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Customers
SOUTH UNIVERSITY: Professor Files Class Action Over ADA Violation
SOUTHERN VALLEY FRUIT: Settlement Deal Gets Initial Approval
SPECIALIST STAFFING: Silvas Seeks HSE Workers' Unpaid Overtime
ST. BASIL'S HOMES: Wants to Cut Number of Plaintiffs in COVID Suit
TAQUERIA GRAMERCY: Portillo Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Dishwashers
TARGET CORPORATION: Heyday Charging Cable "Defective," Bayne Says
TD BANK: Chakraborty Sues Over Improper Foreign Exchange Rates
TEXAS: Whole Woman's Sues Over Enforcement of Texas Senate Bill 8
TMT HOLDINGS: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
TOLL GLOBAL: C.D. California Dismisses Marquez Suit With Prejudice
TRINITY AUTOMOTIVE: Wilson Slams Deceptive Business Practices
TSW FABRICATION: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Mallory et al. Claim
TURBOTENANT: Sandofsky FCRA Suit Moved From New Jersey to Colorado
UBIQUITI INC: Berger Montague Reminds of July 19 Deadline
UNITED SERVICES: Dolan Sues Over Disclosure of Private Information
UNITED STATES: District of Columbia Court Dismisses Hamilton Suit
USATESTPREP LLC: Pascual Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website
VERIZON CONNECT: Santillan Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to S.D. Cal.
WALMART ASSOCIATES: Nevada Court Enters Deadlines in Nelson Suit
WALMART INC: Faces Peyton Suit Over Harmful Oil-Free Products
WELLS FARGO: McCraner Slams Involvement in Health Supplement Scam
WOOD GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Iannotti Suit Denied Without Prejudice
WOODSPOON INC: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WYNDHAM VACATION: Nolen Wins Bid to Certify Class
YOUTUBE LLC: Faces Trump Suit Over Impermissible Censorship
[*] 70% Class Action Payouts Over Litigation Funds Rejected
*********
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Forshee Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN DONALD FORSHEE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02060-RMG
(D.S.C., July 12, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of serious medical conditions and complications
sustained as a direct result of his exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS at various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities. The Defendants failed to use reasonable
and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
their PFAS-containing AFFF products. Further, the Defendants failed
to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the
Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian
and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors
would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition, says the suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Quinones Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
VALENTINE QUINONES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-02039-RMG (D.S.C., July 9, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective design,
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring trust,
and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, Mulligan Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS MULLIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02071-RMG
(D.S.C., July 12, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. Further, the Defendants failed to warn
public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, the suit says.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer, liver cancer and
colon cancer due to his exposure to the Defendants' PFAS-containing
AFFF products during the course of his training and firefighting
activities.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Ball Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN ALLAN BALL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02049-RMG
(D.S.C., July 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, added the suit.
As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Bawol Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIP ANTHONY BAWOL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02056-RMG
(D.S.C., July 12, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Butler Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
JIMMIE DON BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF
CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02087-RMG
(D.S.C., July 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma Management, LLC is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in Florham Park, New
Jersey.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bernard P. McDonnell, Esq.
Myles D. McDonnell, Esq.
MCDONNELL & MCDONNELL
231 S. Bemiston Suite 800
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 721-3898
Facsimile: (314) 854-1386
E-mail: bpm@mcdonnellandmcdonnell.com
mdm@mcdonnellandncdonnell.com
3M COMPANY: Cartwright Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE ALVIN CARTWRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02057-RMG
(D.S.C., July 12, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, alleges the suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Chilcote Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS JOHN CHILCOTE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02058-RMG
(D.S.C., July 12, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, alleges the suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Dogs Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARL RICHARD DOGS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02059-RMG
(D.S.C., July 12, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. Further, the Defendants failed to warn
public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer due to his
exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during the
course of his training and firefighting activities.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Levine Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE SAMUEL LEVINE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02064-RMG
(D.S.C., July 12, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The Plaintiff brings this action for damages arising out of serious
medical conditions and complications sustained as a direct result
of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)
products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances collectively known as PFAS at various locations during
the course of his training and firefighting activities. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public entities
and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, says the suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Kitterman Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES OWEN KITTERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02063-RMG
(D.S.C., July 12, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of serious medical conditions and complications
sustained as a direct result of his exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS at various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities. The Defendants failed to use reasonable
and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
their PFAS-containing AFFF products. Further, the Defendants failed
to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the
Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian
and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors
would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition, says the suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Faces Fullmer Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANE FULLMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-02084-RMG (D.S.C., July 13, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective design,
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring trust,
and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and
California Unfair Competition Law.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and military
members, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with hypothyroidism/cancer, the suit alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Faces Gray Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Components
----------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY WILLIAM GRAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02062-RMG
(D.S.C., July 12, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. Further, the Defendants failed to warn
public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer due to his
exposure to the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during
the course of his training and firefighting activities.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Garris Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES WILLIS GARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02061-RMG
(D.S.C., July 12, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The Plaintiff brings this action for damages arising out of serious
medical conditions and complications sustained as a direct result
of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)
products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances collectively known as PFAS at various locations during
the course of his training and firefighting activities. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public entities
and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, the suit alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Gholson Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARL GHOLSON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01988-RMG (D.S.C., July 2,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Gholson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
3M COMPANY: Rich Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------
ELBERT RICH v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01983-RMG (D.S.C., July 2,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Rich case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
3M COMPANY: Sewer District Sues Over Property's PFAS Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------------
SAMMAMISH PLATEAU WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY L.L.C. F/K/A THE CHEMOURS COMPANY,
DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., CORTEVA, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP (successor-in-interest to the Ansul Co.), BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY, KIDDE FENWAL, INC., UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS
CORPORATION, INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,
ARKEMA, INC., AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC., DYNAX CORPORATION,
CLARIANT CORPORATION; ARCHROMA, U.S., INC.; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS
1-49, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02086-RMG (D.S.C., July 13,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for strict product
liability, negligence, continuing trespass, continuing public and
private nuisance, declaratory relief, and constructive fraudulent
transfer.
The case arises from the contamination of the Plaintiff's property
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming
foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that their PFAS
compounds would enter the environment, contaminated soil, reach
groundwater, pollute drinking water supplies, render drinking water
unusable and unsafe, and threaten public health and welfare. As a
result of the Defendants' alleged acts and omissions, the Plaintiff
suffered actual losses.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
The Chemours Company L.L.C., f/k/a The Chemours Company, is a
manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of
business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc. is a chemical company based in Wilmington,
Delaware.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc. is a manufacturer of
security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth A. Sansone, Esq.
Ashley B. Campbell, Esq.
SL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP PC
175 Chestnut Street
San Francisco, CA 94133
Telephone: (603) 227-6929
Facsimile: (415) 384-8333
E-mail: ksansone@slenvironment.com
acampbell@slenvironment.com
- and –
Robert A. Bilott, Esq.
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800
Cincinnati, OH 45202-3957
Telephone: (513) 381-2838
Facsimile: (513) 381-0205
E-mail: bilott@taftlaw.com
- and –
David J. Butler, Esq.
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
65 East State Street, Suite 1000
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 221-2838
Facsimile: (614) 221-2007
E-mail: dbutler@taftlaw.com
- and –
William J. Jackson, Esq.
John D.S. Gilmour, Esq.
Andrew W. Homer, Esq.
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
515 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 900
Houston, TX 77027
Telephone: (713) 355-5000
Facsimile: (713) 355-5001
E-mail: bjackson@kelleydrye.com
jgilmour@kelleydrye.com
ahomer@kelleydrye.com
- and –
Kevin J. Madonna, Esq.
KENNEDY & MADONNA, LLP
48 Dewitt Mills Road
Hurley, NY 12443
Telephone: (845) 481-2622
Facsimile: (845) 230-3111
E-mail: kmadonna@kennedymadonna.com
- and –
Gary J. Douglas, Esq.
Michael A. London, Esq.
Rebecca G. Newman, Esq.
Tate J. Kunkle, Esq.
DOUGLAS & LONDON, P.C.
59 Maiden Ln., 6th Fl.
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 566-7500
E-mail: gdouglas@douglasandlondon.com
mlondon@douglasandlondon.com
rnewman@douglasandlondon.com
tkunkle@douglasandlondon.com
- and –
Ned McWilliams, Esq.
LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, RAFFERTY, PROCTOR, BUCHANAN, O'BRIEN,
BARR & MOUGEY, P.A.
316 S. Baylen St.
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 435-7138
E-mail: nmcwilliams@levinlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Stearns Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN STEARNS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01984-RMG (D.S.C., July 2,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Stearns case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
6 GROUP LLC: Vera Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Missing Pay Slips
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Palma Vera, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The 6 Group, LLC and Hernan
Benitez and Paola Mejia, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-03696, (E.D.
N.Y., June 30, 2021), seeks to recover damages for violations of
New York State labor laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act,
compensatory and liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs and all other legal and equitable remedies.
Defendants operate a construction company where Vera was employed
as a demolition worker. He claims to have worked in excess of 40
hours per day without overtime premium and spread-of-hours premium,
and denied accurate wage statements. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Email: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com
ADT LLC: Doty "Pulse Security System" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY DOTY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ADT, LLC d/b/a
ADT SECURITY SERVICES, a Delaware limited liability company, and
TELESFORO AVILES, an individual, Case No. 9:21-cv-80645-AHS (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3):
"All individuals residing in homes with a Pulse security
system that were accessed by Telesforo Aviles, but who are
not Site Owners and who have not released their claims
against ADT before July 12, 2021."
He also moves to have himself appointed to represent the class, and
to have his lawyers -- J. Eli Wade-Scott of Edelson PC, Amy Carter
of Carter Law Group, and Matthew McCarley of Fears Nachawati PLC --
appointed Class Counsel.
ADT LLC designs and manufacture security systems.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 12,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rjDhkI
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
ewadescott@edelson.com
- and -
Matthew R. McCarley, Esq.
Christopher Michael Brown, Esq.
FEARS NACHAWATI, PLLC
5473 Blair Road
Dallas, TX 75231
Telephone: (214) 890-0711
Facsimile: (214) 890-0712
E-mail: mmccarley@fnlawfirm.com
cbrown@fnlawfirm.com
- and -
Amy M. Carter, Esq.
Heather V. Davis, Esq.
CARTER LAW GROUP, P.C.
5473 Blair Rd.
Dallas, TX 75231
Telephone: (214) 390-4173
E-mail: amy@clgtrial.com
hdavis@clgtrial.com
ALPHA FOODS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpha Foods LLC. The
case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Alpha Foods LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-06076
(S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Alpha Foods -- https://eatalphafoods.com/ -- makes plant-based
proteins based on the everyday meals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Ex Delivery Drivers Withdraw Background Check Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that a group of
former Amazon.com Inc delivery drivers on July 12 withdrew a
proposed nationwide class action accusing the company of firing a
disproportionate number of Black and Latino drivers after
conducting criminal background checks on them.
Lawyers for the six plaintiffs from Fair Work PC and the Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice, and Amazon's
lawyers at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, said the claims in the 2018
lawsuit had been voluntarily dismissed in a joint filing in Boston
federal court. It was not clear whether the parties had settled.
The plaintiffs claimed the retail giant violated federal and
Massachusetts laws prohibiting workplace race discrimination when
it fired them in 2016 over minor offenses uncovered by background
checks conducted after they were hired. They said a proposed
statewide class would include hundreds of drivers.
Seattle-based Amazon and its lawyers at Morgan Lewis did not
immediately respond to requests for comment. Nor did the
plaintiffs' lawyers.
Amazon, at the time the lawsuit was filed, was only the latest
employer to be hit with claims that its background checks
disproportionately affected Black and Latino workers. Target Corp
in 2018 agreed to pay $3.7 million to settle similar claims in a
proposed nationwide class action. The U.S. Census Bureau paid $15
million to settle similar race bias claims in 2016.
And Amazon itself, in 2018, agreed to give $5 million worth of its
gift cards to more than 450,000 job applicants across the country
to settle a lawsuit claiming its background checks violated federal
law.
The plaintiffs in the July 12 case sued in state court in 2018, and
Amazon removed the case to federal court in early 2019. The
plaintiffs claimed that Blacks and Latinos are arrested and
incarcerated at higher rates than whites, so any policy such as
Amazon's that requires workers with criminal records to be
terminated would have an unlawful disparate impact.
They cited 2012 guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission that says background checks that disproportionately
impact a protected group must be "job related for the positions in
question and consistent with business necessity" to be valid under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Amazon in response to the lawsuit has said it conducts
comprehensive background checks to ensure safety and customer
trust, and that the process is focused on job-related criminal and
motor vehicle convictions and does not consider race, gender,
ethnicity, religion or other protected characteristics.
The case is Andrews v. Amazon.com Inc, Massachusetts Superior
Court, Suffolk County, No. 1:19-cv-10070.
For the plaintiffs: Stephen Churchill of Fair Work PC; and Oren
Sellstrom of The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Economic
Justice
For Amazon: Michael Burkhardt of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius; and Paul
Evans of Baker McKenzie [GN]
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Faces Street Suit Over Sidewalk Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
MARY AND MATTHEW STREET v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00912 (W.D. Wash., July 8, 2021) is a class action
lawsuit brought against Amazon by the Plaintiffs individually, and
on behalf of similarly situated consumers who purchased Amazon Echo
smart speakers and Ring security camera systems equipped with
Amazon's Sidewalk network (Sidewalk Devices).
Allegedly, Amazon is building an unprecedented national wireless
network but making its consumers foot the bill. This action seeks
to right that wrong.
Amazon manufactured, marketed, and sold the Echo and Ring devices.
Embedded within Sidewalk Devices is a technology that enables those
Sidewalk Devices to to other Echo and Ring devices nearby through
their Bluetooth connections, creating a new, shared network.
Together, these connections create a stronger "mesh" network with
long-range connectivity that would otherwise be expensive to
create.
Amazon bypasses the expense of creating such an expensive network,
however, by having Sidewalk tap into Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
private Internet connections, using portions of their Internet
bandwidth to maintain connections between the Sidewalk Devices.
Amazon activated these devices on June 8, 2021, automatically
connecting its Sidewalk Devices by default without first seeking
consumers' consent to share their Internet bandwidth, says the
suit.
As a result of Amazon's alleged unfair, deceptive, and/or
fraudulent business practices, owners of Sidewalk Devices,
including Plaintiffs and Class Members, have suffered an
ascertainable loss and injury in fact; are at imminent risk of
future harm, including increased risk to the security of their
personal data; and otherwise have been harmed by Amazon's conduct.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action, on behalf of themselves
and the Class, to redress Amazon's violations of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act, RCW sections 11 19.86.010, et seq., and
RCW section 9A.56.262. The Plaintiffs seek monetary relief for
damages suffered, costs of suit, including reasonable attorney fees
and public injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs Matthew and Mary Street are husband and wife, and
citizens of the state of Florida, residing in Miami-Dade County. On
October 9, 2018, Mr. and Mrs. Street became owners of an "Echo
Dot," third generation, for personal, family, or household
use.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brad R. Sohn, Esq.
THE BRAD SOHN LAW FIRM, PLLC
1600 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 1205
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Telephone: (786) 708-9750
Facsimile: (305) 397-0650
E-mail: brad@bradsohnlaw.com1
- and -
Graham B. LippSmith, Esq.
MaryBeth LippSmith, Esq.
Jaclyn L. Anderson, Esq.
LIPPSMITH LLP
Telephone: (213) 344-1820
E-mail: g@lippsmith.com
mb@lippsmith.com
jla@lippsmith.com
AMAZON.COM: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Retail Prices During Pandemic
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALVIN GREENBERG, MICHAEL STEINBERG, and JULIE HANSON, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00898 (W.D. Wash., July 2,
2021) seeks to hold Amazon accountable for its unlawful price
gouging during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Throughout the pandemic, consumers have turned increasingly to
online retailers, and Amazon in particular, to fulfill their
essential needs. With medical experts warning about the ease of
infection in public settings, and "stay home" orders prevailing in
most parts of the country, consumers recognized during the pandemic
that retail excursions can have perilous consequences for
themselves or loved ones, no matter what precautions are taken. In
this moment, Amazon's services have never been more appealing.
Without venturing into public and risking exposure, and with just a
few clicks, Americans can purchase a wide range of consumer goods
from Amazon that will be delivered directly to their homes.
According to the complaint, Amazon's sales have never been higher,
and since the COVID-19 pandemic began, its sales in some categories
(e.g., home items) have increased more than 1,000 percent.
Correspondingly, Amazon's profits have skyrocketed. Jeff Bezos's
personal wealth increased by $75 billion (or approximately $205
million per day) in 2020. While Amazon has provided needed services
during the pandemic, this does not place it above the law. Like
every seller, Amazon has a legal obligation under Washington (and
other) laws to ensure that its pricing does not exploit consumers
facing emergency conditions, says the suit.
That is, gouging is not just immoral, it is a manifest violation of
the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("WCPA") and other state
laws, the Plaintiff contends.
Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company
which focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming,
and artificial intelligence. It is one of the Big Five companies in
the U.S. information technology industry, along with Google, Apple,
Microsoft, and Facebook.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Ben Harrington, Esq.
Benjamin J. Siegel, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
benh@hbsslaw.com
bens@hbsslaw.com
AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Au Pair Must Arbitrate Wage Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Massachusetts au pair must arbitrate her wage
claims against American Institute for Foreign Study Inc., a
Connecticut placement agency, on an individual basis because their
agreement doesn't allow class arbitration, the First Circuit said
on July 9. [GN]
AMERICAN RIVER: Parshall Balks at Merger Deal With Marin Bancorp
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL v. AMERICAN RIVER BANKSHARES, NICOLAS C. ANDERSON,
KIMBERLY A. BOX, CHARLES D. FITE, JEFFERY OWENSBY, JULIE A. RANEY,
DAVID E. RITCHIE, JR., WILLIAM A. ROBOTHAM, and PHILIP A. WRIGHT,
Case No. 2:21-at-00617 (E.D. Cal., July 8, 2021) is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging
that the American River Bankshares (AMRB) and the members of AMRB's
Board of Directors violate Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. section 240.14a-9
The suit seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which AMRB will be acquired by Bank of Marin Bancorp
("BMRC") through its wholly owned subsidiary BMRC Mercury, Inc.
("Merger Sub") (the "Proposed Transaction").
On April 19, 2021, AMRB and BMRC issued a joint press release
announcing that they had entered into an Agreement to Merge and
Plan of Reorganization dated April 16, 2021 (the "Merger
Agreement") to sell AMRB to BMRC. Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, each holder of AMRB common stock will receive 0.575
shares of BMRC common stock for each share of AMRB common stock
they own (the "Merger Consideration"). The Proposed Transaction is
valued at approximately $134.5 million.
On June 28, 2021, AMRB filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the SEC. The Proxy
Statement, which recommends that AMRB stockholders vote in favor of
the Proposed Transaction, allegedly omits or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things: (i) the Company's and
BMRC's financial projections; and (ii) the data and inputs
underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial advisor, Piper
Sandler & Co. ("Piper Sandler"). Defendants authorized the issuance
of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of 25 the Exchange Act.
In short, unless remedied, AMRB's public stockholders will be
irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting decision on the Proposed Transaction.
The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are
cured.
The Plaintiff is, and has been at all times relevant hereto, a
continuous stockholder of AMRB.
AMRB is a California corporation, with its principal executive
offices located at 3100 Zinfandel Drive, Rancho Cordova, California
95670. The Company is the bank holding company for its wholly owned
subsidiary, American River Bank. AMRB's common stock trades on the
Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "AMRB." The
Individual Defendants are directors of the Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
9100 Wilshire Blvd. #725 E.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com
ANTERO RESOURCES: Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 20 in Grissom Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grissom, et al., v. Antero
Resources Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-02028 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Edmund A. Sargus entered an order granting motion to extend
case schedule.
-- Class Certification Motion due by Sept. 20, 2021;
-- Discovery (Fact) due by Sept. 20, 2021;
-- Responses to Motion for Class Certification due by Dec. 3,
2021;
-- Replies to Class Certification due by Jan. 17, 2022;
-- Plaintiff Primary Expert due by Nov. 22, 2021;
-- Plaintiff Rebuttal Expert due by Dec. 3, 2021;
-- The Defendant Primary Expert due by Jan. 3, 2022;
-- The Defendant Rebuttal Expert due by Dec. 3, 2021;
-- Settlement Demand due by April 4, 2022;
-- Response to Settlement Demand due by May 3, 2022; and
-- Mediation Deadline due May 2022.
The nature of suit states Contract -- Recovery of Overpayment and
Enforcement of Judgment.
Antero Resources is an independent natural gas and oil company.[CC]
ARGENT TRUST: ESOP Participants Seeks to Restore ERISA Plan Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shana Robertson, on behalf of the Isagenix Worldwide, Inc. Employee
Stock Ownership Plan and on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated, v. Argent Trust Company, Case No.
1:21-cv-02746-SDG (N.D. Ga., July 8, 2021) alleges pursuant to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") seeking
to restore losses to the Plan, obtain other equitable and remedial
relief on behalf of the Plan, and to remedy violations of ERISA
arising out of a June 14, 2018 transaction whereby the Plan
acquired shares of Isagenix Worldwide, Inc. ("Isagenix").
The Plaintiff is a former employee of Isagenix and current
participant in the ESOP.
Argent represented the Plan and its participants as Trustee in the
ESOP Transaction. It had sole and exclusive authority to negotiate
the terms of the ESOP Transaction on the Plan's behalf. Argent is a
for profit corporation organized under Tennessee law and authorized
to transact business in this state. Argent transacts business in
this state, district, and division.
Allegedly, the ESOP Transaction allowed the selling shareholders,
Jim and Kathy Coover and Jim and Tammy Pierce ("Selling
Shareholders"), to cash out a portion of their Isagenix stock at a
high price at a time when Isagenix's business was deteriorating and
also placed excessive debt on the company. Argent failed to fulfill
its ERISA duties, as Trustee and fiduciary, to the Plan and its
participants, including Plaintiff.
As further alleged, the Plan has been injured and its participants
have been deprived of hard-earned retirement benefits resulting
from Defendant's violations of ERISA. Through this action, the
Plaintiff seeks to enforce her rights under ERISA and the Plan, to
recover the losses incurred by the Plan and/or the improper profits
realized by Defendant resulting from its breaches of fiduciary duty
and prohibited transactions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William S. Stone, Esq.
STONE LAW GROUP TRIAL
LAWYERS, LLC
5229 Roswell Road, NE
Atlanta, GA 30342
Telephone: (404) 239-0305
E-mail: billstone@stonelaw.com
- and -
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
Patrick O. Muench, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540
Washington, D.C. 20007
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
rjenny@baileyglasser.com
pmuench@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Daniel Feinberg, Esq.
FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN
& WASOW LLP
2030 Addison St., Ste. 500
Berkeley, CA 94704
Telephone: (510) 269-7998
E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com
ASSOCIATED PRESS: Winegard Seeks Deaf Users' Equal Website Access
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAY WINEGARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASSOCIATED PRESS TELEVISION NEWS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-03929-AMD-LB (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other deaf and
hard-of-hearing individuals. Allegedly, the videos on the
Defendant's website, www.apnews.com, do not have closed captioning
needed by the Plaintiff and Class members in order to understand
the audio components of video content.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek declaratory relief to require
the Defendant to correct the barriers for them to enjoy the website
as the general public is able to do.
Associated Press Television News, Inc. is a provider of media
services located at 200 Liberty St., New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Segal, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL, P.C.
1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (516) 415-0100
Facsimile: (516) 706-6631
AURORA CANNABIS: Securities Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re AURORA CANNABIS, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Civil Action No. 19-20588 (JMV) (JBC) (D.N.J.), Judge John Michael
Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint.
The putative class action concerns allegations of securities fraud
by purchasers of Aurora's stock between Oct. 23, 2018, and Feb. 6,
2020. The Plaintiffs allege that Aurora and six of its key
officers engaged in securities fraud in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the Securities Exchange Commission, 17
C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.
Defendant Aurora is headquartered in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; it
manufactures and distributes cannabis products. Aurora operates in
over 25 countries and purports to be one of Canada's leading
licensed producers. In 2014, the Company obtained its license to
grow cannabis in Canada. Aurora has been publicly traded on the
Toronto Stock Exchange since July 2017 and, until October 2018,
"was traded over-the-counter in the United States." On Oct. 23,
2018 -- shortly after Canada's legalization of recreational
cannabis use -- Aurora's common shares began trading on the New
York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Revenue from Canadian cannabis sales
comprises the foundation of Aurora's business.
Defendant Terry Booth was a co-founder of Aurora, who served as its
CEO and a member of its Board of Directors from Dec. 9, 2014,
through June 26, 2020. Defendant Stephen Dobler was an Aurora
co-founder; he served as President and a member of the Board from
Dec. 9, 2014 through June 30, 2020. Defendant Glen Ibbott was also
an Aurora co-founder; he has served as its CFO and a member of its
Board since May 2017. Defendant Cameron Battley served as Aurora's
COO and a corporate spokesperson from early 2018 until December
2019. Defendant Michael Singer has served as Aurora's Executive
Chairman since early 2019 and was Interim CEO from June 2020
through Sept. 8, 2020. Defendant Jason Dyck has served as a member
of the Board since March 2015.
The named Plaintiffs are individuals and entities who purchased
Aurora common stock during the Class Period. They bring the
securities class action on behalf of themselves and all purchasers
of Aurora securities on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) during
the Class Period.
The Plaintiffs allege that throughout the Class Period, Aurora
"repeatedly touted the massive, growing demand for consumer
cannabis in Canada and the Company's priority of ramping up
production and capacity to meet this demand." They continue that
Aurora projected positive, unrealistic earnings before interest,
taxes, depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA") for its fourth
fiscal quarter of 2019 ("FQ4 2019"), which ended on June 30, 2019.
The FAC alleges that Aurora's statements that it would achieve
positive EBITDA in FQ4 2019 were materially false or misleading
because they lacked a reasonable basis.
The Plaintiffs point to three factors that the Defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded that "severely constrained" Aurora's
cannabis sales: "(1) immense over-production of cannabis by Aurora
and other Canadian licensed producers; (2) woefully limited numbers
of retail stores in Ontario and Quebec, where nearly two-thirds of
Canadian citizens reside; and (3) continued competition from the
cannabis black market selling at roughly half the price per gram.
The Plaintiffs allege that Aurora began to make partially
corrective disclosures in September 2019 when its FQ4 2019 and
full-year 2019 financial results were released. The FAC alleges
that these disclosures were only partially corrective; the
Defendants continued to misrepresent the true conditions of
Aurora's business and operations omitting knowledge of risks posed
by oversupply, limited retail stores, the impact of the black
market, and limited demand. The Plaintiffs claim that, in response
to these partial corrective disclosures, "the price of Aurora
common stock declined materially," falling more than 9% on Sept.
12, 2019.
The FAC alleges that on Jan. 6, 2020, "media reports" indicated
that Aurora was selling its nine-hectare greenhouse in Ontario,
which it obtained when it acquired MedReleaf in 2018. Following
this news, Aurora's common stock price "fell by nearly 10%." The
FAC includes several allegations concerning "post-class period
developments." On May 11, 2020, "Aurora carried out a reverse
stock split after shares plunged so low that the NYSE threatened to
drop the stock from its listings."
The Plaintiffs allege that, pursuant to Item 303 of SEC Regulation
S-K, the Defendants were required "to disclose known trends,
uncertainties or risks that have had, or are reasonably likely to
have, a materially adverse impact on net sales or revenues, or
income from continuing operations." Under Item 303, the Plaintiffs
indicate that Aurora was required, but failed, to disclose the
impact that a Canadian oversupply, inadequate distribution to
Ontario and Quebec, and the black market would have on Aurora's
operations and financial results.
The FAC alleges that the Defendants acted with scienter in that
they knew or recklessly disregarded that the public documents and
statements issued or disseminated in the name of the Company were
materially false and misleading; knew or recklessly disregarded
that the statements or documents would be publicly disseminated;
and knew or recklessly participated or acquiesced in the issuance
or dissemination of the statements or documents. The Plaintiffs
assert that the Defendants' deceptive scheme "artificially inflated
the price of Aurora common stock and operated as a fraud or deceit
on Class Period purchasers of Aurora common stock by failing to
disclose and misrepresenting the adverse facts detailed.
Finally, the Plaintiffs indicate that the PSLRA safe harbor for
forward-looking statements does not apply to any of the Defendants'
allegedly false statements because the statements were not
identified as forward-looking statements when made. Alternately,
they allege that Defendants are liable because at the time the
statements were made, the speaker knew the statement was false and
the statements was authorized and approved by an Aurora executive
officer who knew that the statements were false when made.
Mr. Wilson filed a class action Complaint on Nov. 21, 2019. On
July 23, 2020, the Court entered an order granting Wilson's motion
to consolidate his case with another case filed by Plaintiff Andrew
L. Warren. The FAC was filed on Sept. 21, 2020. The FAC alleges
two counts: (1) violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and (2) violation of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants.
The Defendants moved to dismiss, which the Plaintiffs opposed, and
to which the Defendants replied. The Defendants filed a notice of
supplemental authority on May 14, 2021, to which the Plaintiffs
replied on May 19, 2021.
Analysis
A. Securities Fraud (Count One)
In Count One, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. The Defendants assert that the
Plaintiffs have failed "to allege (1) any actionable material
misrepresentation or omission, (2) scienter, and (3) loss
causation."
Judge Vazquez opines that the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately
allege any false or misleading statements. He holds that (i) the
FAC does not adequately allege why the omission about the Canadian
black markets made the statement materially misleading; (ii)
although the FAC alleges that Aurora violated Item 303, the
Plaintiffs' opposition brief indicates that they withdraw their
allegations regarding Item 303; (iii) the FAC does not allege what
the sell-through data showed or how it could support the plausible
inference that the Defendants acted with the requisite scienter;
and (iv) the Plaintiffs appear to rely on such third-party
information in attributing knowledge/recklessness to the Defendants
and the Judge does not make a definitive finding on loss causation
because it is granting leave to amend.
B. Control Person Liability (Count Two)
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act imposes joint and several
liability on any individual who exercises control over a
'controlled person' who violates Section 10(b). The three elements
to this claim are "(1) the defendant controlled another person or
entity; (2) the controlled person or entity committed a primary
violation of the securities laws; and (3) the defendant was a
culpable participant in the fraud." Thus, "liability under Section
20(a) is contingent upon sufficiently pleading an underlying
violation of Section 10(b) by the controlled person."
Because the Section 10b claim is dismissed for failure to state a
claim in this instance, Judge Vazquez also dismisses the
Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claim.
Conclusion
For the foregoing, Judge Vazquez grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' FAC. The dismissal is without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs will have 30 days to file a second amended
complaint, which cures the deficiencies noted. If the Plaintiffs
do not do so, the matter will be dismissed with prejudice. An
appropriate Order accompanies the Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3m46en3f from Leagle.com.
BARCLAYS PLC: CAT Hears GBP1-B Forex Market Rigging Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jemma Slingo, writing for Law Gazette, reports that a hearing to
decide whether a GBP1bn class action can proceed against major
banks that were fined for rigging the foreign exchange market has
opened in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).
Barclays, Citigroup, JP Morgan and RBS were fined more than €1bn
by the EU's competition watchdog in 2019 after a five-year
investigation revealed market rigging between 2007 and 2013. The
banks now face a group claim brought by pension funds, asset
managers, hedge funds and corporates from around the world who were
affected by the forex cartels. UBS is also named in the claim.
The CAT heard that the claim was suitable for collective
proceedings and for an aggregate award of damages. It also heard
that economist Michael O'Higgins - outgoing chair of the Local
Pensions Partnership - would be a suitable class representative.
For the claimants, Daniel Jowell QC argued that the claim should be
allowed to go ahead on an opt-out basis, meaning anyone domiciled
in the UK who entered into relevant foreign exchange trades would
be included. He stressed that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 is not
designed solely to benefit consumers, but also small businesses
harmed by anti-competitive behaviour.
Drawing on the Supreme Court's decision in Mastercard & Ors v
Walter Hugh Merricks, Jowell noted that, at certification stage,
CAT hearings do not usually involve a merits test and that, for a
certification to be granted, it is not necessary to establish that
all members of the proposed class have suffered loss.
'It couldn't be established [in the Merricks claim] that all
members of the class had suffered loss. It is distinctly possible
-- if not probable -- that many members of class may not have been
harmed, but benefited from multi-lateral interchange fees,' he
said.
In December, the Mastercard group action brought on behalf of 46
million credit and debit card holders received the green light from
the Supreme Court. It is expected that the decision will make it
easier for group damages claims to proceed to trial.
The forex claim against the five banks is being funded by Therium
Capital Management. The CAT must decide whether to issue a
collective proceedings order, allowing the action to proceed to the
next stage of litigation.
The hearing continues. [GN]
BAREFOOT SCIENCES: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barefoot Sciences,
Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Barefoot Sciences, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-06057 (S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Barefoot Scientist -- https://barefootscientist.com/ -- is a
premium foot care brand based in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: JSB Farms Suit Moved From D. Minn. to E.D. Mo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JSB FARMS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, BAYER
CROPSCIENCE, INC., CORTEVA, INC., PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL,
INC., CARGILL INCORPORATED, BASF CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CORPORATION,
WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INC., FEDERATED
CO-OPERATIVES LTD., CHS INC., NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC., GROWMARK
INC., GROWMARK FS, LLC, SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC., and TENKOZ,
INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-01333, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on July 12, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00839-SEP to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws in the U.S. by
engaging in an anticompetitive scheme and unlawful conspiracy to
deprive farmers the opportunity to purchase crop inputs such as
seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides, herbicides, and
insecticides at transparent, competitive prices from electronic
platforms. They have been forced to continue paying
supra-competitive prices for crop inputs purchased from inefficient
brick-and-mortar retailers, subject to the Defendants'
confidentiality requirements.
Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Bayer CropScience Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.
Corteva Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company,
headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware.
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. is a producer of seeds for
agriculture, headquartered in Johnston, Iowa.
Cargill, Incorporated is an American privately held global food
corporation based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.
BASF Corporation is a multinational pharmaceutical, seed, and
chemical company, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.
Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Winfield Solutions, LLC is a company that manufactures and
distributes seed and crop protection products, headquartered in
Arden Hills, Minnesota.
Univar Solutions, Inc. is a global chemical and ingredients
distributor based in Illinois.
Federated Co-operatives Ltd. is a crop inputs retailer
headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
CHS Inc. is a regional agricultural cooperative, headquartered in
Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota.
Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc. is a crop inputs wholesaler based in
Colorado.
GROWMARK, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Illinois.
GROWMARK FS, LLC is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Delaware.
Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered
in Idaho.
Tenkoz Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Georgia.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651) 287-2100
Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
r.yard@rwblawfirm.com
- and –
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
Steven N. Williams, Esq.
Anna-Patrice Makeba Harris, Esq.
Christopher K.L. Young, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
aharris@saverilawfirm.com
cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
BIXLER'S INC: Roman Seeks Blind Users' Equal Access to Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ROMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BIXLER'S, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-05940
(S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant
for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://bixlers.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (a)
lack of alternative text (alt-text), (b) empty links that contain
no text, (c) redundant links, and (d) linked images missing
alt-text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Bixler's, Inc. is a jewelry store with its principal executive
office located at 3900 Hamilton Blvd., Allentown, Pennsylvania.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
CAMPAIGN INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Campaign, Inc. The
case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Campaign, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-06058-ALC (S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Campaign -- https://www.campaignliving.com/ -- offers high-quality
modern furniture built to last a lifetime.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
CAPITAL ENERGY: Faces Perrong TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Energy PA
LLC, et al. The case is captioned as ANDREW PERRONG v. CAPITAL
ENERGY PA LLC D/B/A SUNRISE POWER AND GAS, and JOHN DOE
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:21-cv-02982-JP (E.D. Pa., July 2, 2021).
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) involving restrictions of use of telephone equipment.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John R. Padova.
Capital Energy is a Pennsylvania electric supplier.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory Clinton Kelley, Esq.
304 Ross St., 7th Fl.
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 454-5599
E-mail: gckesq@gmail.com
CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Moore FCRA Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAVID MOORE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC, Case No.
16-2021-CA-003160-XXXX-MA, was removed from the Fourth Judicial
Circuit for Duval County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida on July 12, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 3:21-cv-00687 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.
Capstone Logistics, LLC is a logistics company based in Georgia.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Alexander Meier, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
1075 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 2500
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 885-6770
Facsimile: (404) 892-7056
E-mail: ameier@seyfarth.com
CAROLINA HERRERA: Labin Sues Over Assistant Managers' Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID LABIN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAROLINA HERRERA, LTD. and SOCIEDAD TEXTIL
LONIA, CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05870 (S.D.N.Y., July 8,
2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the
Defendants to recover overtime compensation and other relief as a
result of its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an Assistant
Manager in one of their stores in Dallas, Texas from approximately
August 2019 to August 2020.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated Assistant Managers were willfully misclassified by the
Defendants as exempt from overtime compensation. Despite working
more than 40 per week, the Defendants denied them of their lawfully
earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek.
Carolina Herrera, Ltd. and Sociedad Textil Lonia, Corp. operate
retail stores in various cities throughout the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Tel: (877) 561-0000
Fax: (855) 582-5297
E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
CAROLINA MOTOR: Johnson, et al. File ERISA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Wes Johnson and Tamekia Bottoms, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, The AAA Carolinas Savings & Investment
Plan and The Auto Club Group Tax Deferred Savings Plan, Plaintiffs,
v. Carolina Motor Club, Inc., The Auto Club Insurance Association,
The Auto Club Group, Inc., David Parsons, Tommy Burton, Shawn
Cherry, Carmen Mabe, Christina Johnson and Colin Campbell,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01036 (W.D. N.C., July 6, 2021), seeks
redress for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 and breach of fiduciary duties.
AAA Carolinas is an American automotive association that provides
members with roadside assistance, insurance products, travel
offerings and banking and financial services. It is located in
Charlotte, North Carolina. Carolina Motor Club, Inc. established
the AAA Carolina Savings and Investment Plan, a defined
contribution plan open to all employees of AAA Carolinas and its
subsidiaries. Plaintiffs are former and current employees who have
participated in said plan and invested in it for their retirement.
Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of maintaining excessively
expensive funds when superior alternatives existed and failing to
properly monitor covered service providers, allowing them to
overcharge the plan with fees and inexplicably flooding the Plan
with extremely expensive, often underperforming investment options
for participants to choose from, all while they had the ability to
obtain much cheaper and more lucrative investment options, failing
to obtain cheaper funds.
Plaintiffs also claim that Defendants allowed Capfinancial
Partners, LLC and Wells Fargo to take large amounts of money from
the plan and its participants through excessive fees and
compensation mechanisms, much higher than those warranted by the
amount of work these service providers were completing. These
excessive fees and the costs of acquiring overly expensive funds
were paid directly by the plan and its participants. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew L. Fitzgerald, Esq.
FITZGERALD LITIGATION
119 Brookstown Avenue, Suite 402
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Telephone: (336) 793-4696
Fax: (336) 793-4698
Email: andy@fitzgeraldlitigation.com
CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: Altman Suit Seeks Damages Under Florida Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANITA ALTMAN, as Executor of the ESTATE OF ISAIAS AND GUTA STAWSKI,
Deceased, and DR. ALAN ALTMAN AND ANITA ALTMAN as Proposed
Co-Personal Representatives of the ESTATE OF MICHAEL ALTMAN,
Deceased v. CHAMPLAIN TOWERS SOUTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCATION, INC.,
Case No. 130027329 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., July 2, 2021) is a
class action suit demanding all damages recoverable under the laws
of the State of Florida.
Plaintiff Anita Altman, as Executor of the Estate of Isaias and
Guta Stawski, Deceased, brings this putative class action to seek,
among other things, recovery of catastrophic damages to people and
their property, currently estimated to be in excess of a hundred
million dollars. Accordingly, this putative class action is well
within the exclusive plenary jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for
damages in excess of $30,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs and
attorney's fees. Moreover, assignment to the Complex Business
Litigation Division is proper because the amount in controversy far
exceeds $1 million, involves complex issues and involves a proposed
class action. Ms. Altman is a citizen and resident of the State of
Florida, is over the age of 18, and otherwise sui juris.
The Estate of Isaias and Guta Stawski is the owner of Unit 1101 of
the Champlain Towers South Condominium building, located at 8777
Collins Avenue, Surfside, Florida 33154 (the "Champlain Towers
South"). The unit was purchased by Isaias and Guta Stawski, a
married couple, in 1981. In or about 2015, the Stawskis passed away
and the unit became the property of the Stawski Estate. Plaintiff
Anita Altman, the adult daughter of Isaias and Guta Stawski, is the
Executor of the Stawski Estate.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stuart Z. Grossman, Esq.
Andrew B. Yaffa, Esq.
William P. Mulligan, Esq.
Manual Arteaga-Gomez, Esq.
Ryan J. Yaffa, Esq.
GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN, P.A.
2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Suite 1150
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: 305-442-8666
Facsimile: 305-285-1668
E-mail: szg@grossmanroth.com
aby@grossmanroth.com
wpm@grossmanroth.com
aag@grossmanroth.com
rjy@grossmanroth.com
lka@grossmanroth.com
omb@grossmanroth.com
CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY: Massaquoi Files Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Christopher A. Wray,
et al. The case is styled as Siaka Massaquoi, as a natural person
North Hollywood, California On behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Christopher A. Wray, Chad Warren, Federal
Bureau of, United States of America, Unidentified FBI Agents, 1
through 20, Case No. 2:21-cv-05722-SVW-PD (C.D. Cal., July 15,
2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
Christopher Asher Wray --
https://www.fbi.gov/history/directors/christopher-wray -- is an
American lawyer who has served as Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation since 2017.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
CM THOMPSON: Betras Sues Over Club Dancers' Unpaid Wages and Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEANNA BETRAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CM THOMPSON ENTERPRISE, LLC D/B/A/ THE
HIDEOUT, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00872-WSS (W.D. Pa., July 8,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law by misclassifying the Plaintiff and Class members as
independent contractors, failing to compensate them appropriate
minimum wages, failing to pay overtime for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek, and improperly collecting a
portion of their tips.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a dancer from
approximately fall of 2019 to April 2021.
CM Thompson Enterprise, LLC is an owner and operator of an adult
entertainment club under the name The Hideout located at 1828
PA-982, Mt. Pleasant, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
Elizabeth Pollock Avery, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
eavery@carlsonlynch.com
COLORADO LANDSCAPE: Magallanes Seeks Landscape Laborers' Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOSE MAGALLANES, on his own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLORADO LANDSCAPE DENVER,
A&M LAWN SERVICES, LLC and AARON MUNOZ, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-01851 (D. Colo., July 7, 2021) arises from the Defendants'
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado
Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a landscape
laborer, claims that he and other similarly situated landscape
laborers regularly worked more than 40 hours each workweek.
However, the Defendants denied them of their lawfully earned
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours they have worked in excess of 40
per workweek, the Plaintiff added.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action against
the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime premiums, liquidated
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and attorney fees,
and other relief as may be necessary and appropriate.
Colorado Landscape Denver, and A&M Lawn Services, LLC provide
landscaping services. Aaron Munoz is the owner and manager of both
Corporate Defendants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandt Mistein, Esq.
MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC
2400 Broadway, Suite B
Boulder, CO 80304
Tel: (303) 440-8780
E-mail: brandt@milsteinturner.com
CORRECT CARE: Sixth Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Woodcock Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN WOODCOCK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v.
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
20-5170 (6th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
affirms the judgment of the district court granting summary
judgment for the Defendants.
The district court held that the Defendants adequately treated the
Plaintiffs.
The class action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983,
approximately 1,200 Kentucky inmates with Hepatitis C Virus (HCV)
sued eight Defendants who manage the Kentucky prison system's
HCV-treatment program. The Plaintiffs claim that by triaging the
HCV cure for the most seriously affected inmates, the Defendants
were deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs, in
violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
HCV is a bloodborne virus commonly spread by sharing contaminated
needles, using unsterilized tattoo equipment, and engaging in
sexual behavior. There is no vaccine for HCV. In years past,
doctors treated the virus with an injectable medication called
interferons, which is marginally effective. Fortunately, in 2011,
the FDA approved a new class of drugs called direct-acting
antivirals (DAAs), which cure nearly all the HCV patients who take
them. But the treatment comes at a price; a single course of
treatment costs between $13,000 and $32,000.
HCV infects about one percent of the United States population, but
it is far more prevalent in prisons. The Kentucky Department of
Corrections (KDOC) estimates that about 1,200 of its 12,000 inmates
have HCV. In 2015, the KDOC implemented a new "HCV Treatment
Plan," which it updated in 2017, 2018, and 2020. This HCV
Treatment Plan mostly mimics the Federal Bureau of Prison's HCV
treatment protocol. The 2018 version of the HCV Treatment Plan is
at issue in this appeal and has several components, ranging from
inmate screening to DAA treatment.
The named Plaintiffs are inmates in KDOC prisons who have been
diagnosed with HCV. Brian Woodcock is housed at the Kentucky State
Penitentiary (KSP) and has been cured of HCV. Keath Bramblett,
another inmate at KSP, contracted HCV during incarceration and has
since been cured. Ruben Rios Salinas is housed at KSP and has been
diagnosed with HCV but was denied DAA treatment. And Jessica
Lawrence has been diagnosed with HCV but has not received DAA
treatment.
The Defendants are various persons or entities charged with
formulating and managing the HCV Treatment Plan and each person is
sued in his or her individual capacity. Rodney Ballard and LaDonna
Thompson are former KDOC Commissioners. Doug Crall, M.D., is the
former Medical Director of the KDOC. Cookie Crews is the KDOC
Health Services Administrator. Frederick Kemen, M.D., is
responsible for managing the HCV Treatment Plan. Denise Burkett is
the KDOC Medical Director, responsible for policies, procedures,
and employment concerning the inmates' medical care. And Correct
Care provides medical services to KDOC inmates.
In 2015, Ruben Salinas sued in Kentucky state court seeking a writ
of mandamus to order then-Commissioner LaDonna Thompson, the KDOC,
and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, to treat his HCV. In November
2016, Salinas filed a "First Amended Class-action Complaint,"
adding Woodcock and Bramblett as plaintiffs, and Ballard, Crall,
Crews, Kemen, and Correct Care Solutions as defendants. In
December 2016, the Defendants removed the case to the District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Nine months later,
Lawrence moved to intervene, adding Thompson's successor and former
Commissioner James Erwin, which the magistrate judge granted.
The district court certified the Plaintiffs' class as "all inmates
in Kentucky prisons who have been diagnosed, or will be diagnosed,
with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) for the purpose of injunctive
relief." The court appointed Salinas and Lawrence as class
representatives.
After considerable motion practice, the Plaintiffs filed their
Third Amended Class-action Complaint in which they alleged that the
Defendants, following the 2018 HCV Treatment Plan, failed to
provide medical treatment to HCV inmates because they did not treat
all HCV-infected inmates with DAAs. Specifically, the Plaintiffs
brought claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violations of the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments on the ground that the Defendants
acted with deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs,
and under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Rehabilitation Act of 1978 for failure to reasonably accommodate
their medical needs. The Plaintiffs also brought state-law tort
claims of negligence, gross negligence, and intentional infliction
of emotional distress.
The Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The
district court dismissed Woodcock and Bramblett's claims because
they had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and
because, inasmuch as their HCV has been cured, they cannot be
members of the class. The court granted summary judgment to
Defendants on the Section 1983, disability, and punitive damages
claims, and returned their state-law claims to Kentucky state
court.
Important to the appeal, the district court held that the
Plaintiffs' Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims failed because
they did not provide evidence demonstrating that the Defendants
were deliberately indifferent to the Plaintiffs' serious medical
needs. According to the district court, the Plaintiffs failed to
prove either the objective or subjective component of deliberate
indifference. In analyzing the objective component, the court
determined that the KDOC provided adequate treatment for
HCV-infected inmates by diagnosing HCV and monitoring its
progression. As for the subjective component, the court concluded
that the treatment was not so grossly incompetent or excessive as
to shock the conscience.
The Plaintiffs timely appeal the order granting summary judgment to
the Defendants on the Section 1983 and punitive damages claims.
They argue that the Defendants' refusal to provide DAAs to every
HCV-infected inmate amounts to deliberate indifference in violation
of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Discussion
A. Mootness
Before the Sixth Circuit reaches the merits of the Plaintiffs'
claims, it must assess whether KDOC's 2020 amendments to the HCV
Treatment Plan moot the Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief.
In late 2020, while the appeal was pending, the KDOC informed the
court that it had made several changes to the HCV Treatment Plan.
First, it created an opt-out testing protocol by which all KDOC
inmates are offered voluntary screening for HCV, including
screening for those who initially refused. Second, it added birth
cohort 1945-1965 to the plan's priority-level-two criteria. Third,
it removed the disqualification factor based on re-infection after
previously receiving DAAs. And fourth, it elucidated that for
patients who have not received DAAs, the
no-disciplinary-infractions-within-twelve-months exclusionary
factor applies only to conduct that would compromise treatment.
The Sixth Circuit finds that the 2020 HCV Treatment Plan updates
address only a portion of the Plaintiffs' challenges to the 2018
HCV Treatment Plan. Most notably, the changes do not address the
core of the Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim: Whether the Defendants
are deliberately indifferent by refusing to treat each HCV-infected
inmate with DAAs. The Defendants' changes, therefore, do not
divest the court of jurisdiction.
B. Section 1983 Claim
The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants' refusal to provide DAAs
to every HCV-infected inmate amounted to deliberate indifference in
violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore
the court erroneously granted the Defendants summary judgment.
The Sixth Circuit cannot agree that the Plaintiffs received no
treatment at all, and at least two of its sister circuits and the
Supreme Court have held similarly. The KDOC plan provides for
treatment in the form of diagnosing and monitoring HCV-infected
inmates. The Plaintiffs have not presented evidence that would
allow any reasonable factfinder to conclude that their treatment
was "so grossly incompetent, inadequate, or excessive as to shock
the conscience or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness."
Because Plaintiffs failed to show that the 2018 HCV Treatment Plan
put them at substantial risk of serious harm, they cannot show that
Defendants were deliberately indifferent. There is no Eighth or
Fourteenth Amendment violation.
C. Punitive Damages
The Sixth Circuit holds that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to
punitive damages for two reasons. First, the Plaintiffs failed to
show that Defendants were deliberately indifferent. Second, it
says the class-action complaint sought only injunctive relief. The
Plaintiffs moved for class certification without mention of
punitive damages and the district court's Rule 23(b)(2) analysis
and subsequent certification limited the class action to injunctive
relief.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Sixth Circuit affirms the judgment
of the district court granting summary judgment for the
Defendants.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mn4j56dr from Leagle.com.
CREDIT COLLECTION: Faces Jackson FDCPA Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Collection
Services, Inc. The case is captioned as JACKSON v. CREDIT
COLLECTION SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-13270-CCC-JSA (D.N.J.,
July 1, 2021).
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Claire C. Cecchi.
Credit Collection is a collection firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
17 Sylvan Street
Suite 102b
Rutherford, NJ 07070
Telephone(201) 507-6300
E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com
DAVENPORT AUTO: Misclassifies Battery Technicians, Geery Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS GEERY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DAVENPORT AUTO REPAIR AND COLLISION CENTER,
LLC; BRITTANY DAVENPORT, individually; KENNETH DAVENPORT,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-02028-SAL (D.S.C., July
7, 2021) brings this class and collective action complaint against
the Defendants for their alleged intentional misclassification of
their employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a battery
technician until May 2021.
The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated battery
technicians were misclassified by the Defendants as independent
contractors. They were required by the Defendants to work scheduled
mandatory 12-hour shifts for five days in a week and/or at least 60
hours per week. However, the Defendants did not pay them overtime
compensation at the federally mandated overtime rate for all hours
they had worked in excess of 40 per workweek. In addition, once the
COVID-19 pandemic began, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
were receiving a fraction of the service calls and therefor were
being paid less than minimum wage for the 60 hours worked per
week.
The Plaintiff also contends that they were being charged by the
Defendants of 10% of every $10.00 in tips, purportedly as a way to
recover credit card fees, for the credit card tips they received
from the motorists. Moreover, the Defendants failed to keep
accurate records of wages earned or of the number of hours they had
worked, and failed to provide them with notice explaining the FLSA
or the SCPWA.
Davenport Auto Repair and Collision Center, LLC provides auto
repair and collision services. Brittany Davenport and Kenneth
Davenport are the owners of the company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Casey Martens, Esq.
Molly R. Hamilton Cawley, Esq.
MHC LAW, LLC
460 King Street, Suite 200
Charleston, SC 29403
Tel: (843) 225-8651
E-mail: Casey@mhc-lawfirm.com
Molly@mhc-lawfirm.com
DIDI GLOBAL: Berman Tabacco Reminds of September 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Berman Tabacco, a national law firm representing investors, is
investigating potential securities law violations against DiDi
Global Inc. f/k/a Xiaoju Kuaizhi Inc. ("DiDi" or the "Company")
(NYSE: DIDI) (CUSIP: 23292E108), senior management and underwriters
in connection with the Company's June 2021 initial public offering
("IPO"). DiDi is a Chinese-based company that purports to be the
"go-to brand in China for shared mobility" offering a range of
services including ride hailing.
On June 30, 2021, the Company initiated its IPO selling
approximately 316.8 million American Depository Shares ("ADS" or
"shares") at $14.00 per share.
On July 2, 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that the
Cyberspace Administration of China ("CAC") stated that it had
launched a cybersecurity review into DiDi "aim[ed] at preventing
risks related to national data security." In a press release also
issued on that day, the Company stated that "[d]uring the [CAC's]
review, DiDi is required to suspend new user registration in
China."
On July 4, 2021, DiDi issued a press release disclosing that the
CAC had posted an announcement that "it was reported and confirmed
that the 'DiDi Chuxing' app had the problem of collecting personal
information in violation of relevant PRC laws and regulations" and
that "the CAC notified app stores to take down the 'DiDi Chuxing'
app in China."
On July 5, 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that "[w]eeks
before DiDi Global Inc. went public in the U.S., China's
cybersecurity watchdog suggested the Chinese ride-hailing giant
delay its initial public offering and urged it to conduct a
thorough self-examination of its network security." On this news,
the Company's stock price fell $3.04 per share, or 19.6%, to close
at $12.49 per share on July 6, 2021.
On July 6, 2021, two securities class actions were filed in the
Central District of California (the "California Action") and
Southern District of New York ("New York Action"), respectively.
The California Action asserts claims under the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") on behalf of purchasers of DiDi shares
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Company's IPO. The New
York Action includes similar Securities Act claims and also claims
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") on
behalf of purchasers of DiDi shares between June 30, 2021 and July
2, 2021 (the "Class Period").
Both class actions similarly assert that the Company failed to
disclose that DiDi had issues with collecting personal information
in violation of relevant People's Republic of China laws and
regulations and that DiDi's app, DiDi Chuxing, was facing an
imminent cybersecurity review by the CAC. The deadline for seeking
lead plaintiff is September 7, 2021.
On July 8, 2021, Bloomberg reported that Republican Senator Bill
Hagerty called on the Securities and Exchange Commission to
"examine whether DiDi was forthcoming enough about its contact with
Chinese regulators prior to the listing of its shares."
If you purchased DiDi securities between June 30, 2021 and July 2,
2021, and would like more information regarding this investigation,
or if you wish simply to share information about the investigation,
please visit: https://www.bermantabacco.com/case/didi-global-inc/.
Berman Tabacco is a national law firm representing institutions and
individuals in lawsuits, seeking to recoup losses caused by
corporate and board misconduct and violations of the securities and
antitrust laws. The firm has offices in Boston, Massachusetts and
San Francisco, California.
This notice may constitute attorney advertising.
Contact:
Jay Eng, Esq.
(800) 516-9926
Email: law@bermantabacco.com [GN]
DIDI GLOBAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
DiDi Global, Inc. ('DiDi Global' or the 'Company') (NYSE:DIDI) from
June 27, 2021 through July 6, 2021 (the 'Class Period'). The
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California alleges violations of the Securities Act of
1933.
If you purchased DiDi Global securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit DiDi Global
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Joseph R. Seidman toll
free at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants' Registration Statement featured false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) DiDi "had the
problem of collecting personal information in violation of relevant
PRC laws and regulations;" (2) DiDi's app, DiDi Chuxing (Travel),
would face an imminent cybersecurity review by the Cyberspace
Administration of China ("CAC"); (3) the CAC would require all
Chinese app stores to remove DiDi Chuxing; and (4) as a result,
defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. On July 2, 2021, DiDi
Global issued a press release revealing that Chinese authorities
had asked the Company to stop registering new users while the
Company was under investigation. On July 4, 2021, DiDi Global's app
was taken down by the Chinese authorities. On July 5, 2021, the
Wall Street Journal published an article reporting that [w]eeks
before DiDi Global Inc. [] went public in the U.S., China's
cybersecurity watchdog suggested the Chinese ride-hailing giant
delay its initial public offering and urged it to conduct a
thorough self-examination of its network security[.]"
On this news, DiDi Global's stock price fell $3.04 per share,
almost 20%, to close at $12.49 per share on July 6, 2021.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 7, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased DiDi Global securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/didiglobalinc-didi-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-409/apply/
or contact Joseph R. Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information:
Joseph R. Seidman
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
seidman@bernlieb.com [GN]
DIDI GLOBAL: Kaplan Fox Files Class Action Over Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (www.kaplanfox.com) has filed a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against DiDi Global Inc. ("DiDi" or the
"Company") (NYSE: DIDI), Chairman of the Board and CEO Will Wei
Cheng, CFO Alan Yue Zhuo, the underwriters of the Company's June
2021 initial public offering ("IPO"), and certain Company Directors
that signed or authorized the signing of the Registration offering
documents for the IPO.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. Secs. 77k and 77o), and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
§§ 78j(b) and 78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
the SEC (17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5) on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired DiDi: (a) American Depositary
Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's
June 2021 initial public IPO and/or (b) purchased DiDi securities
between June 30, 2021 and July 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than September 7, 2021 to serve as a lead plaintiff for
the proposed Class. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in
order to share in any possible recovery.
The Complaint alleges that DiDi purports to be the world's largest
mobility technology platform. Its four key components are: shared
mobility, auto solutions, electronic mobility, and autonomous
driving. The Company claims to be the "go-to brand in China for
shared mobility," offering a range of services including ride
hailing, taxi hailing, chauffeur, hitch, and other forms of shared
mobility services.
The Complaint also alleges that in the IPO and pursuant to the
Registration Statement, including the Prospectus filed on June 30,
2021, the Company sold approximately 316,800,000 shares at a price
of $14.00 per share, not including the underwriters' option to sell
an additional 47,520,000 ADSs.
The Complaint also alleges that the Registration Statement was
materially false and misleading and omitted to state material
adverse facts and that throughout the Class Period, including in
the Registration Statement, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants are alleged to have failed to
disclose to investors: (1) that the Cyberspace Administration of
China ("CAC") had already asked DiDi weeks or months prior to the
IPO to delay its IPO to conduct a self-examination of its network
security and because of national security concerns; (2) that the
Company was likely to incur heightened regulatory scrutiny and
adverse regulatory action by ignoring the CAC's request to postpone
the IPO; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, DiDi's apps were
reasonably likely to be taken down from app stores in China, which
would have an adverse effect on its financial results and
operations; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
According to the Complaint, the truth began to emerge on July 2,
2021 when DiDi issued a press release entitled "DiDi announces
CyberSecurity Review in China," confirming that the Company was
under investigation and stating that "pursuant to the announcement
posted by the PRC's Cyberspace Administration Office on July 2,
2021, DiDi is subject to cybersecurity review by the authority."
The Company's press release also allegedly states "[d]uring the
review, DiDi is required to suspend new user registration in
China." On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.87 per
share, or approximately 5.3%, to close at $15.53 per share on July
2, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Further, on Sunday, July 4, 2021, DiDi issued a press release
entitled "DiDi Announces App Takedown in China[,]" which announced,
in relevant, part that the CAC ordered smartphone app stores to
stop offering the "DiDi Chuxing" app because the DiDi app
"collect[ed] personal information in violation of relevant PRC laws
and regulations." Though users who previously downloaded the DiDi
app could continue to use it, DiDi stated that "the app takedown
may have an adverse impact on its revenue in China." On this news,
the Company's share price fell $3.04 per share, or 19.6%, to close
at $12.49 per share on July 6, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
On July 12, 2021, DiDi shares closed at $11.16 per share, a decline
of over 20% from the $14 per share IPO price.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the proposed Class
and is represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
(www.kaplanfox.com). Our firm, with offices in New York, Oakland,
Los Angeles, Chicago, and New Jersey, has decades of experience in
prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving violations
of the Federal securities laws.
If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, or would like a copy of the complaint,
please e-mail or call attorneys Jeffrey Campisi
(jcampisi@kaplanfox.com; (212) 329-8571) or Pamela Mayer
(pmayer@kaplanfox.com; (646) 315-9003) or contact the attorneys
below:
Jeffrey P. Campisi
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, New York 10022
(212) 329-8571
E-mail: Jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
Laurence D. King
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 772-4700
E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com [GN]
DIDI GLOBAL: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of September 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of DiDi Global Inc. (NYSE:
DIDI). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired DIDI American Depositary Shares
pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with the Company's June 2021 initial public
offering or investors who purchased DIDI securities between June
30, 2021 and July 2, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law Firm's
investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/DiDiGlobal for more information. Investors may
also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/DiDiGlobal
The case alleges that DiDi Global and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1)
DiDi's apps did not comply with applicable laws and regulations
governing privacy protection and the collection of personal
information; (2) as a result, DiDi was reasonably likely to incur
scrutiny from the Cyberspace Administration of China ("CAC"); (3)
the CAC had already warned DiDi to delay its IPO to conduct a
self-examination of its network security; and (4) as a result of
the foregoing, DiDi's apps were reasonably likely to be taken down
from app stores in China.
Interested DiDi Global investors have until September 7, 2021 to
retain counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are
interested to do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. Investors do
not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If
investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class
member. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification
occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law
Firm is not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a
complaint but is investigating the case on behalf of investors
interested in being a lead plaintiff.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/DiDiGlobal
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.
CONTACT:
Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/DiDiGlobal [GN]
DOW CHEMICAL: Faces Suit Over Chlorpyrifos Linked to Brain Damage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Don Thompson, writing for Associated Press, reports that lawsuits
filed on July 12 in California seek potential class-action damages
from Dow Chemical and its successor company over a widely used bug
killer linked to brain damage in children.
Chlorpyrifos is approved for use on more than 80 crops, including
oranges, berries, grapes, soybeans, almonds and walnuts, though
California banned sales of the pesticide last year and spraying of
it this year. Some other states, including New York, have moved to
ban it.
Stuart Calwell, lead attorney in the lawsuits, argued that its
effects linger in Central Valley agricultural communities
contaminated by chlorpyrifos during decades of use, with measurable
levels still found in his clients' homes.
Lawyers project that at least 100,000 homes in the nation's largest
agricultural state may need to dispose of most of their belongings
because they are contaminated with the pesticide.
"We have found it in the houses, we have found it in carpet, in
upholstered furniture, we found it in a teddy bear, and we found it
on the walls and surfaces," Calwell said. "Then a little child
picks up a teddy bear and holds on to it."
All that needs to be cleaned up, he says, because "it's not going
away on its own."
State records show 61 million pounds of the pesticide were applied
from 1974 through 2017 in four counties where the lawsuits were
filed, Calwell said.
Officials with Dow and its affiliated Corteva Inc. did not
immediately respond to telephone and email requests seeking
comment.
Corteva stopped producing the pesticide last year. The
Delaware-based company was created after a merger of Dow Chemical
and Dupont and had been the world's largest manufacturer of
chlorpyrifos. The company has said it believes the product is safe
and said it stopped production because of declining sales.
Scientific studies have shown that chlorpyrifos damages the brains
of fetuses and children. It was first used in 1965 but was banned
for household use in 2001.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is weighing whether to ban
the product or declare it safe, including for infants and children.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in April ordered the EPA to
make a decision after studying the product for more than a decade.
The Trump administration had halted the rule-making process.
The lawsuits were filed on behalf of people in Fresno, Kings,
Madera and Tulare counties, though Calwell said they are a
precursor to seeking class-action status. Aside from Dow-related
companies, they name various farming companies they say applied the
chemical near the plaintiffs' homes.
In each case, the plaintiffs are parents suing on behalf of
children who suffer from severe neurological injuries that the
lawsuits blame on their exposure to the chemical while they were in
the womb or when they were very young.
Aside from nearby spraying, the lawsuits say the parent, relatives
or others in frequent contact with the child worked in the fields
or packing plants and became contaminated with the chemical that
they passed on to the child.
Calwell filed related lawsuits last fall on behalf of farmworkers
who his firm said "spent years marinating in the pesticide."
The first of those related lawsuits blames chlorpyrifos for causing
autism, cognitive and intellectual disabilities in a now-teenager
born in 2003.
The teen's father worked spraying pesticides on farm fields and his
mother packed what the lawsuit says was chlorpyrifos-covered
produce in a facility surrounded by fields treated with the
pesticide, often applied by aerial spraying.
Calwell similarly sued Monsanto for damages he alleged it caused to
homes in Nitro, West Virginia, with its use of dioxin to make the
defoliant known during the Vietnam War era as Agent Orange.
That case settled for $93 million, with Monsanto paying to
decontaminate 4,500 homes, a fraction of those that he alleges in
California will require more extensive decontamination followed by
medical monitoring. [GN]
DYNAGAS LNG: $4.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 5
----------------------------------------------------------
A legal notice of settlement in the class action lawsuit against
Dynagas LNG Partners LP has been issued as follows:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE DYNAGAS LNG PARTNERS LP
SECURITIES LITIGATION
No. 19-cv-04512 (AJN)
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION
EXPENSES
TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the securities of Dynagas LNG Partners LP ("Dynagas"), purchased or
otherwise acquired call options on Dynagas securities, or sold or
otherwise transferred put options on Dynagas securities during the
period from December 21, 2017 through March 21, 2019, inclusive
(the "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 Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been provisionally certified as a
class action for settlement purposes only on behalf of the
Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are
excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in
the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III)
Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a
proposed settlement of the Action for $4,500,000 in cash (the
"Settlement") to be paid on Defendants' behalf, that, if approved,
will resolve all claims in the Action.
A hearing will be held on November 5, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Alison J. Nathan at the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall U.S.
Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, Courtroom 906, New York, New York
10007, to determine whether: (i) the proposed Settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (ii) the Action should
be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated May 21, 2021 (and in the Notice) should be
granted; (iii) the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved
as fair and reasonable; and (iv) Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses
should be approved.
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 Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice and claim form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain
copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at
In re Dynagas LNG Partners LP Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data,
Ltd., P.O. Box 173132, Milwaukee, WI 53217, Telephone: (877)
235-9861, Email: info@DynagasSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of
the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website
maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.DynagasSecuritiesLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must either: (1) submit a Claim Form by First-Class Mail, addressed
in accordance with the instructions thereon and postmarked no later
than November 5, 2021; or (2) if specifically permitted by the
Claims Administrator, submit all required information
electronically in accordance with the Claims Administrator's
instructions no later than November 5, 2021. If you are a member
of the Settlement Class and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you
will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net
proceeds of the Settlement, 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 15, 2021,
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 be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses must be filed with the Court
and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that
they are received no later than October 15, 2021, in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, the Defendants
or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel: Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq. and
Robert N. Cappucci, Esq., ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP, 230 Park
Avenue, 3rd Floor, New York, NY 10169, Telephone: (212) 894-7200,
Facsimile: (212) 894-7272, Email: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com and
rcappucci@entwistle-law.com. Requests for the Notice and Claim
Form should be made to: In re Dynagas LNG Partners LP Securities
Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173132, Milwaukee, WI
53217, Telephone: (877) 235-9861, Email:
info@DynagasSecuritiesLitigation.com. Additional information may
be made available at the website maintained by the Claims
Administrator: www.DynagasSecuritiesLitigation.com.
By Order of the Court
E 16 LAUNDROMAT: Motolinia Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
MAYRA MOTOLINIA, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, v. E 16 LAUNDROMAT LLC, QASSEM RASHED, KHALED Y ASAI, and
JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 1:21-cv-03839 (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2021)
seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff contends that Defendants knowingly and willfully
operated their business with a policy of not paying her and other
similarly situated employees either the FLSA overtime rate (of time
and one-half), or the New York State overtime rate (of time and
one-half), in direct violation of the FLSA and NYLL and the
supporting federal and New York State Department of Labor
Regulations.
The Defendants employed Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt laborer
for the Laundromat from 2010 until March 15, 2020, where her job
responsibilities included, but were not limited to, washing,
drying, and folding clothes for customers, cleaning and fixing
machinery, assisting customers, answering the telephone, cleaning
the exterior of the Laundromat, and acting as a cashier.
E 16 is in the Coin-Operated Laundries and Dry cleaning industry in
Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
10 Grand Central
155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com
EDLOE FINCH: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edloe Finch LLC. The
case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Edloe Finch LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-06071 (S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Edloe Finch -- https://edloefinch.com/ -- manufactures gorgeous
furniture for a chic urban lifestyle.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
EDWARD D. JONES: Judge Okays $34MM Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that an Illinois federal judge on July 12 granted
final approval to a $34 million deal that resolves a race
discrimination class action brought by Black financial advisers of
Edward D. Jones & Co. against the investing giant. [GN]
ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Faces Zayas Fraud Suit in E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Energizer Holdings,
Inc. The case is captioned as Zayas, et al., v. Energizer Holdings,
Inc., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00797-NCC (E.D. MO., July 1, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged fraud demanding $5 million in
damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge Noelle
C. Collins.
Energizer Holdings is an American manufacturer and one of the
world's largest manufacturers of batteries, headquartered in St.
Louis, Missouri.
The Defendants include Energizer Holdings, Inc., Edgewell Personal
Care Brands, LLC, Edgewell Personal Care, LLC, Playtex Products,
Inc., and Sun Pharmaceuticals, LLC.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brandon Michael Wise, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF APLC
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Telephone: (314) 833-4825
E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ AND KLINGER LLP - Chicago
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 283-3814
Facsimile: (773) 496-8617
E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com
EVEREST RECEIVABLE: Faces Montgomery FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Montgomery v. Everest
Receivable Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 2021-CH-2185, was
removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
July 1, 2021.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-03535 to the proceeding.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act
involving consumer credit. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Gary Feinerman.
Everest Receivable is a licensed, full-service consumer receivable
asset management company headquartered in Buffalo, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq.
CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, P.C.
33 N. Dearborn St., Suite 400
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 858-3239
E-mail: bryan.thompson@cclc-law.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Brendan Hoffman Little, Esq.
LIPPES MATHIAS WEXLER FRIEDMAN LLP
50 Fountain Plaza, Suite 1700
Buffalo, NY 14202
Telephone: (716) 853-5100
E-mail: blittle@lippes.com
FIDELITY PANDEMIC: Loftus Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fidelity Pandemic
Relief Services, et al. The case is styled as William Loftus,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Fidelity Pandemic Relief Services, DOES 1 through 10, Case No.
2:21-cv-05742 (C.D. Cal., July 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Fidelity Pandemic Relief Services -- https://fprscorpusa.com/ -- is
an American based company headquartered and operated out of Orange
County, California and a business resource to help facilitate
Government funded relief loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Destination, Delivery Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford
class action lawsuit has been filed over a destination charge, or
what Ford calls its destination and delivery fee when shipping a
new vehicle to a dealership.
The lawsuit alleges Ford deceives consumers by making a profit from
the destination and delivery fee.
The Ford class action lawsuit was filed by California plaintiff
Mary Hawkins who purchased a new 2019 Lincoln MKX in July 2019.
The plaintiff says she looked at the window sticker and saw the
$995 destination and delivery fee, but the plaintiff says she
didn't know Ford made a profit from the fee.
Hawkins claims she has been "damaged by Ford's material
representations and omissions regarding the Destination & Delivery
fee."
The plaintiff says she overpaid for her Lincoln MKX because Ford
didn't tell her it made a profit from the destination and delivery
fee. According to Hawkins, reasonable consumers would not know Ford
made a profit from the destination charge to deliver a vehicle to a
dealership.
"By virtue of the name of the fee itself, Ford misleads reasonable
consumers into believing its 'Destination & Delivery' fee reflects
the actual cost of shipping its vehicles to their 'destination,'
not the cost of shipping its vehicles plus profit." — Ford class
action lawsuit
The lawsuit includes:
"All consumers who, during the applicable statute of limitations,
purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in the state of California and
paid a Destination & Delivery fee."
According to the plaintiff, it's "deceptive and unfair" for Ford to
make a "significant amount" of profit from its destination charge.
However, the plaintiff doesn't allege how much profit Ford makes
from each vehicle.
The Ford destination charge is allegedly not a legitimate charge
related to the cost of delivering vehicles to dealers at the point
of sale. According to the plaintiff, she "has consequently suffered
ascertainable losses and actual damages as a result of Ford's
unlawful conduct."
The class action also alleges Ford's destination charge over the
past 10 years isn't correlated with increases in shipping costs.
"That is why other automakers 'destination fees' have not increased
at the same pace during this same ten-year period. Audi, BMW,
Infiniti, Lexus, Lincoln, Mercedes-Benz and Volvo each grew their
fees by less than 20 percent over the past decade."
While the plaintiff says she was charged $995 for a destination
charge, the lawsuit alleges the fee charged on the Ford F-150 rose
42% in four years, from $1,195 in 2017 to $1,695 in 2021.
Ford has company when it comes to class action lawsuits filed over
destination fees because the same lawyers also sued Chrysler and
General Motors for allegedly making a profit on destination
charges.
The Ford class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California: Mary Hawkins v. Ford Motor
Company.
The plaintiff is represented by Kaliel Gold PLLC, and Kopelowitz
Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert. [GN]
FORD MOTOR: Fails to Pay for PZEV Repairs Under Warranty, Ward Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CURTIS WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, INC., and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-01152 (C.D. Cal., July
9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the California Unfair Competition Law and the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly identify
and pay for all of the parts and labor that should correctly be
covered for 15-years or 150,000 miles, as defined by California
Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 13, Section 1962.1, relating to
2009 through 2017 Ford Partial Zero Emissions Vehicles (PZEV). As a
result of the Defendant's alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff and
Class members are paying out-of-pocket expenses for repairs that
should be covered under the California Emissions Warranty.
Ford Motor Company, Inc. is an American multinational automaker,
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert L. Starr, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR
23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072
Calabasas, CA 91302
E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com
GEODIS LOGISTICS: Slade FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NAJEE SLADE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GEODIS LOGISTICS, LLC; GEODIS USA,
LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21CV382877, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and
for the County of Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on July 13, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-05364 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.
Geodis Logistics, LLC is a logistics company based in Tennessee.
Geodis USA, LLC is a logistics company based in Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Rod M. Fliegel, Esq.
Garrick Y. Chan, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-1940
Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
GRACIE MEWS: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Diner Staff
-------------------------------------------------------------
PABLO HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRACIE MEWS LLC, GRACIE-MUSE RESTAURANT
CORP., STEVE KREATSOULAS, and MIHAIL KREATSOULAS, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-06019 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime, unpaid spread-of-hours premiums, failure to
provide wage notices, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.
The Plaintiff worked as a former line cook at the Defendants' diner
located in the Upper East Side neighborhood of Manhattan, New York
from January 2019 through August 2020.
Gracie Mews LLC is an owner and operator of a diner under the name
Gracie Mews Diner located at 1550 1st Avenue, New York, New York.
Gracie-Muse Restaurant Corp. is an owner and operator of a diner
under the name Gracie Mews Diner located at 1550 1st Avenue, New
York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 385-9700
Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
E-mail: Pelton@PeltonGraham.com
Graham@PeltonGraham.com
GREENWICH VILLAGE DENTAL: Roman Says Website Not Blind-accessible
------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Roman, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Greenwich
Village Dental Arts P.C. and Advanced Dental Arts, P.C., Defendant,
Case No. 21-cv-05939 (S.D. N.Y., July 9, 2021), seeks preliminary
and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive
damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs
and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.
Greenwich Village Dental Arts operates the Advanced Dental Arts
dental offices, across the United States. Its website
https://advanceddentalartsnyc.com/ allows patients to access
information relating to insurance, scheduling appointments, doctors
and privacy policies. Roman is legally blind and claims that said
website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003-2461
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
GUARANTEED RATE: Rios Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Emily Rios v. Guaranteed Rate
Affinity, LLC, Case No. 21STCV16001, was removed from the Los
Angeles County Superior Court to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California (Western Division -- Los
Angeles) on July 2, 2021.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-05429-FMO-E to the proceeding.
The lawsuit arises from issues related to labor/management
relations. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Fernando M.
Olguin.
Guaranteed Rate provides residential mortgage lending services. The
Company offers home purchase, relocation mortgage, and investor
loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
Kashif Haque, Esq.
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 379-6250
Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
khaque@aegislawfirm.com
swong@aegislawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
Nikolas T. Djordjevski, Esq.
Timothy L. Johnson, Esq.
OLGLETREE DEAKINS NASH
SMOAK AND STEWART PC
4370 La Jolla Village Drive Suite 990
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (858) 652-3100
Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
nikolas.djordjevski@ogletree.com
tim.johnson@ogletree.com
GUINN CORP: Faces Cuadras Employment Suit in California State Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guinn Corporation.
The case is captioned as CUADRAS vs. GUINN CORPORATION, Case No.
BCV-21-101520 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., July 2, 2021).
The case arises from employment-related issues and is assigned to
the Hon. Judge David R. Lampe.
A case management conference will be held on Jan. 3, 2022.
Guinn Construction is a complete complex earthmoving and other
heavy civil construction company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
HALLS FERRY: Tierney FLSA Suit Seeks OT Pay for Delivery Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH TIERNEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. HALLS FERRY PIZZA, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00828 (E.D.
Mo., July 9, 2021) is a class action suit individually and
collectively on behalf of all similarly situated current and former
pizza delivery drivers of the Defendant to recover for Defendant's
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri
Minimum Wage Law.
The Defendant's alleged violations include: (1) failing to pay
delivery drivers overtime pay; (2) failing to pay delivery drivers
minimum wages; (3) failing to accurately make and maintain records
of delivery drivers' hours worked; and (4) failing to reimburse
them for vehicle expenses.
The Plaintiff worked out of Defendant's "Halls Ferry Circle"
location at 1192 Riverview Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63147 as a pizza
delivery driver. The Plaintiff and other pizza delivery drivers
routinely worked more than 40 hours each workweek. The Defendant,
however, did not pay the Plaintiff and other pizza delivery drivers
for all hours worked, says the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. Dolley, Esq.
DOLLEY LAW , LLC
12977 N. Outer Forty Dr., Suite 230
St. Louis, MO 63141
Telephone: (314) 645-4100
Facsimile: (314) 736-6216
E-mail: kevin@dolleylaw.com
HEALTH ACCESS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Munera PAGA Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SULLY MUNERA on behalf of herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, v. HEALTH ACCESS FOR ALL INC. DOING BUSINESS AS ANGELES
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER a California Corporation; and DOES 1
through 25, Inclusive, Case No. 21STCV25069 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., July 8, 2021) seeks to recover damages pursuant to
Labor Code section 558 and civil penalties (PAGA penalties) because
of the Defendants alleged failure to pay overtime wages, and
failure to pay earned wages upon separation.
Plaintiff Munera was employed as an hourly non-exempt employee with
Defendant with a hire date of May 16, 2018 and a termination of
employment date of November 20, 2020. She worked full-time and was
paid on an hourly basis.
Health Access provides health care services at three locations in
the County of Los Angeles in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Troy C. Skinner, Esq.
SKINNER LAW CORPORATION
333 Washington Blvd. No. 363
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Telephone: (310) 295-2549
Facsimile: (213) 277-2068
E-mail: Troy@Skinnerlawcorp.com
HENRY LEGAL: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Holmes Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEBBIE HOLMES, on behalf of herself and all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. HENRY LEGAL GROUP, LLP and
HEARTLAND LEGAL GROUP Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00870 (M.D.
Tenn.), Judge William L. Campbell, Jr., of the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, granted
the Defendant's Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration or Dismiss
for Failure to State a Claim.
Plaintiff Holmes is a former client of Defendant Henry Legal Group,
doing business as Heartland Legal Group. The Plaintiff retained
Heartland to help her get out of debt and improve her credit score.
Ultimately dissatisfied with Heartland's legal representation (the
merits of the Plaintiff's claims are not the subject of the
motion), the Plaintiff filed claims on behalf of herself and a
putative nationwide class of Heartland clients alleging violations
of the Credit Reporting Organizations Act (Count 1), and on behalf
of herself and a putative Tennessee class of Heartland clients for
alleged violations of the Tennessee Credit Services Business Act
(Count 2) and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (Count 3).
The Client Retainer Agreement between the Plaintiff and Heartland
contains an Arbitration Agreement. The Defendant now seeks to
enforce the Arbitration Agreement, compel arbitration, and stay the
case. The Plaintiff does not dispute that she signed the Retainer
Agreement, or that the arbitration agreement, if enforceable,
covers the claims in the case.
The Arbitration Agreement requires arbitration of "any controversy,
claim or dispute between Client, on the one hand, and Heartland,
any of its attorneys, and/or any of its third-party service
providers, on the other hand, arising out of or relating to this
agreement or the breach, termination, enforcement, performance,
interpretation or validity thereof, including any determination of
the scope or applicability of this agreement to arbitrate." The
Arbitration Agreement waives the right to pursue claims as a class
action and provides that Plaintiff and Heartland will share the
costs of arbitration equally up to $1,000; amounts in excess of
$1,000 will be paid by Heartland. It further provides that each
party will bear their own attorneys' fees and costs.
The Agreement explains the meaning of arbitration in boldface type.
The Plaintiff initialed at the end of the Arbitration Agreement.
The Plaintiff initialed the Arbitration Agreement and signed the
Retainer Agreement in the presence of a non-attorney Heartland
representative. She states that the representative was unable to
answer her question about a specific monetary charge in the
Agreement. She does not allege that she asked any other questions
that the representative was unable to answer, but states generally
that the non-attorney representative was unable to provide legal
advice about the documents.
The day after she signed the Retainer Agreement, Plaintiff spoke
with Brandon Chabner, a Heartland attorney. The Plaintiff did not
raise any questions or concerns regarding the Arbitration Agreement
at that time.
The Plaintiff states that at the time she signed the Retainer
Agreement, she did not understand that she "was being asked to
waive her right to be protected by the judicial system" and that
she did not know she "was being asked to waiver important statutory
protections like the ability to recover attorneys' fees under
consumer protection laws." She states that she was never told that
signing the agreement would waive these protections.
The Defendant seeks to stay the case and compel arbitration
pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), specifically, 9
U.S.C. Sections 2-3.2 Section 2 provides that a written arbitration
agreement "shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon
such grounds as exist in law or in equity for the revocation of any
contract." Section 3, which addresses "motion in which a defendant
seeks arbitration of 'any issue' pending in an existing federal
suit," provides one of the two routes by which a party may invoke
arbitration under the FAA.
Analysis
The Plaintiff argues that the Arbitration Agreement was obtained by
fraud and is unenforceable because Heartland failed to fulfill its
fiduciary duty and professional obligation to her as a prospective
client to explain the Arbitration Agreement and its consequences
"in a manner she could reasonably understand" before she signed the
Retainer Agreement with the arbitration provision. As additional
grounds for unenforceability, the Plaintiff argues that the
Arbitration Agreement improperly limits her statutory right to
obtain attorneys' fees for successful claims.
A. Validity of the Arbitration Agreement
Judge Campbell holds that in light of the plain language of the
agreement and the Plaintiff's failure to raise any questions or
concerns regarding the arbitration provision, he cannot find that
the Plaintiff did not understand the meaning and effect of the
contract. There is no dispute that Heartland understood the
Arbitration Agreement to require that disputes would be subject to
arbitration. Given the well-established maxim that courts should
resolve any doubts regarding arbitrability "in favor of
arbitration," and the Defendant's position that an arbitrator may
award attorneys' fees if provided by statute, the Judge declines to
construe the provision in such a way as to render the entire
Arbitration Agreement invalid.
B. The Arbitration Agreement is Not Unconscionable
The Plaintiff's argument that the Arbitration Agreement is
unconscionable is similarly unavailing, Judge Campbell holds. The
Plaintiff argues that the Arbitration Agreement is unconscionable
because she "had no meaningful choice but to sign the contract as
written," was unable to have her questions answered about the
contract before signing it, is less sophisticated than the
Defendant. The Plaintiff's primary arguments with regard to the
substantive unconscionability of the Arbitration Agreement are: (1)
that it involves an "attorney taking unfair advantage of its
client"; and (2) limits her right to obtain attorney's fees. Both
of these arguments have been addressed.
Judge Campbell explains that Tennessee has not prohibited attorneys
from including mandatory arbitration provisions in their retainer
agreements. While it is the case that the Defendant, a law firm,
is unquestionably more sophisticated in areas of the law, the
Arbitration Agreement they seek to enforce is written in plain
language, prominently positioned, and contains an explanation of
how arbitration differs from claims resolved through the judicial
system. The Plaintiff does not allege she was pressured to sign
the agreement without any time to consider its provisions or to
consult an outside attorney.
Indeed, the Arbitration Agreement specifically advises that she
"should consider consulting with another attorney about the
advisability of making an agreement with mandatory arbitration
requirements. The Plaintiff did not ask any questions about the
Arbitration Agreement, request additional time to review the
Agreement or consult an outside attorney. The parties are mutually
obligated to submitted covered claims to arbitration. Under these
circumstances, the Arbitration Agreement between the parties is not
unconscionable.
C. The Arbitration Agreement Was Not Obtained by Fraud
The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant breached its fiduciary duty
as her attorney to act in her best interest, and that because the
Arbitration Agreement was not in her best interest, it was
fraudulently induced. The Plaintiff also claims that the
Defendant's failure to explain the Arbitration Agreement before she
signed it amounts to fraudulent inducement.
In Tennessee, a party asserting fraud in the inducement to contract
must establish the following: "(1) a false statement concerning a
fact material to the transaction; (2) knowledge of the statement's
falsity or utter disregard for the truth; (3) intent to induce
reliance on the statement; (4) reliance under circumstances
manifesting a reasonable right to rely on the statement; (5) an
injury resulting from the reliance." Judge Campbell holds that the
Plaintiff has not made any allegations, let alone provided any
evidence, to support her allegation of fraudulent inducement.
Accordingly, he finds that the Arbitration Agreement is not void
for fraud.
Conclusion
For the reasons he stated, Judge Campbell finds that the Plaintiff
has not raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding the
validity of the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the Motion to
Stay and Compel Arbitration is granted. In light of this ruling,
the Judge does not address the merits of the Plaintiff's underlying
claims. An appropriate Order will be entered.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/9bn8627e from Leagle.com.
HEXO CORP: N.Y. State Court Tosses Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP (New York), in an article for Mondaq,
reports that on June 3, 2021, Justice Andrew Borrok of the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, Commercial Division, granted a
motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a
Canadian cannabis company (the "Company"), certain of its officers
and directors, and its underwriters, alleging violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act"). Leung v. Hexo Corp., et al., No. 20-cv-150444 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.
Jun. 3, 2021). Plaintiff alleged that the Company's offering
documents misled investors regarding one of the Company's key
supply agreements. In dismissing the complaint, the Court held that
plaintiff failed to adequately allege contemporaneous facts
indicating that the Company knew at the time of the offering that
issues would arise with respect to that agreement. In so holding,
the Court cited a March 9, 2021 decision by Judge Naomi Reice
Buchwald of the Southern District of New York, in which Judge
Buchwald granted a motion to dismiss a first-filed action in
federal court asserting similar claims against the Company, certain
of its officers and directors, and its underwriters, relying on the
same allegations.
As discussed in the previous post, following the legalization of
cannabis in Canada, the Company entered into a supply agreement in
2018 with a Canadian government-run dispensary (the "Dispensary").
Under the agreement, the Dispensary committed to purchasing a
certain amount of cannabis within the first year of legalization.
The agreement contained a "take-or-pay" ("ToP") provision under
which the Company could demand payment even if the Dispensary did
not order the full amount. The Company completed an IPO in January
2019. On a March 2019 earnings call, the Company acknowledged
lower-than-expected demand but stated that it remained optimistic
that demand would increase and that the Dispensary would meet its
purchase obligation. In its
March 2020 Form 6-K filing, however, the Company announced that it
had released the Dispensary from the ToP provision in order to
preserve the business relationship. The Company's stock price
dropped after the disclosure.
In considering the Company's motion to dismiss, Judge Borrok noted
that "whether a statement is materially false or misleading is
viewed at the time such statement is made -- not retroactively, in
hindsight." The Court held that the complaint "fail[ed] to identify
any contemporaneous facts showing the defendants knew, at the time
of the offering, of the subsequent issues that arose" with respect
to the Dispensary, thereby failing to adequately allege a violation
of the Securities Act. In support of its holding, the Court cited
Judge Buchwald's recent decision dismissing "substantially similar
claims against the same defendants arising out of the same
offering," in which Judge Buchwald held that plaintiffs failed to
allege defendants knew at the time the Company's prospectus was
issued that the Dispensary would be unable to meet its purchase
obligations under the supply agreement and that the prospectus was
issued shortly after legalization and "it was reasonably difficult
to anticipate demand."
Judge Borrok further held that even if plaintiff had identified
alleged misrepresentations in the offering documents, those claims
would be "barred under the bespeaks caution doctrine as the
offering documents contained ample cautionary statements." In so
holding, the Court observed that the offering documents clearly
contained adequate cautionary language, which stated that should
the Dispensary or any other government-run dispensary decide "to
purchase lower volumes of products" than expected, or "alter . . .
its purchasing patterns at any time with limited notice or decide .
. . not to continue to purchase" at all, then the Company's
"revenues could be materially adversely affected."
The Court also held that plaintiff failed to state a claim under
Regulation S-K because the complaint "fail[ed] to identity any
facts which were known or should [have been] known [that] rendered
the offering documents materially misleading at the time they were
issued." Finally, after noting that it found plaintiff's remaining
arguments "unavailing," the Court dismissed the section 15 claim
having found no predicate liability under section 11, and denied
plaintiff's application for a stay in the alternative as moot in
light of Justice Buchwald dismissing the first-filed federal
action.
The decision is one of an increasing number of recent decisions
from the Commercial Division of New York Supreme Court following
the Supreme Court's decision in Cyan v. Beaver County Employees
Retirement Fund, 138 S. Ct. 1061 (2018), which affirmed state
courts' concurrent subject matter jurisdiction over class actions
alleging claims under the Securities Act.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about
your specific circumstances. [GN]
HILTON GRAND: Misleads Stockholders to Approve Merger, O'Neill Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON O'NEILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HILTON GRAND VACATIONS INC., MARK D. WANG,
BRENDA J. BACON, DAVID W. JOHNSON, MARK H. LAZARUS, PAMELA H.
PATSLEY, LEONARD A. POTTER, and PAUL W. WHETSELL, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-06010 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants authorized the issuance
of a false and misleading proxy statement, which recommends
stockholders to vote in favor of the proposed acquisition of Dakota
Holdings, Inc. by Hilton Grand Vacations Inc. (HGV), with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission. The proxy statement omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things,
HGV's and Dakota's financial projections and the data and inputs
underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinion provided by HGV's financial advisor, BofA
Securities, Inc. As a result of the Defendants' alleged misconduct,
HGV's public stockholders, including the Plaintiff, will be
irreparably harmed because the proxy statement's material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting decision on the proposed transaction.
Hilton Grand Vacations Inc. is a company that develops, markets,
and operates a system of vacation ownership resorts, with its
principal executive offices located at 6355 MetroWest Boulevard,
Suite 180, Orlando, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 682-3025
Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
JACK AND MULLIGAN: Fischler Says Website Not Blind-accessible
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Jack and
Mulligan LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-05805 (S.D. N.Y., July 6,
2021), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together
with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and
further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York
State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.
Defendant is an online retailer of bags for everyday use, work and
travel. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Defendant also began
selling face masks. Through www.jackandmulligan.com, customers can
purchase facemasks in sets of one, three and five. Customers can
also purchase tote bags, belt bags, duffel bags, and backpacks.
Fischler is legally blind and claims that said website cannot be
accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017-6705
Tel: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
chris@lipskylowe.com
JAMES DOLAN: Faces Stevens Suit Over Unfair Sale of MSGN by MSGE
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIM STEVENS and MICHAEL CAVALIERE, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. JAMES L. DOLAN, CHARLES F. DOLAN,
AIDAN J. DOLAN, KRISTIN A. DOLAN, PAUL J. DOLAN, THOMAS C. DOLAN,
WILLIAM J. BELL, JOSEPH M. COHEN, JOSEPH J. LHOTA, JOEL M. LITVIN,
STEPHEN C. MILLS, HANK J. RATNER, BRIAN G. SWEENEY, and JOHN L.
SYKES, Case No. 2021-0575-KSJM (Del. Ch., July 2, 2021) asserts
claims against MSGN's board of directors relating to the proposed
sale of the Company to Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp.
(MSGE) in a stock-for-stock transaction in which MSGN shares will
be exchanged for MSGE shares.
MSGN and MSGE are controlled by the Dolan Family Group through an
over 70% voting control in each company. The board of directors of
both companies are dominated by the Dolan Family Group members or
persons not independent from the Dolan Family Group. As alleged,
the acquisition of MSGN by MSGE constitutes an unfair opportunistic
sale of access to MSGN’s capital and cash flow to fund MSGE’s
expected liquidity needs at an unfair price and without an
independent duly deliberative process to consider, approve and
recommend the transaction and its fairness to the public
stockholders of MSGN.
Based on the closing prices of MSGN and MSGE on July 1, 2021, the
MSGN Class A stockholders’ interests are $14.97 per share, as
compared to the $17.38 per share closing price on March 25, 2021
prior to the announcement of the Proposed Transaction, and the
$19.13 per share closing price on March 10, 2021, prior to reported
rumors of a transaction with MSGE. Further, the Proposed
Transaction includes no price protection for the MSGN Class A
stockholders, no majority of the minority voting approval
condition, no appraisal rights, and requires no votes in addition
to the controlling votes of the Dolan Family Group for approval.
This is a class action filed on behalf of the public stockholders
of MSGN Class A common stock for damages and other relief relating
to the proposed acquisition of the Company pursuant to the terms of
the Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement) dated March 25,
2021.
The Proposed Transaction is allegedly unfair to MSGN Class A
stockholders. The Proposed Transaction does not provide fair value
to the public MSGN stockholders for MSGN stock or for access to
MSGN’s capital and cash, and was not considered, approved or
recommended by an independent and impartial board or committee
process, the Plaintiffs contend.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq.
Scott M. Tucker, Esq.
Tiffany J. Cramer, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER
& DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
2711 Centerville Road, Suite 201
Wilmington, DE 19808
E-mail: rjk@chimicles.com
smt@chimicles.com
tjc@chimicles.com
- and -
Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
3300 Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-0600
Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
- and -
Michael A. Toomey, Esq.
Eleven Times Square
640 8th Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 688-0782
Facsimile: (212) 688-0783
JAMES RIVER: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of September 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on July 12 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of James River Group Holdings, Ltd. ("James River" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: JRVR) from August 1, 2019 through May 6,
2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1934.
If you purchased James River securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit James River
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Rujul Patel toll free
at (877) 779-1414 or rpatel@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) James River had not adequately reserved for its Uber
policies; (2) James River was using an incorrect methodology for
setting reserves that materially understated its true exposure to
Uber claims; (3) as a result, the Company was forced to increase
its unfavorable reserves in subsequent quarters, even after
cancelling the Uber policies; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about James River's business, operations,
and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
On October 8, 2019, James River disclosed it had delivered a notice
of early cancellation of all policies issued to its largest
customer, Rasier LLC, a subsidiary of Uber. On this news, James
River's stock price fell $11.06 per share, or over 23% to close at
$37.88 per share on October 9, 2021. On May 5, 2021, the Company
announced its first quarter 2021 financial results, reporting $170
million of "unfavorable development in Commercial Auto, primarily
driven by a previously canceled account that has been in runoff
since 2019." On this news, James River's stock price fell over 26%
per share to close at $33.94 per share on May 6, 2021.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 7, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased James River securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/jamesrivergroupholdingsltd-jrvr-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-411/apply/
or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
rpatel@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information:
Rujul Patel
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
rpatel@bernlieb.com [GN]
JAMES RIVER: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, on July 12 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against James River Group Holdings, Ltd. (NASDAQ:
JRVR) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired
Orphazyme publicly traded securities between August 1, 2019 and May
5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
September 7, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On October 8, 2019, after the market closed, James River disclosed
that it had delivered a notice of early cancellation of all
policies issued to its largest customer, Rasier LLC.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $11.06, or over 23%,
to close at $37.88 per share on October 9, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.
Then, on May 5, 2021, James River announced its first quarter 2021
financial results, reporting "$170.0 million of unfavorable
development in Commercial Auto, primarily driven by a previously
canceled account that has been in runoff since 2019." According to
Bloomberg, the Company announced that it was seeking to raise $175
million through public equity offering, which was priced at "the
sector's steepest discount ever."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $12.27, or 26%, to
close at $34.23 per share on May 6, 2021, thereby injuring
investors further.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) James River
had not adequately reserved for its Uber policies; (2) James River
was using an incorrect methodology for setting reserves that
materially understated the Company's true exposure to Uber claims;
(3) as a result, James River was forced to increase its unfavorable
reserves in subsequent quarters even after cancelling the Uber
policies; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired James River shares and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa
Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
JAMES RIVER: Retirement Fund Sues Over 26.38% Drop of Stock Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT FUND OF THE CITY OF FORT WORTH DBA FORT WORTH
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT FUND, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAMES RIVER GROUP HOLDINGS,
LTD., ROBERT P. MYRON, J. ADAM ABRAM, FRANK N. D'ORAZIO, and SARAH
C. DORAN, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00444-MHL (E.D. Va., July 9,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission regarding James River's business, operations, and
prospects in order to artificially inflate prices of James River
common stock between August 1, 2019 and May 5, 2021. Specifically,
the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) James River had not
adequately reserved for its Uber policies; (ii) James River was
using an incorrect methodology for setting reserves that materially
understated the company's true exposure to Uber claims; (iii) as a
result, James River was forced to increase its favorable reserves
in subsequent quarters even after cancelling the Uber policies; and
(iv) as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' statements
throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
When the truth emerged, James River's stock price dropped $12.27
per share, or 26.38 percent, from a closing price of $46.50 per
share on May 5, 2021, to a closing price of $34.23 per share on May
6, 2021.
James River Group Holdings, Ltd. is a holding company that owns and
operates a group of specialty insurance and reinsurance companies
based in Bermuda. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven J. Toll, Esq.
Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
dbunch@cohenmilstein.com
- and –
Steven B. Singer, Esq.
Rachel A. Avan, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
10 Bank Street, 8th Floor
White Plains, NY 10606
Telephone: (914) 437-8551
Facsimile: (888) 631-3611
E-mail: ssinger@saxenawhite.com
ravan@saxenawhite.com
- and –
Maya Saxena, Esq.
Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33434
Telephone: (561) 394-3399
Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com
jwhite@saxenawhite.com
lhooker@saxenawhite.com
JELD-WEN INC: Jimenez Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOAN JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. JELD-WEN, INC.; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2113891, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on July 12, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-01157 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all wages, failure to furnish an
accurate itemized wage statement upon payment of wages, failure to
pay all wages owed at termination, and unfair business practices.
Jeld-Wen, Inc. is an American manufacturing company with its
headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jack S. Sholkoff, Esq.
Jennifer L. Katz, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: jack.sholkoff@ogletree.com
jennifer.katz@ogletree.com
JOHN'S SHANGHAI: Xue Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA, PMWA
------------------------------------------------------------------
JIAN ZHONG XUE, and RAYMOND CHOW, on their own behalf and on behalf
of others similarly situated, v. JOHN'S SHANGHAI LLC d/b/a John's
Shanghai; and YUN XUE a/k/a Danny Xue a/k/a David Xue Case No.
4:21-cv-01203-MWB (M.D. Pa., July 8, 2021) is an action brought by
the Plaintiffs against the Defendants for alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and
the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law arising from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful employment policies.
The Plaintiffs allege pursuant to the FLSA, that they are entitled
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and unpaid overtime
wages, lodging costs charged liquidated damages, and prejudgment
and post-judgement interest.
From January 01, 2017 to Present, Plaintiff Jian Zhong Xue was
employed by the Defendants to work as a Chef for Defendants at 312
West Beaver Ave. State College, PA 16801. From March 04, 2018 to
Present, Plaintiff Chow was employed by the Defendants to work as a
Waiter, Cook for Defendants at 312 West Beaver Ave. State College.
John's Shanghai LLC is a domestic business corporation organized
under the laws of the State of New York with a principal address at
312 West Beaver Ave. State College, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephopne: (718) 762-1324
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over OGX Hair Care Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Hudson, writing for NewsNation Now, reports that the hair
care product line, OGX, is facing a class action lawsuit over
containing toxic chemicals that allegedly caused hair loss and
scalp damage.
The class action suit alleges parent company Johnson and Johnson
marketed the items as being beneficial to hair care despite knowing
it contained a chemical that the company admits is harmful.
"Plaintiff (Larissa Whipple) purchased the Products because of
Johnson & Johnson's uniform false representation that the Products
would smooth, nourish, soften, repair, and/or revive her hair," the
lawsuit states.
Instead, she alleges it caused baldness and scalp damage from using
it as written on the instructions label.
One specific ingredient in question is DMDM Hydantoin, a form of
the carcinogen formaldehyde. It was utilized as a preservative in
all OGX products.
The lawsuit argues Johnson and Johnson removed the chemical from
its own products by the end of 2015, but did not set the same
standard for the OGX products when it acquired them.
It also quotes a section of Johnson and Johnson's website for
consumer safety where it states the company doesn't use the toxic
chemical in any of its products.
"Accordingly, Johnson & Johnson misled and deceived the public, and
placed its customers in harm's way, all for the sake of increased
profits," the lawsuit argues.
NewsNation has reached out to Johnson and Johnson for a statement,
but the company has not responded at this time. [GN]
JPMORGAN CHASE: Overcharges Foreign Exchange Rates, Dahl Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN DAHL, MAUREEN YOUNG, KAREN NEEDHAM, and RACHEL MULLINS, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-05933
(S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant
for breach of contract, contractual breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the Delaware
Consumer Fraud Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's improper practice of applying
overcharges to cardholder foreign currency transactions. The
foreign exchange rates applied by the Defendant to cardholder
transactions do not represent rates available in the wholesale
foreign exchange market as stated in the credit cardholder and
deposit account agreements. Based on the language of their credit
card agreements, cardholders reasonably expect that the member
banks are charging wholesale rates that bear some resemblance to
the rates that the processors and the banks themselves receive
because the processors and banks are themselves transacting in
foreign currencies to facilitate the cardholders' transactions. In
fact, however, the banks and processors rarely engage in wholesale
market transactions to facilitate the cardholders' transactions.
Through its affirmative misrepresentations and omissions, the
Defendant actively concealed from the Plaintiff and Class members
that the exchange rates imposed were not a wholesale market rate,
alleges the suit.
JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. is a nationally chartered banking
association, headquartered in Manhattan, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sharon K. Robertson, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 838-7797
Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
- and –
Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
jpolakoff@bm.net
- and –
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5933
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
K&B MAINTENANCE: Denies Workers Overtime Pay, Yzaguirre Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Akasia Yzaguirre, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
K&B Maintenance Services LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-81155
(S.D. Fla., June 30, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages or pre-judgment interest,
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Yzaguirre worked for K&B Maintenance Services as an hourly-paid
maintenance worker from December 29, 2020 until June 3, 2021. He
claims to have worked more than 40 hours per week during many weeks
of his employment, without being paid the federally mandated wage
for overtime. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Norell, Esq.
ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305
Plantation, FL 33317
Telephone: (954) 617-6017
Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
Email: rob@floridawagelaw.com
KANZHUN LIMITED: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 10 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 12 disclosed that
purchasers of Kanzhun Limited (NASDAQ: BZ) publicly traded
securities between June 11, 2021 and July 2, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period") have until September 10, 2021 to seek appointment
as lead plaintiff in the Kanzhun class action lawsuit. The Kanzhun
class action lawsuit (Bell v. Kanzhun Limited, No. 21-cv-13543) was
commenced on July 12, 2021 in the District of New Jersey and
charges Kanzhun and certain of its top executives with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Kanzhun class action lawsuit, please provide your
information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C.
Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800-449-4900 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Kanzhun class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than September
10, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Kanzhun class action lawsuit alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Kanzhun would face an
imminent cybersecurity review by the Cyberspace Administration of
China ("CAC"); (ii) the CAC would require Kanzhun to suspend new
user registration on its BOSS Zhipin app; (iii) Kanzhun needed to
"conduct a comprehensive examination of cybersecurity risks"; (iv)
Kanzhun needed to "enhance its cybersecurity awareness and
technology capabilities"; and (v) as a result, defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
On July 5, 2021, Kanzhun issued a press release entitled "KANZHUN
LIMITED Announces Cybersecurity Review in China" which announced in
pertinent part, that "pursuant to the announcement posted by the
[CAC] on July 5, 2021, [Kanzhun] is subject to cybersecurity review
by the authority," "[d]uring the review period, 'BOSS Zhipin' app
is required to suspend new user registration in China to facilitate
the process," and Kanzhun "plans to conduct a comprehensive
examination of cybersecurity risks and continue to enhance its
cybersecurity awareness and technology capabilities." On this news,
the price of Kanzhun's American Depository Shares fell
approximately 15%, damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Kanzhun
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Kanzhun class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is
generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Kanzhun class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Kanzhun class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Kanzhun class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp.
Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for
investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any
other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, 619-231-1058
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
KANZHUN LIMITED: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 12
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Kanzhun Limited (NASDAQ: BZ)
between June 11, 2021 and July 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Kanzhun
investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Kanzhun class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2115.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Kanzhun would face an imminent cybersecurity review by
the Cyberspace Administration of China (the "CAC"); (2) the CAC
would require Kanzhun to suspend new user registration on its BOSS
Zhipin app; (3) Kanzhun needed to "to conduct a comprehensive
examination of cybersecurity risks"; (4) Kanzhun needed to "enhance
its cybersecurity awareness and technology capabilities"; and (5)
as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
10, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2115.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210712005685/en/
CONTACT:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
KAPLAN INC: Pascual Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website
----------------------------------------------------
Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Kaplan, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-05770, (S.D. N.Y., July 6, 2021), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.
Defendant is a fitness equipment company, and owns and operates the
website, www.strydebike.com that allows consumers to check out its
indoor bikes for purchase and delivery. Pascual is legally blind
and claims that said website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: Joseph@cml.legal
KATANA FITNESS: Pascual Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website
--------------------------------------------------------
Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Katana Fitness Inc., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-05770, (S.D. N.Y., July 6, 2021), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.
Defendant is a fitness equipment company, and owns and operates the
website, https://katanafitnesscenter.com/ that allows consumers to
check out its fitness progams. Pascual is legally blind and claims
that said website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: Joseph@cml.legal
KENNEDY ENDEAVORS: Maeda Appeals Class Certification Bid Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Michael Maeda, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit MICHAEL MAEDA and RICK SMITH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. KENNEDY ENDEAVORS, INC.; DOES 1 THROUGH 50,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00459-JAO-WRP, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Hawaii, Honolulu.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this putative
consumer class action arises out of the sale and marketing of
Defendant Kennedy Endeavors, Inc.'s Hawaiian brand snacks.
Plaintiffs Michael Maeda and Rick Smith allege that they purchased
certain varieties of these snacks due to false and deceptive
labeling, packaging, and advertising, which misled them into
believing that the snacks are made in Hawai'i from local
ingredients.
Plaintiffs continue to allege that although the Hawaiian Snacks are
manufactured in Algona, Washington, Defendant markets them in such
a manner as to mislead consumers into believing that they were
manufactured in Hawai'i.
The second amended complaint asserts the following claims: (1)
violation of Hawai'i's Unfair Deceptive Acts or Practices Statute
(UDAP), HRS Chapter 480 (Count 1), (2) violation of Hawai'i's false
advertising law, HRS Section 708-871 (Count 2), (3) violation of
UDTPA, HRS Chapter 481A (Count 3), (4) violation of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), (Count 4), (5) violation of
California's unfair competition law (UCL), Cal. Business &
Professions Code Section 17200 (Count 5), (6) violation of
California's false advertising law (FAL), Cal. Business &
Professions Code Section 17500 (Count 6), (7) common law
fraud/intentional misrepresentation (Count 7), (8) negligent
misrepresentation (Count 8), and (9) quasi-contract/unjust
enrichment/restitution (Count 9).
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order dated June
23, 2021 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), denying
their motion for class certification, denying as moot their motion
to exclude testimony of Defendant's expert Sarah Butler, denying
their motion to strike, and denying their motion to exclude
testimony of Defendant's expert Andrew Y. Lemon.
The appellate case is captioned as Michael Maeda, et al. v. Kennedy
Endeavors, Inc., Case No. 21-80077, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 8, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners MICHAEL MAEDA and RICK SMITH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Brandee J. K. Faria, Esq.
PERKIN & FARIA, LLC
700 Bishop Street, Suite 1111
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 523-2300
E-mail: bjkfaria@perkinlaw.com
- and -
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
10866 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (424) 256-2884
E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
- and -
Timothy J. Peter, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1550
Philadelphia, PA 19103
E-mail: tpeter@faruqilaw.com
- and -
Aubry Wand, Esq.
THE WAND LAW FIRM
400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300
Culver City, CA 90230
Telephone: (310) 590-4503
E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com
Defendant-Respondent KENNEDY ENDEAVORS, INC., a corporation, is
represented by:
David J. Minkin, Esq.
MCCORRISTON MILLER MUKAI MACKINNON LLP
500 Ala Moana Boulevard
Five Waterfront Plaza, 4th Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 437-4356
- and -
Angela M. Spivey, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
Telephone: (404) 881-7000
E-mail: angela.spivey@alston.com
- and -
Brett R. Tobin, Esq.
MCCORRISTON MILLER MUKAI MACKINNON LLP
P.O. Box 2800
Honolulu, HI 96803-2800
Telephone: (808) 529-7300
KOHL BUILDING: Cante Seeks Final Wages, Damages
-----------------------------------------------
Sandra Cante, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Kohl Building Maintenance, Inc. and Does 1-50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV25251 (Cal. Super., July 9,
2021), seeks unpaid wages, actual damages, liquidated damages,
restitution, declaratory relief, pre-judgment interest, statutory
penalties, civil penalties, costs of suit, reasonable attorneys'
fees and such other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professional Code.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to provide them with
meal and rest periods and/or premium wages, minimum pay and
overtime wages, failed to provide accurate written wage statements
and failed to timely pay final wages following separation of
employment.
Cante began her employment with Defendant on January 8, 2006, as a
janitor, with duties including general cleaning and other various
janitorial services. She was terminated on July 10, 2020.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Lo, Esq.
Berkeh Alemzadeh, Esq.
WORK LAWYERS, PC
22939 Hawthorne Blvd., #202
Torrance, CA 90505
Phone: (424) 355-8535
Fax: (424) 355-8335
Email: justin@caworklawyer.com
beyonca@caworklawyer.com
KOHL BUILDING: Improperly Pays Janitors, Cante Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA CANTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KOHL BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC. and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 21STCV25740 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 13, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Private Attorneys General Act
including failure to provide meal periods or premium compensation
in lieu thereof, failure to provide rest periods or premium
compensation in lieu thereof, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, failure to pay all wages due, including regular
and overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
timely wages during employment, failure to pay all wages due to
discharged and quitting employees, and failure to reimburse
business expenses.
Ms. Cante worked for the Defendant as a janitor in Los Angeles
County, California from January 8, 2006 until July 10, 2020.
Kohl Building Maintenance, Inc. is a cleaning and janitorial
services provider in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Lo, Esq.
Berkeh Alemzadeh, Esq.
WORK LAWYERS, PC
22939 Hawthorne Blvd., #202
Torrance, CA 90505
Telephone: (424) 355-8535
Facsimile: (424) 355-8335
E-mail: justin@caworklawyer.com
beyonca@caworklawyer.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Devices Contain PE-PUR Foam, Starner Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS R. STARNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC;
and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02925 (E.D. Pa.
July 1, 2021) is a class action complaint on behalf of himself and
a proposed class of purchasers and users of Continuous Positive
Airway Pressure (CPAP) and Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure
(Bi-Level PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators manufactured by
Philips, which contain polyester-based polyurethane sound abatement
foam ("PE-PUR Foam").
On April 26, 2021, Philips made a public announcement disclosing it
had determined there were risks that the PE-PUR Foam used in
certain CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator devices it
manufactured may degrade or off-gas under certain circumstances.
On June 14, 2021, Royal Philips issued a recall in the United
States of its CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator devices
containing PE-PUR Foam, because Philips had determined that (a) the
PE-PUR Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may
enter the devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and
(b) the PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation.
Philips further disclosed in its Recall Notice that "these issues
can result in serious injury which can be life-threatening, cause
permanent impairment, and/or require medical intervention to
preclude permanent impairment."
Philips has disclosed that the absence of visible particles in the
devices does not mean that PE-PUR Foam breakdown has not already
begun. Philips reported that lab analysis of the degraded foam
reveals the presence of harmful chemicals, including: Toluene
Diamine ("TDA"), Toluene Diisocyanate ("TDI"), and Diethylene
Glycol ("DEG").
Prior to issuing the Recall Notice, Philips received complaints
regarding the presence of black debris/particles within the airpath
circuit of its devices (extending from the device outlet,
humidifier, tubing, and mask). Philips also received reports of
headaches, upper airway irritation, cough, chest pressure and sinus
infection from users of these devices, says the suit.
In its Recall Notice, Philips disclosed that the potential risks of
particulate exposure to users of these devices include: irritation
(skin, eye, and respiratory tract), inflammatory response,
headache, asthma, adverse effects to other organs (e.g., kidneys
and liver) and toxic carcinogenic affects. The potential risks of
chemical exposure due to off-gassing of PE-PUR Foam in these
devices include: headache/dizziness, irritation (eyes, nose,
respiratory tract, skin), hypersensitivity, nausea/vomiting, toxic
and carcinogenic effects.
Philips recommended that patients using the recalled CPAP and
Bi-Level PAP devices immediately discontinue using their devices
and that patients using the recalled ventilators for
life-sustaining therapy consult with their physicians regarding
alternative ventilator options.
In 2013, Plaintiff Starner purchased a Philips Respironics Remstar
Pro CPAP device that he used nightly from January 2013 until April
2018. On April 26, 2018, Plaintiff Starner purchased a Philips
DreamStation Auto CPAP device, which he used nightly from the date
of receipt until June 26, 2021. On June 26, 2021, Plaintiff Starner
received an email from CPAP.com advising him that his Philips'
Respironics Remstar Pro and DreamStation Auto CPAP devices were
subject to a recall due to the presence of a dangerous PE-PUR Foam
that could cause him to suffer from adverse health effects,
including, inter alia, cancer and organ failure. The Plaintiff
Starner was advised to discontinue use of the devices. He was also
advised to verify whether his devices were subject to the recall by
submitting the serial numbers for his devices to an online database
Philips established. Plaintiff Starner received confirmation that
both his CPAP devices were subject to recall.
In addition, Plaintiff Starner seeks medical monitoring damages for
users of Philips' devices identified in the Recall Notice, who are
at risk of suffering from serious injury, including irritation
(skin, eye, and respiratory tract), inflammatory response,
headache, asthma, adverse effects to other organs (e.g., kidneys
and liver) and toxic carcinogenic affects.
Royal Philips is a Dutch multinational corporation with its
principal place of business located in Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Royal Philips is the parent company of the Philips Group of
healthcare technology businesses, including Connected Care
businesses focusing on Sleep & Respiratory Care. Royal Philips
holds directly or indirectly 100% of its subsidiaries Philips NA
and Philips RS. Royal Philips controls Philips NA and Philips RS in
the manufacturing, selling, distributing, and supplying of the
recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator devices.
Philips NA is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3, Cambridge,
Massachusetts 02141. Philips NA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Royal Philips.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sandra L. Duggan, Esq.
Arnold Levin, Esq.
Laurence S. Berman, Esq.
Frederick S. Longer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: sduggan@lfsblaw.com
alevin@lfsblaw.com
lberman@lfsblaw.com
flonger@lfsblaw.com
KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Shelton Suit Over Deceptive Butter Crackers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Shelton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Case No. 3:21-cv-00799
(S.D. Ill., July 11, 2021) alleges that Cracker Barrel brand
("Product"), which includes "Butter Crackers," is allegedly
deceptive and misleading because it gives the false impression it
contains a non-de minimis amount of butter, made from milk, cream
or both but in reality, the crackers have butter substitutes and no
butter.
Kraft Heinz Foods Company manufactures, labels, markets and sells
Extra Sharp Yellow and Extra Sharp White (Cheese) Bites with Butter
Crackers under the Cracker Barrel brand ("Product").
According to the complaint, when consumers see a food represented
as "Butter Crackers," they will understand it is a type of cracker,
and that "butter" is its defining feature. The meaning of compound
words is greater than the sum of its parts, such that "butter
cracker" does not mean "a cracker made with some butter" but a
cracker which is made only or predominantly with butter -- where
butter is capable of being used. Consumers prefer butter to its
synthetic substitutes, typically made from "vegetable" oils, i.e.,
margarine.
The Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it
would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in
additional profits at the expense of consumers. Had Plaintiff and
proposed class members known the truth of the Fair Trade Certified
Dairy -- that it failed to assure a minimum of basic worker
protections, they would not have bought the Product or would have
paid less for it.
The Product is sold for a price premium compared to other similar
products, no less than $2.39 for a 1.58 ounces, a higher price than
it would otherwise be sold for, absent the misleading
representations and omissions.
Plaintiff Emma Shelton is a citizen of Thompsonville, Franklin
County, Illinois.
Defendant Kraft Heinz Foods Company, is a Pennsylvania limited
liability company with a principal place of business in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, Alleghany County. The Defendant's corporate
predecessor – the Kraft Corporation – was started in 1903
through the sale of cheese door-to-door in Chicago. In 2015, Kraft
merged with Heinz to create one of the largest food companies in
the . While defendant sells various types of foods, it is most
well-known for selling foods which contain dairy ingredients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
Great Neck NY 11021-3104
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
LOBSTER LLC: Faces Redick ADA Suit in Central Dist. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Lobster LLC, et
al. The case is captioned as Crystal Redick v. The Lobster LLC, et
al., Case No. 2:21-cv-05399-JFW-AS (C.D. Cal., July 2, 2021),
The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John F. Walter.
Lobster is an iconic Santa Monica restaurant & bar overlooking the
Pacific Ocean.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
LOCAL LISTING: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Local Listing
Directory LLC, et al. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Local Listing Directory LLC doing business as: Voice Control
Activation, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-05723
(C.D. Cal., July 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Voice Control Activation --
https://voicecontrolactivation.com/voice-premium-program/ --
provides a local marketing service for business owners or
authorized managers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
LUCKIN COFFEE: Class Notice Dissemination in Securities Suit Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE LUCKIN COFFEE INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case
No. 20 Civ. 1293 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge John P. Cronan of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York signs the
Stipulation and Proposed Order Regarding Dissemination of Class
Notice filed by Lead Plaintiffs Sjunde AP-Fonden and Louisiana
Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund and Defendant Luckin Coffee.
In June 2020, the Hon. Lewis J. Liman, to whom the case was
previously assigned, appointed the Lead Plaintiffs in the action.
In September 2020, the Lead Plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Class
Action Complaint, bringing claims under the Securities Act of 1933
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On March 2, 2021, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a Stipulation and
Proposed Order Regarding Provisional Class Certification for
Settlement Purposes. The State Class Plaintiffs and the Winslow
Funds objected. On March 5, 2021, after a telephonic conference
during which the Court heard from the State Class Plaintiffs, the
Winslow Funds, the Lead Plaintiffs, and Luckin, the Court overruled
the State Class Plaintiffs' and Winslow Funds' objections and
entered the stipulation and proposed order.
On March 31, 2021, Luckin filed a suggestion of bankruptcy,
notifying the Court of an automatic stay as to Luckin. Luckin is a
debtor in a provisional liquidation in the Grand Court of the
Cayman Islands. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court has recognized the
Cayman Proceeding as a foreign main proceeding under Chapter 15 of
the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court has, however, modified
the automatic stay to permit the Lead Plaintiffs to "participate in
settlement negotiations regarding a scheme of arrangement with
respect to the Class in the Cayman Proceeding or otherwise and take
any actions regarding any proposed settlement to be implemented in
an ADS Scheme in the Cayman Proceeding." The Proposed Intervenors'
parallel lawsuits, however, remain stayed.
Luckin is currently pursuing a reorganization plan in the Cayman
Proceeding. The U.S. counsel for the Joint Provisional Liquidators
("JPLs") in the Cayman Proceeding has provided background on Cayman
law as it relates to that proceeding. Cayman law allows for a
scheme of arrangement to reorganize a company's capital and/or
indebtedness. A Scheme is a court-approved statutory contract by
which a company may enter a compromise or arrangement with its
Stakeholders. This process has "been part of English law since the
1860s and a part of Cayman Islands law since at least 1961." The
Grand Court appointed the JPLs, who are empowered by the Grand
Court and by statute to seek a compromise to maximize return to
Luckin's shareholders, creditors, or certain classes of them. The
JPLs have engaged in discussions with the Lead Plaintiffs and other
interested parties, including the Proposed Intervenors, regarding a
potential compromise in the Grand Court.
Under Cayman law, a Scheme is binding on all of those whose rights
are compromised by the Scheme if (1) it is approved by a majority
in number representing 75% by value of those attending and voting
at the class meeting and (2) the Grand Court finds the compromise
to be fair. A meeting for a vote is ordered by the Grand Court "in
such manner as the court directs." It controls the procedure of
the meeting and mechanisms by which the majorities are calculated.
On May 14, 2021, the Lead Plaintiffs and Luckin filed the
Stipulation and Proposed Order, and the associated Notice and
Summary Notice. The notice process embodied in these documents
seeks to give potential Class Members notice of their rights with
respect to this action and the Cayman Proceeding, and the
opportunity to opt out of the Class, as defined in the Provisional
Certification Order. May 17, 2021, the Winslow Funds filed a
letter objecting to the Stipulation and Proposed Order, and filed a
motion to intervene a day later. Soon after, the State Class
Plaintiffs, Kingstown, Bequai, and Lai Ye all filed letters in
opposition to Stipulation and Proposed Order and also seeking to
intervene.
The Court held a telephone conference on May 28, 2021, to discuss
the Stipulation and Proposed Order and the requests to intervene.
It ordered the Proposed Intervenors to file any additional motions
to intervene or memoranda of law in support of intervention by June
7, 2021, and any parties wishing to file an opposition to do so by
June 14, 2021. The Winslow Funds, the State Class Plaintiffs,
Kingstown, and Lai Yi then filed several additional memoranda and
letters. Luckin, the Lead Plaintiffs, and the JPLs all filed
oppositions to the motions to intervene.
Discussion
A. Timeliness
To the extent the Proposed Intervenors seek to intervene with
respect to the Notice, Judge Cronan finds that the motions, filed
only days after the Stipulation and Proposed Order was filed, are
timely. However, he finds that many of the Proposed Intervenors'
arguments appear to be directed at the Provisional Certification
Order. The Court previously denied the Winslow Funds' and the
State Class Plaintiffs' objections to the Provisional Certification
Order, and they did not seek reconsideration of that ruling. The
Proposed Intervenors cannot now use their efforts to challenge the
Stipulation and Proposed Order, and the Notice and Summary Notice
attached thereto, to argue once again that the Provisional
Certification Order was improper.
Accordingly, with this framing in mind, Judge Cronan turns to the
other requirements for intervention to determine if the Proposed
Intervenors are entitled to, or should be permitted to, intervene
with respect to the Stipulation and Proposed Order, and the
attached Notice and Summary Notice.
B. Interest in the Action
The Proposed Intervenors have made clear that they intend to opt
out of the Class and that their primary "interest" purportedly
justifying intervention is their own parallel lawsuits, all of
which have been stayed as to Luckin in light of Luckin's
bankruptcy. Courts regularly hold that one who opts out of the
class lacks standing to object.
Judge Cronan finds that although the Proposed Intervenors have not
yet opted out of the Class, and "most courts hold that pending
parallel litigation is not sufficient to communicate an opt-out
request," the fact that the Proposed Intervenors intend to opt out
cuts against a finding that they have "an interest in the action"
sufficient to justify intervention. This is particularly true
because any intervention would be limited to the Notice, not the
Provisional Certification Order. The Judge thus agrees with Luckin
that "the Proposed Interveners simply have no interest in the
Proposed Notice or the function that it serves. The Proposed
Intervenors' desire to pursue their own lawsuits or to limit the
recovery of the Class Members in the action are not "interests"
that would justify intervention.
C. Impairment
But even if the Proposed Intervenors did have an interest in the
action for the purposes of Rule 24, Judge Cronan holds they have
not shown how the Notice impairs those interests. First, the
Winslow Funds that the mechanics of proxy solicitation, collection
and vote-approval in the Scheme proceedings should be left to the
Cayman Islands courts. Accordingly, the Proposed Intervenors'
objections should be directed at the Grand Court, not the Court.
Second, the Proposed Intervenors' conjecture that their rights
might be harmed down the road is insufficient to overcome the
reality of these discussions so far. Third, the State Class
Plaintiffs have not provided any compelling reason for requiring
the Notice to inform the Class Members in this case about the State
Class Plaintiffs' claim. Moreover, the Notice simply does not
prevent the State Class Plaintiffs from pursuing that claim.
Finally, to the extent the Proposed Intervenors rely on their roles
as counsel for other classes of plaintiffs, there is no reason to
think that the Proposed Intervenors cannot continue independent
discussions with the JPLs or that the Notice will somehow allow
Lead Plaintiffs to extinguish the Proposed Intervenors' claims.
Again, any arguments otherwise are entirely speculative.
Disposition
For the reasons he stated, Judge Cronan denies the motions to
intervene and enters the Stipulation and Proposed Order. The Clerk
of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions
pending at Docket Numbers 262, 278, and 284.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/spzbp9h4 from Leagle.com.
LUCKIN COFFEE: Winslow Funds Appeals Cohen Securities Suit Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Intervenor Winslow Funds filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled IN RE LUCKIN COFFEE INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 20-cv-1293, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 19, 2020, the
lawsuit seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations
of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Luckin engages in the retail sale of freshly brewed drinks and
pre-made food, light meals and beverage items in China. Luckin
securities trade on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "LK."
Cohen, a holder of Luckin American Depository Shares (ADS), claims
that Luckin failed to disclose that its financial performance
metrics, including per-store per-day sales, net selling price per
item, advertising expenses and revenue contribution were inflated.
On this news, Luckin's ADS price fell $3.91 per share, or 10.74%,
to close at $32.49 per share on January 31, 2020.
Winslow Funds now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated July 6,
2021, denying its motion to intervene with respect to the
Stipulation and Proposed Order filed by Lead Plaintiffs Sjunde
AP-Fonden and Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund and
Defendant Luckin Coffee Inc. regarding dissemination of class
notice. The court-approved stipulation also appointed and
authorized Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. (Notice
Administrator) to supervise and administer the notice procedure.
The appellate case is captioned as IN RE LUCKIN COFFEE INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 21-1673, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on July 8, 2021.[BN]
Appellant Winslow Funds is represented by:
Frank Thomas More Catalina, Esq.
ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 597-2848
Defendants-Appellees Luckin Coffee Inc., Thomas P. Meir, Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, China
International Captial Corporation Hong Kong Securities Limited,
Haitong International Securities Company Limited, KeyBanc Captial
Markets Inc, and Needham & Company, LLC are represented by:
Brian S. Weinstein, Esq.
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
450 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 450-4972
E-mail: brian.weinstein@dpw.com
- and -
Jason J. Mendro, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 887-3726
- and -
Adam Mintz, Esq.
CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
32 Old Slip
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 701-3981
M STREET ENTERTAINMENT: Crowell Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
CONNOR CROWELL, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff v. M STREET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; KAYNE PRIME,
LLC; MOTO, LLC; 1120, LLC d/b/a SAINT ANEJO; LIME, LLC d/b/a TAVERN
MIDTOWN; VIRAGO, LLC; and WK, LLC d/b/a WHISKEY KITCHEN,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00517 (M.D. Tenn., July 7, 2021) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged timekeeping and pay policies and practices that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants' Virago as a server
from approximately February 2020 until February 2021.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants did not compensate him
and other similarly situated servers and bartenders for all hours
they spent performing duties for the Defendants. Specifically, the
Defendants required them to clock out at the end of their shifts
and spend 1.5 to 2.5 hours perform non-tip-producing work, such as
rolling silverware, taking out trash, sweeping, mopping, cleaning
fixtures, and other non-tip-producing duties while not clocked in.
In addition, the Defendants did not also compensate their tipped
employees for the time they spent studying the menus at home and
taking meu tests. As a result of the alleged conduct, despite
working more than 40 hours per week, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated servers and bartenders were not properly paid of
their lawfully earned wages at the federally mandated minimum wage
rate, as well as overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages plus an equal amount of liquidated damages against
the Defendants, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest,
litigation costs and expenses, and other relief to which the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated servers and bartenders may
be entitled.
The Corporate Defendants, also known as M Street Group, operate six
restaurants in Nashville commonly owned by Christopher W. Hyndman.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles P. Yezbak, III
N. Chase Teeples, Esq.
YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
Nashville, TN 37215
Tel: (615) 250-2000
Fax: (615) 250-2020
E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com
teeples@yezbaklaw.com
- and –
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN &
GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Tel: (615) 244-2202
Fax: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
MARK PATANE: One Rock Suit Transferred From S.D.N.Y. to Connecticut
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as One Rock Capital Partners,
LLC v. Patane et al., Case No. 1:21-mc-00492, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven)
on July 1, 2021.
The District of Connecticut Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:21-mc-00039-JAM to the proceeding.
The lawsuit arises from other statutory actions. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer.
One Rock operates as private equity firm.[BN]
Respondents Mark J. Patane, Julie Harding, Heather Harrigan,
Stephen S. Shapiro, Catherine Porter, Erica Russell, Tina Moretti
Bridget Kopet, Jennifer S. Cole, Benjamin A. Fletcher, and Diane
Bogdan Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
are represented by:
Craig A. Raabe, Esq.
IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
29 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 513-2939
E-mail: craabe@ikrlaw.com
Movant One Rock Capital Partners, LLC is represented by:
Jenny R. Chou, Esq.
WIGGIN & DANA-NH
265 Church St.
P.O. Box 1832
New Haven, CT 06510
Telephone: (203) 498-4302
E-mail: jchou@wiggin.com
MARK PATANE: Round Hill Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y. to Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Round Hill Investments LLC v.
Patane, et al., Case No. 1:21-mc-00493, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven) on
July 2, 2021.
The District of Connecticut Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:21-mc-00040-JAM to the proceeding.
The case arises from issues related to statutory actions and is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer.
Roundhill Investment is located in Evergreen, Colorado and is part
of the Financial Planners & Investment Advisers Industry.[BN]
Respondents Mark J. Patane, Julie Harding, Heather Harrigan,
Stephen S. Shapiro, Catherine Porter, Erica Russell, Tina Moretti
Bridget Kopet, Jennifer S. Cole, Benjamin A. Fletcher and Diane
Bogdan Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
are represented by:
Craig A. Raabe, Esq.
IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
29 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 513-2939
E-mail: craabe@ikrlaw.com
Movant Round Hill Investments LLC formerly known as: Metropoulos &
Co. LLC doing business as: Metropoulos & Co., is represented by:
Jenny R. Chou, Esq.
WIGGIN & DANA-NH
265 Church St.
P.O. Box 1832
New Haven, CT 06510
Telephone: (203) 498-4302
E-mail: jchou@wiggin.com
MARTINELLI MARKETING: PurpleAir Sues Over Forklift's Quality Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PURPLEAIR, INC. and ADRIAN DYBWAD, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARTINELLI MARKETING,
LLC, d/b/a BEST DEAL FORKLIFTS, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21STCV25610 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
July 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach
of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, fraud, and deceptive business practices.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising and marketing of refurbished
forklifts. The Plaintiffs relied on the Defendants' online
representations that their customers will receive great service and
quality forklifts. However, the forklift purchased by the
Plaintiffs from the Defendants failed to perform as advertised and
the Defendants also refused to refund the monies paid for the
forklift until the Plaintiffs pay all related shipping costs and
return the forklift, says the suit.
PurpleAir, Inc. is a manufacturer of weather sensors, with its
principal place of business located at 110 W. 13775 S., Suite 4,
Draper, Utah.
Martinelli Marketing, LLC, doing business as Best Deal Forklifts,
is a seller of refurbished forklifts, with its principal place of
business located at 1230 Madera Street, Suite 5-369, Simi Valley,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Johnny F. Manriquez, Esq.
P.O. Box Q
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (619) 246-3033
E-mail: Johnny.Manriquez@ahgcservices.com
- and –
Holley A. Hoffman, Esq.
4542 Norma Drive
San Diego, CA 92115
Telephone: (619) 890-8683
E-mail: holleyhoff@outlook.com
MCCLURE'S PICKLES: Pascual Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. McClure's Pickles LLC, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-05771, (S.D. N.Y., July 6, 2021), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.
Defendant is a pickle company, and owns and operates the website,
www.mcclures.com that allows consumers to check out its products.
Pascual is legally blind and claims that said website cannot be
accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: Joseph@cml.legal
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Orange County Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ORANGE COUNTY, INDIANA, on behalf of itself and all
other similarly situated local governmental entities v. MCKINSEY &
COMPANY, INC.; MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. UNITED STATES; and MCKINSEY
& COMPANY, INC. WASHINGTON D.C., Case No. 4:21-cv-00043, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on July 13, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-05344-CRB to the proceeding.
In this class suit, the Plaintiffs seek actual damages caused by
the opioid epidemic as a result of the Defendants' alleged
misconduct, including but not limited to: (i) costs associated with
law enforcement and public safety relating to the opioid epidemic:
(ii) costs for providing emergency services, medical care,
therapeutic care, and other treatments for patients suffering from
opioid-related addiction or disease, including overdoses and
deaths; (iii) costs for prescription drug purchases; and (iv) such
other costs as may be proven in this litigation.
Orange County is an Indiana local governmental entity.
McKinsey & Company, Inc. is a management consultant company, with a
principal place of business located at 711 Third Avenue, New York,
New York.
McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States is a management consultant
company, with a principal place of business located at 55 E 52nd
Street, New York, New York.
McKinsey & Company, Inc. Washington, D.C. is a management
consulting firm, with its principal place of business in
Washington, D.C. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael D. Grabhorn, Esq.
Andrew M. Grabhorn, Esq.
GRABHORN LAW | INSURED RIGHTS
2525 Nelson Miller Parkway, Suite 107
Louisville, KY 40223
Telephone: (502) 244-9331
Facsimile: (502) 244-9334
E-mail: m.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com
a.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com
- and –
William D. Nefzger, Esq.
BAHE COOK CANTLEY & NEFZGER PLC
1041 Goss Avenue
Louisville, KY 40217
Telephone: (502) 587-2002
Facsimile: (502) 587-2006
E-mail: will@bccnlaw.com
- and –
Kenneth C. Pierce, II, Esq.
BLANTON & PIERCE, LLC
705 Meigs Avenue
Jeffersonville, IN 47130
Telephone: (812) 283-8577
Facsimile: (812) 283-7995
E-mail: kpierce@blantonpierce.com
MERCY HEALTH: Peck Seeks Proper Wages, Damages
----------------------------------------------
Danielle Peck, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mercy Health, Mercy Health Foundation, and
MHM Support Services, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00834, (E.D. Mo.,
July 9, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Oklahoma Protection of Labor
Act, and pursuant to Oklahoma common law for breach of implied
contract, and alternatively quantum meruit and unjust enrichment.
Mercy Health is one of the top five largest U.S. health systems and
is a highly integrated, multi-state health care system, with
locations in Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Kansas. Mercy Health
Foundation provides philanthropic support to hospitals. MHM Support
Services conducts centralized activities asnd functions and
provides centralized services that are essential to carrying out
the hospital members' tax exempt purposes. Peck has been employed
by Defendants as a Unit Registration Representative from July 2016
through the present.
Peck alleges that Defendants' computerized timekeeping system
automatically deducts one half-hour from hourly-paid employees'
paychecks each day for a meal break. However, they do in fact
perform work during those breaks and are not paid for such work.
She also claims to have routinely worked in excess of 40hours per
workweek without receiving compensation for all of their overtime
hours worked. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
Eric Sands, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
Jersey City, NJ 07302
Tel: (877) 561-0000
Fax: (855) 582-5297
Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
eric.sands@jtblawgroup.com
- and -
Anthony M. Pezzani, Esq.
Emily W. Kalla, Esq.
ENGELMEYER & PEZZANI, LLC
13321 N. Outer Forty Road, Suite 300
Chesterfield, MO 63017
Phone: (636) 532-9933
Fax: (314) 863-7793
Email: tony@epfirm.com
emily@epfirm.com
METROPOLITAN BALTIMORE: Dismissal of Aleti Suit Affirmed in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KARUNAKER ALETI, ET UX. v. METROPOLITAN BALTIMORE,
LLC, ET AL., Case No. 459, September Term, 2020 (Md. Spec. App.),
the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirms in part and
vacates in part the judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City dismissing all counts of the complaint.
Karunaker and Chandana Aleti, the Appellants, brought the action in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the Appellees,
Metropolitan Baltimore, the owner of 10 Light Street, an apartment
building located in Baltimore City, and Gables Residential
Services, Inc., the property manager for 10 Light Street. The
Aletis alleged that for a period of approximately 10 months while
they were tenants of 10 Light Street, Metropolitan did not hold an
active rental license for the property as required by Article 13,
Section 5-4(a)(1) of the Baltimore City Code. The Aletis, unaware
of the lack of licensure, paid rental and other fees to
Metropolitan, which they then sought to recover through the
action.
On Feb. 24, 2020, the Aletis filed their complaint, in which they
alleged that Metropolitan had violated Section 5-4 by charging them
rent, related service fees, and legal fees while unlicensed. They
alleged that although the rental property had previously been
registered and licensed, the licensure had lapsed on April 9, 2019,
and was not renewed until Feb. 7, 2020, a period of 302 unlicensed
days. The Aletis alleged that during that period, Metropolitan had
improperly charged them a total of $12,825 in rent; $50 in
application fees; $1,675 as a security deposit; $1,639.54 in water,
electric, and other utility fees; $90 in trash fees; $240 in legal
fees; $498.75 in late fees; and a $35 bank fee. They also alleged
that during the unlicensed period, Metropolitan had filed
complaints in the District Court for nonpayment of rent in which it
had "falsely represented that 10 Light Street was licensed."
In addition to themselves, the Aletis sought to represent "a class
consisting of all tenants who occupied a rental unit at 10 Light
Street at any time from April 10, 2019, through Feb. 6, 2020, and
paid rent or any other compensation to Metropolitan for the
occupancy or Legal Fees." They alleged that they met the
numerosity requirement for a class action because the class would
contain "more than 100 members because the Rental Property is
advertised as having 419 separate rental units."
The complaint contained four counts. In Count I, the Aletis
requested a declaratory judgment that the leases "entered into
between April 10, 2019, through Feb. 6, 2020, are void and
unenforceable and that Metropolitan may not file court actions for
failure to pay rent or collect Legal Fees, rent and other
compensation during the 302 days when the Rental Property was not
properly registered and/or licensed." In Count II, the Aletis
sought money damages, in the amount of all rent and other
compensation paid to Metropolitan during the 302 days it was
unlicensed, for Metropolitan's violation of Section 5-4(a). In
Count III, the Aletis sought to recover the same amounts plus a
refund of legal fees as restitution damages based on the common law
cause of action for money had and received. And in Count IV, the
Aletis alleged breach of contract based on paragraph 44 of the
Lease, which they contended incorporated Section 5-4 (a).
Metropolitan moved to dismiss all counts of the complaint on the
grounds that the Aletis' statutory count failed for lack of a
private cause of action, their common law count failed because the
contract had been fully executed, and their breach of contract
count failed because they had received all of the benefits for
which they contracted and had not sustained any damages. It
further contended that the Aletis' declaratory judgment count
should be dismissed as moot if the court dismissed the other
counts. The Aletis opposed dismissal.
On June 24, 2020, after a hearing, the circuit court granted the
motion to dismiss all counts of the complaint. The court agreed
with Metropolitan that Section 5-4(a) did not create a private
cause of action. In dismissing the count for money had and
received, the court found that the Aletis had failed to plead with
specificity "that they paid more than what they would have paid"
but for the violation of Section 5-4. And, having found that the
Aletis had no claim under Section 5-4(a) itself, the court
concluded that they also had no contractual claim based on the
incorporation of that provision into the Lease. It then declined
to issue a declaratory judgment because, based on the dismissal of
"the substantive counts, there remains no issue of justiciable
controversy for which a declaratory judgment would be warranted."
Following the entry of a written order dismissing the complaint,
the Aletis timely appealed.
Discussion
The Aletis first contend that Section 5-4(a)(2) affords them an
implied private right of action to recover payments made to
Metropolitan while it did not hold an active rental license for 10
Light Street. Metropolitan argues that the circuit court correctly
determined that the ordinance does not provide a private right of
action.
Among other things, the Court of Special Appeals agrees with
Metropolitan and the circuit court. It concludes that the City
Council's apparent intent was to require that all rental properties
in the City be licensed and, in doing so, fulfill all the
requirements for licensure, which in turn benefits tenants as well
as the City and the public generally. In that scheme, the role of
the prohibition in Section 5-4(a)(2) against charging, accepting,
retaining, or seeking to collect rent during a period of
non-licensure is to promote licensure. The Court of Speacial
Appeals sees nothing in the statutory scheme broadly or in Section
5-4(a)(2) specifically that suggests an intent to specially benefit
tenants by providing them with free, unlicensed housing. To the
contrary, the apparent legislative intent was for there to be no
unlicensed housing, and Section 5-4(a)(2) is a coercive mechanism
to effectuate that intent.
The Aletis then contend that the circuit court erred in dismissing
Count IV of the complaint, in which they alleged that Metropolitan
breached the Lease by charging them rent while it was unlicensed.
For two reasons, the Court of Special Appeals concludes that the
circuit court correctly dismissed Count IV. First, paragraph 44
purports to incorporate "by reference the terms, rights, or
remedies" of applicable local laws and ordinances. As it has
already concluded that Section 5-4(a)(2) does not provide a private
right or remedy to tenants, no such right or remedy can be
incorporated by reference into the Lease through paragraph 44.
Second, the Aletis have not identified any material breach of the
Lease or any cognizable damages from any such breach. Accordingly,
the Court of Special Appeals affirms the circuit court's dismissal
of Count IV.
The Aletis next contend that the court erred in dismissing their
claim for money had and received, a cause of action that they
assert "applies to any fact pattern." Metropolitan counters that a
cause of action for money had and received "does not lie on an
executed contract" and would unjustly enrich the Aletis.
The Court of Special Appeals holds that the court did not err in
dismissing the claim for money had and received for the Aletis'
payments for rent or related fees that they paid during the
unlicensed period. However, it concludes that the court erred in
dismissing the Aletis' claim as to any legal fees Metropolitan may
have collected during the unlicensed period in connection with
bringing actions for nonpayment of rent. The Court of Special
Appeals therefore vacates that part of the court's judgment and
remand for further proceedings.
Lastly, the Aletis request that the Court issues a declaratory
judgment concerning the rights and obligations of the parties.
The Court of Special Appeals holds that the circuit court erred in
entering judgment on Count I without declaring the rights and
obligations of the parties. First, even if the court were correct
that its rulings on Counts II through IV settled the entire dispute
between the parties, it still was required to enter a declaratory
judgment. Second, the court's rulings on Counts II through IV did
not settle the dispute the Aletis identified in Count I. The Court
of Spcial Appeals therefore vacates the judgment entered on Count I
and remands to the circuit court for entry of a proper
declaration.
Conclusion
The Court of Special Appeals concludes that:
a. Section 5-4(a)(2) of Article 13 of the Baltimore City Code
does not provide a private right of action to recover rent and
related payments that a tenant made during a period in which a
landlord was unlicensed. As a result, the court properly dismissed
Count II of the complaint.
b. The Aletis did not state a claim for breach of contract to
recover payments that they made to Metropolitan under the Lease.
As a result, the court properly dismissed Count IV of the
complaint.
c. To the extent they sought restitution of rent and related
fees paid under the Lease during the period in which Metropolitan
was unlicensed, the Aletis did not state a claim for money had and
received. To that extent, the Court of Special Appeals affirms in
part the court's dismissal of Count III of the complaint.
d. However, the circuit court erred in dismissing the claim
for money had and received to the extent that the Aletis sought
restitution of legal fees they had paid related to actions
Metropolitan had no legal right to bring. To that extent, the
Court of Special Appeals reverses in part the court's dismissal of
Count III of the complaint.
e. The circuit court erred in dismissing Count I of the
complaint without entering a declaratory judgment declaring the
rights and obligations of the parties.
Based on the foregoing, the Court of Special Appeals affirms in
part and reverses in part the judgment of the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City. The case is remanded for further proceedings
consistent with the Opinion. Costs will be paid 75% by the
Appellants and 25% by the Appellees.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/sfskv47w from Leagle.com.
MHR FUND: Faces Brennan Stockholder Suit Over Purchase of Emisphere
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT K. BRENNAN, et al. on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. MARK H. RACHESKY and MHR FUND MANAGEMENT
LLC, et al., Case No. 2021-0576-JRS (Del. Ch., July 2, 2021) is
about a domineering stockholder and director, Mark Rachesky, who
allegedly got a toehold in a company when it was financially
vulnerable, used that toehold to cement his controlling position,
used his control to expropriate value and voting power from other
stockholders, again used his control (along with the rest of the
Board) to lock up the Transaction by preventing stockholders from
exercising their voting rights, and ultimately used his control to
sell the Company to Novo Nordisk by way of an unfair process and at
an unfair price.
The Plaintiffs bring this Verified Class Action Complaint against
the Company's controlling stockholder, Mark H. Rachesky and his
eponymous entity MHR Fund Management LLC for breach of fiduciary
duty in connection with: (i) the acquisition of Emisphere by Novo
Nordisk A/S ("Novo Nordisk") for $1.35 billion and the related but
separate payment by Novo Nordisk to Rachesky of $450 million
(together, the "Transaction"); (ii) the unfair dilution of outside
stockholders' economic and voting rights through the issuance to
Rachesky (and subsequent exercise or conversion) of large sums of
warrants and convertible debt; and (iii) the manipulation of
corporate machinery to lock up the Transaction by preventing
Plaintiffs and the Class from exercising their voting rights. The
allegations of the Complaint are based upon the investigation of
counsel, including the analysis of publicly available information
and inspection of corporate books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C.
Section 220 (the documents produced pursuant to that demand being
referred to as the "Section 220 Documents"), and upon the
Plaintiffs' personal knowledge as to themselves and their own
actions and/or interactions with Rachesky, says the suit.
Emisphere was a commercial stage pharmaceutical and drug delivery
company controlled by Mark Rachesky and MHR. Emisphere's crown
jewel asset, SNAC, enables the oral delivery of semaglutide, Novo
Nordisk's wonder drug for type 2 diabetes marketed under the name
Rybelsus. SNAC in combination with semaglutide is also being tested
for oral delivery for obesity, Alzheimer's, and non-alcoholic fatty
liver disease ("NASH"). Semaglutide has realistic revenues in the
hundreds of billions of dollars. Emisphere was party to a royalty
agreement with Novo Nordisk that entitled it to milestone payments
on certain approvals, and up to 3% (the "Royalty Stream") of Novo
Nordisk's net worldwide sales of semaglutide in combination with
SNAC or any of Emisphere's patented Eligen oral delivery carriers.
The Plaintiff includes DR. MICHAEL GOLDBERG, STEPHEN BRANDENBURG,
SAMUEL MENASHA, and JAMES DEVILLIERS.
The Defendants include MHR HOLDINGS, LLC, MHR CAPITAL PARTNERS
MASTER ACCOUNT LP, MHR CAPITAL PARTNERS (100) LP, MHR INSTITUTIONAL
PARTNERS II LP, MHR INSTITUTIONAL PARTNERS IIA LP, MHR ADVISORS
LLC, MHRC LLC, MHR INSTITUTIONAL ADVISORS II LLC, MHRC II LLC, JOHN
HARKEY, TIMOTHY MCINERNEY, HOWARD DRAFT, MICHAEL WEISER, and
TIMOTHY ROTHWELL.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joel Friedlander, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq.
David Hahn, Esq.
FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A.
1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 573-3500
- and -
Randall J. Baron, Esq.
David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
- and -
Christopher H. Lyons, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2203
- and -
Brett M. Middleton, Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1400
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0063
MICHIGAN: Beggs Appeals Ruling in Tampon Product Taxes Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs BEGGS EMILY, et al. filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled Beggs v. Michigan, Case No.
20-000149-MT, in the Michigan Court of Claims.
The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs are paying taxes on
certain feminine hygiene products which they considered as an
"unlawful and invalid taxation of menstrual hygiene products."
According to the complaint, "Michigan collects approximately $6.9
million annually in taxes on menstrual products. While this amounts
to less than 0.01% of total state revenue, the ("tampon tax")
represents a significant financial burden on women: Above and
beyond the estimated $114 million Michigan women must pay each year
for medical necessities such as tampons, pads, and liners, they are
forced to pay an additional $6.9 million in sales and use taxes to
the state."
The appellate case is captioned as EMILY BEGGS vs. STATE OF
MICHIGAN, Case No. 357662, in the Michigan Court of Appeals, filed
on June 29, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants BEGGS EMILY, PFEIFFER CLARE, and HO WEI and
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED are represented by:
Joanne B. Faycurry, Esq.
SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
350 South Main Street, Suite 210
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (734) 222-1527
E-mail: jfaycurry@schiffhardin.com
Defendant-Appellee STATE OF MICHIGAN is represented by:
Emily Zillgitt, Esq.
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF
TREASURY REVENUE & TAX
Division P.O. Box 30754
Lansing, MI 48909
Telephone: (517) 373-3203
MIDLAND CREDIT: Collection Letters Violate Privacy, Espinal Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICKY ESPINAL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 0:21-cv-61419 (S.D. Fla., July 9, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant violated Section 1692c(b)
of the FDCPA by using a third-party mail vendor to mail
form/template collection letters to the Plaintiff in contravention
of his rights to privacy. In addition to using a third-party vendor
to mail MCM's collection letters, certain envelopes that were used
to mail MCM's collection letters were marked with the words "Time
Sensitive Document" and "Extremely Urgent" in violation of Section
1692f(8) of the FDCPA, which prohibits debt collectors from using
any language or symbol, other than the debt collector's address, on
any envelope when communicating with a consumer by use of the mails
or by telegram, says the suit.
The Plaintiff suffered concrete harm as a result of MCM's alleged
actions, in the form of confusion, aggravation, embarrassment and
emotional distress.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt collection company, with
its headquarters located at 350 Camino de la Reina, Suite 300, San
Diego, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alejandro E. Figueroa, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 575-8181
E-mail: alejandrof@sulaimanlaw.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Jackson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Yolanda Jackson, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-01278-AJB-BGS (S.D. Cal., July
15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alejandro Emmanuel Figueroa, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: alejandrof@sulaimanlaw.com
MRS BPO: Bigos Consumer Credit Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LEONITA BIGOS f/k/a LEONITA ERICKSON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MRS BPO, LLC
d/b/a MRS ASSOCIATES OF NEW JERSEY, was removed from the Eighteenth
Judicial Circuit Court, County of DuPage, State of Illinois, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July
9, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-03633 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.
MRS BPO, LLC, doing business as MRS Associates of New Jersey, is a
full-service accounts receivable management firm based in Cherry
Hill, New Jersey. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Bradley R. Armstrong, Esq.
MOSS & BARNETT, PA
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 877-5359
Facsimile: (612) 877-5999
E-mail: Bradley.armstrong@lawmoss.com
- and –
Stacie E. Barhorst, Esq.
KAPLAN PAPADAKIS & GOURNIS, P.C.
180 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2108
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 726-0531
Facsimile: (312) 726-4928
E-mail: sbarhorst@kpglaw.com
NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Court Tosses Luczak Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS W. LUCZAK,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
NATIONAL BEVERAGE CORP. et al., Case No. 0:18-cv-61631-KMM (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge K. Michael Moore entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification;
and
2. dismissing with prejudice the Plaintiff's consolidated
amended class acction complaint;
The Court finds that the Plaintiff has not met his burden of
establishing he is typical of the Class as required by Rule
23(a)(3).
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, brought the instant securities class action against
Defendants pursuant to sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff initially alleged that during
the designated class period of July 17, 2014 through October 30,
2018, he acquired National Beverage stock at artificially inflated
prices due to repeated material misrepresentations and omissions in
National Beverage's publicly issued statements, and that these
misrepresentations and omissions caused Plaintiff and other class
members "significant losses and damages."
National Beverage is a publicly owned, family-controlled, and Fort
Lauderdale-based company founded by Caporella that "develops,
produces, markets, and sells a portfolio of flavored
beverage products," including sparkling waters LaCroix and Shasta.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Bstlu7 at no extra charge.[CC]
NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Florida Judge Tosses Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Florida federal judge on July 12 tossed a
proposed fraud class action brought against National Beverage
Corp., the maker of LaCroix sparkling water, saying the investor
who brought the suit can't show he was injured by purportedly
misleading sales metric statements and that he is not an adequate
class representative. [GN]
NATURE'S PATH: Products Deceptively Labeled, Brown Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MOLLY BROWN, PARSA MILLER, and LAUREN MORGAN as individuals, on
behalf of themselves, the general public and those similarly
situated v. NATURE'S PATH FOODS, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-05132 (N.D.
Cal. July 2, 2021) is a class action against the Nature's Path to
seek redress for the Defendant's deceptive practices in labeling
and marketing its Nature's Path products.
Consumers are increasingly health conscious and, as a result, many
consumers seek foods high in protein. To capitalize on this trend,
the Defendant prominently labels its Nature's Path products as
providing specific amounts of protein per serving depending on the
product, such as "10g PROTEIN" on the label of its Hemp Hearts
Granola. Consumers, in turn, reasonably expect that each product
will provide the actual amount of protein per serving that the
front of the product package claims it will, says the suit.
In truth, however, Defendant's products allegedly do not deliver
the amount of protein that the labels claim. For example, Defendant
labels its Hemp Hearts Granola as providing "10g PROTEIN," but
amino acid content testing establishes that Defendant's Hemp Hearts
Granola, at best, has 7.87 grams of protein.
The Defendant's products are also misbranded. Parallel state and
federal regulations require any product that makes a protein claim
to include in the nutrition facts panel the percentage of the daily
value of the protein in the product based on its amino acid content
and PDCAAS. Defendant's products prominently make protein content
claims but they fail to provide the required percent daily value of
protein in the nutrition facts panel, added the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 336-6545
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
NAVY ARMY: Faces Watson Class Suit in Texas District Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Navy Army Community
Credit Union. The case is captioned as Ladonna Watson v. Navy Army
Community Credit Union, Case No. 2021CCV-60764-3 (Tex. Dist.,
Nueces Cty., July 1, 2021).
Navy Army Community Credit Union is a credit union headquartered in
Corpus Christi, Texas, chartered and regulated under the authority
of the Texas Credit Union Department of the U.S. federal
government.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John T. Flood, Esq.
JOHN T. FLOOD, LLP
802 N Carancahua St. No. 900
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 654-8877
E-Mail: John@FloodTrialLawyers.com
NCAA: Jones Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------
The case styled as Evin Jones, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01836, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 14,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03737 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NCAA: Mac Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------
The case styled as Thaddeus Mac, Jr., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01905, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 14,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03743 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NCAA: Morowitz Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Freddie Morowitz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01907, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 14,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03746 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NCAA: Parrish Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Ronald
Parrish, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-03736 (N.D. Ill., July 14, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NESTLE USA: Coffee Creamer's 140 Servings "False," Ivory Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LURNIA IVORY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NESTLE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-01193-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill., July 13, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation, fraud,
unjust enrichment, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, and breaches of express warranty,
implied warranty of merchantability and the Magnuson Moss Warranty
Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Caramel
Latte Powdered Coffee Creamer under its Coffee-mate brand in
containers of 15 ounces. The Defendant claims to provide "140
Servings" of the coffee creamer. However, independent laboratory
analysis determined that the product only provides 107 servings of
coffee creamer based on an actual teaspoon containing the product.
This means the product delivers almost 33 percent fewer servings of
coffee creamer than the 140 promised on the label. The Defendant
sold more of the product and at higher prices than it would have in
the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at
the expense of consumers. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known
the truth, they would not have bought the product or would have
paid less for them, says the suit.
Nestle USA, Inc. is a food and beverage company, with a principal
place of business in Arlington, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
OLIPOP INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Olipop Inc. The case
is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Olipop Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06078-JPC
(S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
OLIPOP -- https://drinkolipop.com/ -- is the clinically backed
consumer beverage that meets consumer's real-world taste
preferences in a delicious tonic.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
ORPHAZYME A/S: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, on July 12 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Orphazyme A/S (NASDAQ: ORPH) in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Orphazyme
publicly traded securities between September 29, 2020 and June 18,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
September 7, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On March 29, 2021, Orphazyme issued a press release "announc[ing]
its phase 2/3 trial evaluating arimoclomol for the treatment of
[IBM] . . . did not meet its primary and secondary endpoints. On
this news Orphazyme's American depositary share ("ADS") price fell
$3.59 per ADS, or 28.97%, to close at $8.80 per ADS on March 29,
2021.
On May 7, 2021, Orphazyme issued a press release "announc[ing]
topline data from pivotal trial of arimoclomol in [ALS.]" The press
release disclosed that the Company's "pivotal trial…did not meet
its primary and secondary endpoints to show benefit in people
living with ALS." On this news, Orphazyme's ADS price fell $2.81
per ADS, or 32.83%, to close at $5.75 per ADS on May 7, 2021.
Then, on June 18, 2021, Orphazyme issued a press release announcing
receipt of a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA
following the agency's review of the NDA for arimoclomol for the
treatment of NPC. The press release disclosed that the FDA had
rejected the arimoclomol NDA for NPC.
On this news, Orphazyme's ADS price fell $7.23 per ADS, or 49.66%,
to close at $7.33 per ADS on June 18, 2021.
The complaint alleges that, in the Company's September 3, 2020
registration statement (the "Registration Statement") and
throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations,
and compliance policies. Specifically, the Registration Statement
and defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) arimoclomol was not as effective in
treating Inclusion Body Myositis ("IBM") as defendants had
represented; (ii) arimoclomol was not as effective in treating
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ("ALS") as defendants had
represented; (iii) the arimoclomol new drug application ("NDA") for
Niemann-Pick disease type C ("NPC") was incomplete and/or required
additional evidence to support the benefit-risk assessment of that
NDA; (iv) as a result of (iii), the FDA was unlikely to approve the
arimoclomol NDA for NPC in its present form; (v) the Company's
overall business prospects, as well as arimoclomol's commercial
prospects, were significantly overstated; and (vi) as a result, the
Registration Statement and defendants' public statements throughout
the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed
to state information required to be stated therein.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Orphazyme shares and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa
Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
ORPHAZYME A/S: Busic Sues Over Continuous Decline of ADS Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARKO BUSIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ORPHAZYME A/S, CHRISTOPHE BOURDON, KIM
STRATTON, ANDERS VADSHOLT, THOMAS BLAETTLER, MOLLY PAINTER, GEORGES
GEMAYEL, BO JESPER HANSEN, MARTIN BONDE, REMI DROLLER, STEN
VERLAND, MARTIJN KLEIJWEGT, ANDERS HEDEGAARD, CATHERINE MOUKHEIBIR,
and CARROLEE BARLOW, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03640 (N.D. Ill.,
July 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading initial public offering (IPO) and public statements
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regarding
Orphazyme's business, operations, and compliance policies in order
to artificially inflate prices of Orphazyme securities between
September 29, 2020 and June 18, 2021. Specifically, the Defendants
failed to disclose that: (i) arimoclomol was not as effective in
treating inclusion body myositis (IBM) as Defendants had
represented; (ii) arimoclomol was not as effective in treating
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) as the Defendants had
represented; (iii) the arimoclomol new drug application (NDA) for
Niemann-Pick disease type C (NPC) was incomplete and/or required
additional evidence and data to support the benefit-risk assessment
of that NDA; (iv) as a result of (iii), the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) was unlikely to approve the arimoclomol NDA
for NPC in its present form; (v) the Company's overall business
prospects, as well as arimoclomol's commercial prospects, were
significantly overstated; and (vi) as a result, the Offering
Documents and the Defendants' public statements throughout the
Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to
state information required to be stated therein.
When the truth emerged, Orphazyme's American depositary shares
(ADS) price fell $7.23 per ADS, or 49.66%, to close at $7.33 per
ADS on June 18, 2021. As of the time this complaint was filed, the
price of Orphazyme ADSs continues to trade below the $11.00 per ADS
offering price, damaging investors.
Orphazyme A/S is a biopharmaceutical company headquartered in
Copenhagen, Denmark. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and –
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
Louis C. Ludwig, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
lcludwig@pomlaw.com
- and –
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
ORPHAZYME A/S: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 12 disclosed that
purchasers of Orphazyme A/S (NASDAQ: ORPH) American Depositary
Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to the offering documents
issued in connection with Orphazyme's initial public offering
conducted on or about September 29, 2020 (the "IPO"); and/or (ii)
Orphazyme securities between September 29, 2020 and June 18, 2021,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period") have until September 7,
2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Orphazyme class
action lawsuit. The Orphazyme class action lawsuit charges
Orphazyme and other defendants with violations of the Securities
Act of 1933 and/or Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Orphazyme
class action lawsuit was commenced on July 9, 2021 in the Northern
District of Illinois and is captioned Busic v. Orphazyme A/S, No.
21-cv-03640.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Orphazyme class action lawsuit, please provide
your information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney
J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via
e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the
Orphazyme class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no
later than September 7, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Orphazyme class action lawsuit alleges that
the IPO's offering documents were negligently prepared and, as a
result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to
state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading. In addition, the Orphazyme class action lawsuit alleges
that defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (i) arimoclomol was not as effective in treating
Inclusion Body Myositis ("IBM") as Orphazyme had represented; (ii)
arimoclomol was not as effective in treating Amyotrophic Lateral
Sclerosis ("ALS") as Orphazyme had represented; (iii) the
arimoclomol new drug application ("NDA") for Niemann-Pick disease
type C ("NPC") was incomplete and/or required additional evidence
and data to support the benefit-risk assessment of that NDA; (iv)
as a result, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was
unlikely to approve the arimoclomol NDA for NPC in its present
form; (v) Orphazyme's overall business prospects, as well as
arimoclomol's commercial prospects, were significantly overstated;
and (vi) consequently, the offering documents and defendants'
public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false
and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be
stated therein.
On March 29, 2021, Orphazyme issued a press release "announc[ing]
its phase 2/3 trial evaluating arimoclomol for the treatment of
[IBM] . . . did not meet its primary and secondary endpoints." On
this news, Orphazyme's ADS price fell nearly 29%. Then, on May 7,
2021, Orphazyme issued a press release "announc[ing] topline data
from pivotal trial of arimoclomol in [ALS.]" The press release
disclosed that Orphazyme's "pivotal trial . . . did not meet its
primary and secondary endpoints to show benefit in people living
with ALS." On this news, Orphazyme's ADS price fell nearly 33%.
Thereafter, on June 18, 2021, Orphazyme issued a press release
announcing receipt of a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the
FDA following the agency's review of the NDA for arimoclomol for
the treatment of NPC. Orphazyme disclosed that the FDA had rejected
the arimoclomol NDA for NPC "based on needing additional
qualitative and quantitative evidence to further substantiate the
validity and interpretation" of certain data and "that additional
data are needed to bolster confirmatory evidence beyond the single
phase 2/3 clinical trial to support the benefit-risk assessment of
the NDA." On this news, Orphazyme's ADS price fell more than 49%.
Finally, on June 21, 2021, Seeking Alpha reported that "Orphazyme
[was] cut to sell at Guggenheim after [Orphazyme's] regulatory
snub" by the FDA, stating, among other things, that "[w]ith a $1.00
price target for the stock indicating a downside of ~86.4%,
Guggenheim notes that there is 'little optionality left in the
stock,' and adds 'it might make sense to wind down the company.'"
On this news, Orphazyme's ADS price fell an additional 11%, further
damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Orphazyme
ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the offering documents issued in
connection with Orphazyme's IPO and/or Orphazyme securities during
the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the
Orphazyme class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the
movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by
the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative
class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members
in directing the Orphazyme class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff
can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Orphazyme class
action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential
future recovery of the Orphazyme action lawsuit is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp.
Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for
investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any
other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/firm.html for more information.
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101 • 619-231-1058
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
OSMOTICA PHARMA: $5.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued the following statement
regarding the Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc Securities Litigation:
LEO SHUMACHER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
OSMOTICA PHARMACEUTICALS PLC, et al.,
Defendants.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION: SOMERSET COUNTY
DOCKET NO. SOM-L-000540-19
(Consolidated)
CIVIL ACTION
JEFFREY TELLO and JASON GELLATI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
OSMOTICA PHARMACEUTICALS PLC,
BRIAN MARKISON, ANDREW EINHORN,
DAVID BURGSTAHLER, SRIRAM VENKATARAMAN,
CARLOS SIELECKI, JUAN VERGEZ, JEFFERIES LLC,
BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC,
and WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC,
Defendants
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION: SOMERSET COUNTY
DOCKET NO. SOM-L-617-19
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO ACQUIRED OSMOTICA PHARMACEUTICALS PLC
("OSMOTICA" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK PURSUANT AND/OR
TRACEABLE TO OSMOTICA'S OCTOBER 2018 INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING
("IPO") OR THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH
OSMOTICA'S IPO
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on November 9,
2021, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Michael F. O'Neill,
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division: Somerset County, 20
North Bridge Street, Somerville, NJ 08876, to determine whether:
(1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the
above-captioned action as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement ("Stipulation")1 for $5,250,000 in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the
Judgment as attached to the Stipulation should be entered; (3) to
award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the
Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below),
and, if so, in what amount; (4) to award Plaintiffs for
representing the Settlement Class out of the Settlement Fund and,
if so, in what amounts; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate.2
This Action is a securities class action brought on behalf of those
persons who acquired Osmotica common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statement or IPO, against Osmotica
and others (collectively, "Defendants"), which alleges that the
Defendants made allegedly materially untrue statements or
materially misleading omissions in the Registration Statement.
Plaintiffs allege that these purportedly false and misleading
statements inflated the price of the Company's stock, resulting in
damage to Settlement Class Members when the purported truth was
revealed. Defendants deny all of Plaintiffs' allegations and deny
that they engaged in any wrongdoing whatsoever, and the Settlement
is not an admission of any wrongdoing or liability on the part of
the Defendants.
IF YOU ACQUIRED OSMOTICA COMMON STOCK PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO
THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT OR IPO, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.
To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than September
30, 2021) or electronically (no later than September 30, 2021).
Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by September 30, 2021,
will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving
any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this
Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not
request exclusion therefrom in accordance with the procedures set
by the Court, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment
and release entered in the Action, including, but not limited to,
the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim.
If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the
Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for
the defined terms used herein) and other Settlement documents,
online at www.OsmoticaSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing to:
Osmotica Securities Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 43345
Providence, RI 02940-3345
Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 1-800-449-4900
IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOU MUST
SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY AUGUST
31, 2021, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL
MEMBERS OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION
FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE
NOTICE WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A
TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.
IF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT
TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES,
AND/OR THE AWARDS TO PLAINTIFFS FOR REPRESENTING THE SETTLEMENT
CLASS. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD
COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY AUGUST 31, 2021, IN THE MANNER
AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.
DATED: June 11, 2021
BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION: SOMERSET COUNTY
1 The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at
www.OsmoticaSecuritiesSettlement.com. All terms used herein shall
have the same meaning as set forth in the Stipulation.
2 The Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is a fluid situation that
creates the possibility that the Court may decide to conduct the
Settlement Fairness Hearing by video or telephonic conference, or
otherwise allow Settlement Class Members to appear at the hearing
virtually without further notice to the Settlement Class. In order
to determine whether the date and time of the Settlement Fairness
Hearing have changed, or whether Settlement Class Members must or
may participate by phone or video, it is important that you monitor
the Settlement website, www.OsmoticaSecuritiesSettlement.com,
before making any plans to attend the Settlement Fairness Hearing.
Any updates and information for accessing a telephonic or video
Settlement Fairness Hearing will be posted to the Settlement
website, www.OsmoticaSecuritiesSettlement.com. Also, if the Court
requires or allows Settlement Class Members to participate in the
Settlement Fairness Hearing by telephone, the phone number for
accessing the telephonic conference will be posted to the
Settlement website. You will not receive another notice such as
this one regarding such changes; they will only be posted to the
Settlement website.
PACIFIC RIM: Sandoval Seeks Unpaid Wages, Missing Pay Stubs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sylvia Sandoval, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pacific Rim Fisheries Inc., Full Steam
Staffing LLC and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV24166 (Cal. Super., June 30, 2021), seeks unpaid wages,
actual damages, liquidated damages, restitution, declaratory
relief, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties, civil
penalties, costs of suit, reasonable attorneys' fees and such other
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Labor
Code and the California Business and Professional Code.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to provide them with
meal and rest periods and/or premium wages, overtime wages, failed
to provide accurate written wage statements and failed to timely
pay final wages following separation of employment.
Sandoval worked for Pacific Rim Fisheries through Full Steam
Staffing as a non-exempt, hourly employee from approximately
October 2019 through May 2020.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
Thomas Segal, Esq.
Farrah Grant, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 888-7771
Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
thomas@setarehlaw.com
farrah@setarehlaw.com
PAPPAS RESTAURANTS: Shelton Sues Over Improper Wage Calculation
---------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER SHELTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PAPPAS RESTAURANTS, INC. and PAPPAS
RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00470-SJD (S.D.
Ohio, July 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and all
other similarly situated waiters appropriate minimum wages.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as waitress at the
Pappadeaux Seafood Kitchen in Cincinnati, Ohio from approximately
January 2012 until August 2020.
Pappas Restaurants, Inc. is an operator of a nationwide chain of
restaurants under the trade name Pappadeaux Seafood Kitchen
throughout the U.S.
Pappas Restaurant Group, LLC is an operator of a nationwide chain
of restaurants under the trade name Pappadeaux Seafood Kitchen
throughout the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Building, Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
- and –
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
PATRIOT HYUNDAI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martinez Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM MARTINEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly aggrieved v. PATRIOT HYUNDAI OF EL MONTE LLC, a
California limited liability company; REZA MAZAHERI, an individual;
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV25134 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., July 8, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to
pay Plaintiff an additional hour of pay at Plaintiff's regular rate
of pay for each missed or improper meal period, and if Defendant
did pay a meal period premium it was not paid at the proper rate of
pay because the Defendant failed to include all non-discretionary
remunerations, including but not limited to, commission and/or
bonus pay, into the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating
the owed meal period premiums, pursuant to the California Labor
Code.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was consistently unable
to take timely, off-duty, uninterrupted thirty-minute meal periods.
The Plaintiff was often forced to work through his meal periods or
forced to take late, shortened, interrupted and/or on-duty meal
periods due to his workload/commentary from supervisors pressuring
Plaintiff to take improper meal periods or skip meal periods
completely.
The Plaintiff was also required to constantly monitor his cell
phone/other communication devices to respond to customer inquiries
and attend to walk-in customers during meal periods, rendering any
9 meal periods on duty. The Plaintiff did not execute a written
on-duty meal period waiver agreement. Also, second meal periods
were never provided for those shifts that Plaintiff worked more
than 10 hours.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
Blake R. Jones, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 496-5818
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
blake@crosnerlegal.com
PHH MORTGAGE: Faces FDUTPA Suit Over Improper Property Payoff
-------------------------------------------------------------
4632 CWELT-2008, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PHH MORTGAGE CORP., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-21-014032 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., July 9,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant knowingly, intentionally,
and willfully inflated a payoff figure concerning a real property
located in Coral Springs, Florida to the Plaintiff on or about June
23, 2021 by including charges that were not properly due,
including-but not limited to-a Line Release Fee and Bank Wire Fee
that were not authorized by contract or law or exceeded amounts
authorized by contract or law.
4632 CWELT-2008, LLC is a property owner which maintains its
principal place of business in Boca Raton, Florida.
PHH Mortgage Corp. is a mortgage services provider based in Mount
Laurel Township, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce Botsford, Esq.
BRUCE BOTSFORD, P.A.
1615 S.W. 2nd Avenue
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315
Telephone: (954) 990-4213
E-mail: service@botsfordlegal.com
supportleader@botsfordlegal.com
PHILIPS NA: Ramirez Sues Over Defective Ventilators
---------------------------------------------------
Diana Ramirez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Philips North America LLC, Koninklijke
Philips Electronics N.V. and Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-11132 (D. Mass., July 9, 2021), seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief, compensatory, actual, statutory, consequential,
punitive and/or any other form of damages, restitution,
disgorgement and/or other equitable relief, costs of this action,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, and, where applicable, expert
fees, prejudgment and post judgment interest, award of such other
and further relief resulting from breach of implied warranty and
for violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
California's Unfair Competition Law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act.
Philips recalled its Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure, Continuous
Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and mechanical ventilator devices
involving an estimated 3 million to 4 million devices globally.
Said products contained polyester based polyurethane foam that
degrades and can be inhaled by the users, causing health risks,
including respiratory issues and cancer.
Diana Ramirez purchased her a "Dream Station" CPAP for her sleep
apnea, notes the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
Mitchell Breit, Esq.
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 741-5600
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
mbreit@milberg.com
byagman@milberg.com
- and -
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Tel: (919) 600-5000
Email: dbryson@milberg.com
pwallace@milberg.com
PHILIPS NORTH: Devices Contain PE-PUR Foam, Boudreau Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
PRINNA BOUDREAU, MARY CAMPBELL, RICARDO CAMPOS, JEFF ECK-LONDON,
NORA FREEMAN, STEPHEN GRICE, BETH RODGERS, and MATTHEW SMITH, and
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
KONINKELIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC; and PHILIPS
RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-11095-DJC (D. Mass., July 1,
2021) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a proposed
class and subclasses of purchasers of Philips Bi-Level Positive
Airway Pressure ("BiPAP"), Continuous Positive Airway Pressure
("CPAP"), and mechanical ventilator devices, which contain
polyester-based polyurethane ("PE-PUR") sound abatement foam
("PE-PUR Foam").
According to the complaint, on April 26, 2021, Philips disclosed it
had determined that there were risks that the PE-PUR Foam used in
certain devices manufactured by Philips may degrade under certain
circumstances. On June 14, 2021, Philips issued a recall of devices
containing PE-PUR Foam, noting that Philips had determined that the
PE-PUR Foam was at risk for degradation into particles which may
enter the device's pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users of
devices which contain PE-PUR Foam, as well as off-gassing certain
chemicals. Philips recommended that patients using Philips BiPAP
and CPAP devices immediately discontinue their use of their
devices.
The Plaintiffs all owned or leased Philips CPAP, BiPAP, or
mechanical ventilator devices prior to June 14, 2021. The
Plaintiffs subsequently learned that their CPAP, BiPAP, or
mechanical ventilator devices had been recalled by Philips due to
the presence of a dangerous PE-PUR Foam that could cause them to
suffer from adverse health effects, including, inter alia, cancer.
Plaintiffs have been advised by Philips to discontinue use of their
devices. The Plaintiffs must now spend a substantial amount of time
and incur substantial expenses to replace the device.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages based on, inter alia,
Philips' negligence, breach of contract, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranties, and breaches of various
state consumer protection laws in connection with its manufacture,
marketing and sales of devices containing PE-PUR Foam on behalf of
themselves and the proposed Class and Subclasses.
Defendant Koninklijke Philips N.V. ("Royal Philips") is a Dutch
multinational corporation with its principal place of business
located in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Royal Philips is the parent
company of Philips NA and Philips RS.
Philips North America LLC is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts. Philips North America is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Koninklijke Philips N.V. Philips NA manages the
operation of Royal Philips' various lines of business, including
Philips RS, in North America. Philips RS was formerly operated
under the business name Respironics, Inc. Royal Philips acquired
Respironics in 2008.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sean K. McElligott, Esq.
Richard A. Silver, Esq.
Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
Zachary A. Rynar, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
184 Atlantic Street
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 325-4491
Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
E-mail: smcelligott@sgtlaw.com
rsilver@sgtlaw.com
sbloch@sgtlaw.com
isloss@sgtlaw.com
zrynar@sgtlaw.com
PICASSO STYLE INC: Davis Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Picasso Style, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-05794, (S.D. N.Y., July 6, 2021), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.
Defendant is a women's clothing store in Los Angeles, California
that sells through www.coophomegoods.com allowing consumers to
check out its products. Davis is legally blind and claims that said
website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: Joseph@cml.legal
PIRGOS FOOD: Does not Properly Pay Workers' Wages, Valentin Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucino Valentin, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pirgos Food Corp., John Kapetanos, Michael
Columbus, Orlando Coca and Steve Columbus,, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-05781 (S.D. N.Y., July 6, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.
Defendants own, operate, or control a diner in New York City under
the name "Moonstruck Diner" where Valentin was employed as a
waiter. He claims to have generally worked in excess of 40 hours a
week without overtime for hours in excess of 40 hours per workweek
and denied spread-of-hours premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours.
He also claims to have never received wage statements and
appropriate minimum wage.
The complaint alleges that Valentin and all other tipped workers
were paid at a rate that was lower than the lower tip-credit rate.
Moonstruck allegedly failed to inform Plaintiff that it intended to
take a deduction against his earned wages for tip income and failed
to inform Valentin that his tips were being credited towards the
payment of the minimum wage.
Valentin was also required to purchase "tools of the trade" with
his own funds including uniforms, shoes and dress shirts, says the
complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
Email: michael@faillacelaw.com
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Liebman FDCPA Suit Moved to D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as David M. Liebman, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, JOHN DOES
1 TO 10, Case No. ESX-L-004579-21 was transferred from the Essex
County Superior Court, Law Division to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey on July 15, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-13674 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC --
https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- provides debt recovery and
collection services.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Philip Andrew Goldstein, Esq.
MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 548-2167
Email: pagoldstein@mcguirewoods.com
PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PETER TASSMER and KAREN CANNON individually, and on behalf of a
class of others similarly situated, v. PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS SYSTEM
d/b/a PRACTICEFIRST MEDICAL MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS and PBS MEDCODE
CORP. a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00790 (W.D.N.Y.,
July 9, 2021) alleges that Practicefirst failed to protect the
Plaintiffs and Class members by failing to employ the appropriate
security to detect intrusions, allowing the hackers to steal the
most private and sensitive information from patients and
employees.
The Plaintiffs and Class members can reasonably believe that the
risk of future harm (including identity theft) is substantial and
imminent, and will need to take steps to mitigate that substantial
risk of future harm.
Practicefirst is a medical management solutions company that touts
itself as a "leader in billing, credentialing, coding, compliance,
chart auditing, bookkeeping and tax preparation."
Practicefirst provides administrative and back-office services to
medical professionals and takes "responsibility to stay current
with the volatile rules, regulations and information technology
requirement of the healthcare industry."
Allegedly, because of Practicefirst's unsecure and inadequate data
security practices, an unauthorized third party accessed and
compromised files from Practicefirst's system that included patient
and employee data (the "Data Breach") of over 1.2 million
individuals. It is unclear for how long this data theft took place,
but Defendant "discovered" it on December 30, 2020, says the suit.
Although information accessed and stolen varied by individual, the
categories of patient and employee data obtained by the hackers
included: names, addresses, email addresses, dates of birth,
driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers, diagnoses,
laboratory and treatment information, patient identification
numbers, employee username and passwords, employee username with
security questions and answers, and bank account and/or credit
card/debit card information. This information is known as
Protected Healthcare Information ("PHI") or Personally Identifiable
Information ("PII") and is of significant value to cyber
criminals.
On July 1, 2021, over six months after discovering the Data Breach,
Practicefirst notified the Attorney General of several states,
including Maine and California, of the breach. Around the same
time, Practicefirst also began sending notices to patients and
employees whose PII/PHI may have been impacted by the Data Breach.
Due to Practicefirst's carelessness and inadequate security,
Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered irreparable harm and are
subject to an increased risk of identity theft. The Plaintiffs and
the Class' PII/PHI has been compromised and they must now undertake
additional ongoing security measures to minimize the risk of
identity theft.
Plaintiff Peter Tassmer resides in New Britain, in the State of
Connecticut, County of Hartford. Plaintiff Karen Cannon resides in
Dunkirk, in the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER
& GRAIFMAN, P.C.
747 Chestnut Ridge Road
Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
Telephone: (845) 356-2570
Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
- and -
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
CASEY GERRY SCHENK
FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1811
Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com
PSMG INC: Underpays Security Guards, Clark Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
AUTUMN CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PSMG, INC., dba PACWEST SECURITY SERVICES;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 21STCV25275
(Sup. Cal., Los Angeles Cty., July 9, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code including unpaid
minimum wage and overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure
to provide rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to pay wages due upon termination of
employment, failure to indemnify for expenditures or losses in
discharge of duties, and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a security guard in
Los Angeles County, California from July 2019 through June 16,
2020.
PSMG, Inc., doing business as PACWEST Security Services, is a
provider of security services in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
Atoy H. Wilson, Esq.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 590-5550
Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
awilson@mahoney-law.net
QUICKEN LOANS: Mattson Loses Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mattson v. Quicken Loans,
Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00989 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Youlee Yim
You entered an order mooting the defendant's motion to stay
Plaintiff's class certification bid.
Chief Judge Hernandez has issued an order denying class
certification in Mattson v. New Penn Financial, LLC, CAse
3:18-cv-990-YY.
The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- other statutory actions
ionvolving restrictions of use of telephone equipment.
Quicken Loans is a mortgage lending company headquartered in the
One Campus Martius building in the heart of the financial district
of Downtown Detroit, Michigan.[CC]
QUICKEN LOANS: Voss Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Mortgagors
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL VOSS, On Behalf of
Himself and all Others Similarly Situated, v. QUICKEN LOANS, LLC
AND MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00756-SKB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying a class of:
"All persons or entities who were the mortgagor to a mortgage
or current owner of the real property to which the mortgage
pertains where Quicken Loans (or any predecessor or other
entity acquired or merged with -- or otherwise now part of
Quicken Loans -- including any affiliates, subsidiaries,
and/or related lending institutions) was the lender on a
promissory note secured by a mortgage on real property in the
State of Ohio, whereby MERS (or any predecessor or other
entity acquired or merged with -- or otherwise now part of
MERS -- including any affiliates, subsidiaries, and/or
related lending institutions) was listed as the mortgagee,
where the mortgage was satisfied in full, and the mortgagee
did not record an entry of mortgage satisfaction with the
applicable county recorder's office within 90 days of the
date of mortgage satisfaction, from August 19, 2014 through
August 19, 2020."
The Plaintiff and the Class he seeks to represent satisfy the
requirements of Rule 23. The Plaintiff further asks that Samuel
Voss, who is the named plaintiff, be appointed to serve as class
representative, and that W.B. Markovits, Terence R. Coates, Dylan
J. Gould, Justin C. Walker, and Matthew C. Metzger be appointed to
serve as class counsel.
Quicken Loans is a mortgage lending company headquartered in the
One Campus Martius building in the heart of the financial district
of Downtown Detroit, Michigan.
MERS operates national electronic registry systems.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 12,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UsPCHp
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
W.B. Markovits, Esq.
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Justin C. Walker, Esq.
Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com
tcoates@msdlegal.com
jwalker@msdlegal.com
dgould@msdlegal.com
- and -
Matthew C. Metzger, Esq.
WOLTERMAN LAW O FICE, LPA
434 W. Loveland Ave.
Loveland, OH 45150
E-mail: matt@woltermanlaw.com
RCI HOSPITALITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT, Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
SABINA SCOTT and DURINA JUAREZ, v. RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC.,
SPIROS PARTNERS, LTD d/b/a RICK'S CABARET SAN ANTONIO; NEW SPIROS,
L.L.C. and ERIC S. LANGAN, Case No. 5:21-cv-00648 (July 8, 2021)
seeks to recover damages resulting from the Defendants evading the
mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and illegally absconding with Plaintiffs tips.
The Defendants own and operate a strip Club named Rick's Cabaret
San Antonio. These causes of action arise from Defendants' willful
actions while Plaintiff Scott was employed by the Defendants from
June 20, 2013 through June 15, 2020 and while Plaintiff Juarez was
employed by Defendant from December 31, 2019 through February
2020.
Throughout their employment with the Defendants, Plaintiffs have
been allegedly denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as
part of Defendants scheme to classify Plaintiffs and other
dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors."
The Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiffs minimum wages and
overtime wages for all hours worked in violation of 29 U.S.C.
sections 206 and 207 of the FLSA. The Defendants' conduct violates
the FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for
their overtime work at a rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay, says the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
Leigh Montgomery Texas
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
leigh@ellzeylaw.com
RCI HOSPITALITY: Thomas Seeks Unpaid OT, Minimum Wages for Dancers
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH A. THOMAS v. RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC., JAI DINING
SERVICES (L ONGVIEW ), INC dba JAGUARS, and ERIC S. LANGAN, Case
No. 6:21-cv-00267 (E.D. Tex., July 9, 2021) seeks to recover the
unpaid overtime compensation and minimum wage owed to the Plaintiff
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
employees, current and former, of the Defendants in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The suit arises from Defendants' willful actions while Plaintiff
was employed by the Defendants from approximately April 18, 2019
through May 15, 2020. Throughout her employment with the
Defendants, the Plaintiff has been allegedly denied minimum wage
payments and denied overtime as part of Defendants scheme to
classify Plaintiff and other dancers/entertainers as "independent
contractors."
RCI Hospitality through its subsidiaries, operates strip clubs,
nightclubs, topless gentlemen's clubs, adult entertainment websites
and the military themed Bombshells restaurant and sports bar
chain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
Leigh Montgomery Texas
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
leigh@ellzeylaw.com
RCI HOSPITALITY: Villela Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages for Dancers
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELMITA R. VILLELA and CRISTAL M. VERA, v. RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS,
INC., JAI DINING SERVICES (HARLINGEN), INC dba JAGUARS; and ERIC S.
LANGAN, Case No. 1:21-cv-00100 (S.D. Tex., July 9, 2021) alleges
against Defendants for damages resulting from the Defendants
evading the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and illegally absconding with Plaintiffs
tips.
The suit arises from the Defendants' willful actions while
Plaintiffs Villela and Vera were employed by Defendants from
February 20, 2018 through October 31, 2019 and from 2011 through
October 1, 2019, respectively.
Throughout their employment with Defendants, the Plaintiffs have
been allegedly denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as
part of Defendants scheme to classify Plaintiffs and other
dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors."
The Plaintiffs worked at Defendants' principal place of business
located at 14286 West Expressway 83, Harlingen, Texas.
The Defendants own and operate a strip club named Jaguars in
Harlingen, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
leigh@ellzeylaw.com
REFLECTIONS LTD: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Thornburg et al. Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KILEY THORNBURG and KARCY REYMER, for themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. REFLEKTIONS, LTD.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-03905-mhw-epd (S.D. Ohio, July 8, 2021)
arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as Direct Support
Professionals - Thornburg was between approximately September 2018
and April 26, 2021, while Reymer was between approximately March
2015 and November 2019.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs consistently worked more
than 40 hours in a workweek. However, the Defendant did not pay
them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40
in a workweek.
The Plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation costs and
expenses and attorney's fees, and other legal and equitable relief
as the Court deems appropriate.
Reflektions, Ltd. provides home healthcare services to the
Defendant's clients in their homes. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
Kyle T. Anderson, Esq.
MANSELL LAW, LLC
1457 S. High St.
Columbus, OH 43207
Tel: (614) 610-4134
Fax: (614) 547-3614
E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
Kyle@MansellLawLLC.com
REKOR SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Rekor Systems, Inc. ('Rekor Systems' or the 'Company')
(NASDAQ:REKR) f/k/a Novume Solutions, Inc. from April 12, 2019
through May 25, 2021 (the 'Class Period'). The lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Rekor Systems securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit Rekor Systems
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Joseph R. Seidman toll
free at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that:
(i) the Company's ALPR technology and UVED-related business is
outclassed by global competitor with an established and dominant
market share; (ii) it was unlikely that other states would pass
legislation authorizing deals similar to the REKR Oklahoma UVED
partnership due to state and local privacy laws and other concerns;
(iii) Rekor Systems' UVED partnership was not as profitable as
Defendants led investors to believe due to known issues with
enrollment rates and costs associated with partnership; (iv) Rekor
Systems had overstated its potential revenues, profitability, and
overall ALPR and UVED-related business prospects; and (v) as a
result, Rekor Systems' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On May 10, 2021, a bill to authorize a state UVED program was
excluded from the Texas Legislature and left pending in a state
committee. With May 10 as the deadline, news sources reported that
the bill was likely dead. Later that day, in a post-market earnings
call, Defendant Berman indicated that Rekor Systems may not secure
a UVED agreement with Texas.
On this news, Rekor Systems' stock price $5.20 per share to close
at $13.71 per share on May 10, 2021. Following the Defendants'
post-market conference call, the stock price fell an additional
$2.45 per share, to close at $11.26 per share on May 11, 2021.
On May 26, 2021, both Western Edge and Mariner Research Group
published reports addressing the Company's shortcomings and
expectations. Following the publication of these reports, Rekor
Systems' stock price fell $0.44 per share, to close at $10.77 per
share on May 26, 2021.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 30, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Rekor Systems securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/rekorsystemsinc-rekr-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-408/apply/
or contact Joseph R. Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information:
Joseph R. Seidman
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
seidman@bernlieb.com [GN]
RESTORATION ROBOTICS: September 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
IN RE RESTORATION ROBOTICS, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION.
Case No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
Hon. Edward J. Davila
TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
RESTORATION ROBOTICS, INC. ("RESTORATION ROBOTICS" OR THE
"COMPANY") COMMON STOCK IN OR TRACEABLE TO RESTORATION ROBOTICS'
OCTOBER 12, 2017, INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING ("IPO") BETWEEN OCTOBER
12, 2017, AND APRIL 9, 2018, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS").
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER'S
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, and Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that Court-appointed Lead
Plaintiff and Class Representative Edgardo Guerrini, on behalf of
himself and the above-described certified Class, and Defendant
Restoration Robotics and other Defendants (collectively,
"Defendants") in the above-captioned class action (the "Action"),
have reached a settlement in the Action in the amount of $4,175,000
in cash (the "Settlement Amount") that, if approved by the Court,
will resolve all claims in the Action (the "Settlement"). The
complete terms of the Settlement are in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, dated April 22, 2021, which can be viewed,
along with other relevant documents, at
www.RestorationRoboticsSettlement.com.
A hearing will be held on September 2, 2021, at 9:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Edward J. Davila of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor,
Robert F. Peckham Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 280
South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113, to determine (i) whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and
described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated
April 22, 2021 (and in the full Notice, defined below), should be
granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for
distribution of the Settlement Amount, and any interest thereon,
less Court-awarded attorneys' fees, Notice and Administration
Expenses, Taxes, and any other costs, fees, or expenses approved by
the Court (the "Net Settlement Fund") should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; and (iv) whether Class Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
litigation expenses should be approved. The Court may change the
date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice.
You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing in order to
receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the Settlement and you may be entitled to share in the Net
Settlement Fund.
This notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. For the precise
terms and conditions of the Settlement, please see the Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement dated April 22, 2021, and full Notice
of Proposed Class Action Settlement, Settlement Hearing, and
Application for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses ("Notice") available
at www.RestorationRoboticsSettlement.com, or by contacting Class
Counsel at the contact information included below, by contacting
the Claims Administrator at the contact information included below,
by accessing the Court docket in this case, for a fee, through the
Court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, or by visiting the office of the
Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Robert F. Peckham Federal Building
& United States Courthouse, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA
95113 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Court holidays.[1]
If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked (for U.S. Mail) or actually received by the
private carrier (for FedEx, UPS, etc.) no later than October 23,
2021. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a timely and
valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, 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 Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion postmarked (for
U.S. Mail) or received by the private carrier (for FedEx, UPS,
etc.) no later than August 5, 2021, in accordance with the
instructions 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 be
eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement.
Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses must be mailed to or filed with the Court
such that it is filed or postmarked no later than August 5, 2021,
in accordance with the instructions in the Notice.
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
Claims Administrator: In re Restoration Robotics, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173128, Milwaukee, WI 53217
Tel: 877-777-9555
Email: info@RestorationRoboticsSettlement.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Class Counsel:
Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
Stamford, CT 06905
Tel: 203-992-4523
Email: shopkins@zlk.com
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS
NOTICE, THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, YOUR ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE SETTLEMENT, OR THE CLAIMS PROCESS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE
CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR OR CLASS COUNSEL.
Dated: July 12, 2021
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
1 The Clerk's Office's hours and public availability may vary due
to ongoing COVID-19 restrictions. You are encouraged to contact the
Clerk's Office at (408) 535-5363 prior to any in-person visit. [GN]
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Viveiros Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital
Services, L.P., et al. The case is styled as Justin Viveiros,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., LVNV Funding, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-11156 (S.D. Cal., July 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Resurgent Capital Services -- https://www.resurgent.com/ -- is a
manager and servicer of domestic and international consumer debt
portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott H. Bernstein, Esq.
SKOLNICK LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
103 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 305
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (203) 246-2887
Email: scott@skolnicklegalgroup.com
RLX TECHNOLOGY: ClaimsFiler Reminds of August 9 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:
RLX Technology Inc. (RLX)
Class Period: Shares issued in connection with the January 2021
initial public stock offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 9, 2021
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-rlx-technology-inc-american-depositary-shares-securities-litigation
Athira Pharma, Inc. (ATHA)
Class Period: 9/18/2020 - 6/17/2021, or purchase of shares issued
either in or after the September 2020 Initial Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 24, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-athira-pharma-inc-securities-litigation
Rocket Companies, Inc. (RKT)
Class Period: 2/25/2021 - 5/5/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 30, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-rocket-companies-inc-securities-litigation
DiDi Global Inc. (DIDI)
Class Period: 6/30/2021 - 7/2/2021, or shares issued pursuant
and/or traceable to the June 2021 Initial Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 7, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-didi-global-inc-securities-litigation-
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.
To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Carrasco Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JUSTINA CARRASCO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC; ROBINHOOD
SECURITIES, LLC; ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 30-2021-01202793, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on July 12,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-05642 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, and violations of 15 and 18 U.S.C., California
Civil Code, and the California Business and Professions Code by
restricting the ability of retail investors to purchase stocks in
the open market.
Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.
Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida.
Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Naeun Rim, Esq.
Craig Rutenberg, Esq.
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 312-4000
Facsimile: (310) 312-4224
E-mail: nrim@manatt.com
crutenberg@manatt.com
- and –
Antony L. Ryan, Esq.
Kevin J. Orsini, Esq.
Brittany L. Sukiennik, Esq.
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
825 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 474-1000
Facsimile: (212) 474-3700
E-mail: aryan@cravath.com
korsini@cravath.com
bsukiennik@cravath.com
RPA ENERGY: McCrane Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Call Ads
--------------------------------------------------------
MEGHAN MCCRANE, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RPA ENERGY
INC. d/b/a GREEN CHOICE ENERGY and AGR GROUP NEVADA, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05884-PGG (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2021) is
a class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Defendant AGR placed calls to the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number 862-281-XXXX on June 8 and
June 14, 2021 in an attempt to promote Defendant RPA's deregulated
energy services. Defendant RPA purportedly relies on telemarketing
to generate new customers through a vendor. The Plaintiff asserts
that she received Defendant AGR's second call, which is a recorded
message, advertising the opportunity to reduce her utility bill. As
a result of the Defendants' alleged unsolicited telemarketing
calls, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals, who
received the same calls from the Defendants, were temporarily
deprived of legitimate use of their phones and their privacy was
invaded.
On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated individuals,
the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendants
from using pre-recorded messages to call individuals, as well as
statutory damages, and other relief that is just and equitable
under the circumstances.
RPA Energy Inc. d/b/a Green Choice Energy is in the energy
marketing business.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Tel: (617) 485-0018
Fax: (508) 318-8100
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
SABOR BORINQUENO: Sulsona Suit Seeks Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Carlos Sulsona, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Sabor Borinqueno, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-22392 (S.D.
Fla., June 30, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
owed, liquidated damages or pre-judgment interest, post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.
Sabor Borinqueno operates as "Mofongo's Restaurant," where
Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid cook. He claims to have worked
more than 40 hours per week during many weeks of his employment,
without being paid the federally mandated wage for overtime. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Norell, Esq.
ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305
Plantation, FL 33317
Telephone: (954) 617-6017
Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
Email: rob@floridawagelaw.com
SCULLY & SCULLY: Pascual Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Scully & Scully, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-05767, (S.D. N.Y., July 6, 2021), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.
Defendant is a home goods company, and owns and operates the
website, www.scullyandscully.com that allows consumers to check out
its home decor and jewelry online. Pascual is legally blind and
claims that said website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: Joseph@cml.legal
SINCERA REPRODUCTIVE: Opris Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SIMONA OPRIS, ADRIAN ADAM, and BRITNEY RICHARDSON,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
SINCERA REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE, formerly known as and operating as
ABINGTON REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE, P.C., Case No. 210502726, was
removed from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on July 9, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-03072 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence, breach of
fiduciary duty, and violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law by failing to protect the
personally identifying information (PII) or protected health
information (PHI) of the Plaintiffs and all other similarly
situated patients following a data breach.
Sincera Reproductive Medicine, formerly known as and operating as
Abington Reproductive Medicine, P.C., is a healthcare services
company based in Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark S. Melodia, Esq.
Nipun J. Patel, Esq.
Paul J. Bond, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Cira Centre, 2929 Arch Street, Suite 800
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Telephone: (215) 252-9500
Facsimile: (215) 867-6070
E-mail: Mark.melodia@hklaw.com
Nipun.patel@hklaw.com
Paul.bond@hklaw.com
SOBE VEGAN: Lucius Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Customers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WINDY LUCIUS and JAMES WATSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SOBE VEGAN, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-22506-JEM (S.D. Fla., July 13, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to interface its
website, https://sobev.com, with software utilized by visually
impaired individuals. As a result, the Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated disabled individuals are deprived of the full
and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations of its place of public accommodation.
The Plaintiffs have allegedly suffered, and continue to suffer,
frustration and humiliation due to the discriminatory conditions
present at the Defendant's website.
Sobe Vegan, LLC is a restaurant owner and operator doing business
in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.
J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC
8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 351-2014
E-mail: cc@cunninghampllc.com
SOUTH UNIVERSITY: Professor Files Class Action Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Chuck, writing for NBC News, reports that a professor
with heart and lung conditions who cannot get vaccinated against
Covid-19 is suing her university, arguing that by forcing her to
work on campus instead of remotely, her employer violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
Dr. Elizabeth Kostal, 48, an associate professor of nursing and
health sciences and the academic program director for the
department of public health and health sciences at South University
in Virginia Beach, has a pacemaker. She said she has barely left
her house since the pandemic began due to the high risk of
complications that the coronavirus poses to her.
She is not eligible to get a Covid-19 shot because she has had
allergic reactions to past vaccines, including myocarditis, an
inflammation of the heart muscle.
Kostal's campus shuttered when the pandemic began. She taught from
home, lecturing to students without the fear that she would
encounter someone on campus who had Covid-19.
But in the spring, despite the fact that most students were still
all-remote, Kostal says her university ordered employees back to
their offices.
She requested to continue to work from home and submitted medical
documentation with her request, according to a legal filing
submitted by her attorneys on July 11, but was told there would be
no exceptions to the return-to-campus policy.
In response to her request, Kostal claims, the human resources
department told her she did not "outline a disability consistent
with an approval for remote work conditions," despite the fact that
she has asthma and chronic heart conditions.
So in April, Kostal said, she put on two masks and headed to her
office, inside a building where she would not be interacting with
students of her own, but where nursing students who came into
potential contact with Covid-19 patients passed through.
"I was literally undergoing an astronomical risk that could end my
life to open up my laptop in my office to teach live, remote
classes to teach my students who were at home," Kostal said in an
exclusive interview to NBC News. "It's an incredulous position to
be placed in by an employer."
Attorneys for Kostal filed a complaint on her behalf on July 11
with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in
anticipation of filing a federal class-action lawsuit for any South
University employees who sought and were denied Covid-19-related
accommodations.
It is unclear how many other South University employees sought such
accommodations, but Kostal's attorneys, who shared the complaint
with NBC News ahead of filing it, say the fact that the school
refused to grant anyone the ability to work from home is a
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits
discrimination against people with documented disabilities in
multiple arenas, including employment.
"Putting aside the reasons why Dr. Kostal is completely able to
work from home and be successful, you can't just make a blanket
determination for all people. The Americans with Disabilities Act
requires an individualized determination," said Christine Hogan, a
partner at Wigdor LLP in New York City, the law firm representing
Kostal.
Kostal's various medical conditions satisfy the legal definition of
a disability, Hogan said, and allowing her to continue to work from
home would not create an undue hardship on South University.
According to Hogan, this means the university has no legal grounds
for not granting Kostal or anyone else with a justified need to
work from home such an accommodation.
Complicating Kostal's situation, Hogan said, is the fact that her
medical conditions also limit her ability to wear masks and lecture
at the same time. Unlike in people with healthy hearts, Kostal
becomes dizzy and lightheaded.
The solution to this is simple, her attorney said.
"The accommodation that would solve the problem is telework —
working from home so she doesn't have to wear a mask while
lecturing," Hogan said.
But South University, which did not return multiple inquiries from
NBC News regarding Kostal's case ahead of the complaint being
filed, did not seem open to that, according to the legal filing.
For five weeks, Kostal worked from her office, fearing for her life
each time she went in.
"I'm being forced to constantly make this decision in my head and
think about these parameters. Is my physical health more important
or my financial health?" she said.
It was only after being contacted by her attorneys that South
University agreed to temporarily allow Kostal to work remotely
again, informing her that the agreement would be re-evaluated every
30 days. The work-from-home arrangement remains temporary, with the
university indicating it would like Kostal to return to campus at
some point.
Kostal is hopeful that in taking legal action, no one else has to
go through similar employment battles on top of the fear they
already live with while feeling particularly vulnerable during the
pandemic.
"This entire experience has been terrifying," she said. "I
shouldn't have to fight so hard to preserve my life." [GN]
SOUTHERN VALLEY FRUIT: Settlement Deal Gets Initial Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESUS BEJINES-GONZALEZ,
ABRAHAAM SAYAGO-HERNANDEZ, MARGARITO OSORIO-JIMENEZ, and LOIDA
OSORIO-JIMENEZ and all others similarly situated, v. SOUTHERN
VALLEY FRUIT & VEGETABLE, INC.; HAMILTON GROWERS, INC.; KENT
HAMILTON; HAMILTON FARMS MEX, L.P.; HAMILTON PRODUCE, L.P.; KENDA
PROPERTIES, L.P.; WK HOLDINGS, LLC; WK MEX PROPERTIES, L.P.; and
WKW, LLC, Case No. 7:19-cv-00055-HL (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Hugh
Lawson entered an order:
1. preliminary approving the Settlement, and preliminarily
finding the terms of the Settlement to be fair, reasonable
and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, including the amount of the settlement
fund; the amount of distributions to class members; non-
monetary relief regarding rehire of the Retaliation
Plaintiffs; the procedure for giving notice to class
members; the procedure for objecting to or opting out of
the Settlement; and the maximum amounts allocated as
additional compensation, costs and attorney's fees;
2. preliminarily certifying for settlement purposes the
Settlement Class described in the Settlement, comprised
of:
"individuals who worked for the Defendants under the terms
of an H-2A visa in a packing facility position during the
period of April 11, 2013 to December 31, 2018;"
3. appointing the Plaintiffs Jesus Bejines-Gonzalez and
Abrahaam Sayago-Hernandez as representatives for the
Settlement Class;
4. appointing Dawson Morton and Patricia Kakalec as counsel
for the Settlement Class;
5. appointing Atticus Administration, LLC as the Settlement
Administrator;
6. directing the Settlement Administrator to provide notice
to class members as set forth in the Settlement;
7. setting the deadlines for members of the Settlement Class
to opt out of the settlement or to object to the
Settlement shall be the date 45 days after the date of
mailing of the class notice by the Settlement
Administrator; and
8. setting a Final Fairness Hearing, at which time the Court
will consider whether the Settlement should be finally
approved as fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and rule on the
motion for attorney's fees, costs and additional payments
as submitted by the Plaintiffs, is scheduled for November
3, 2021.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay their overtime
wages and to reimburse them for their travel expenses.
The Plaintiffs are farm laborers who worked for Defendants. The
parties' Settlement seeks to resolve Plaintiffs' claims under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Migrant Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection Act ("AWPA"), and state common law.
Southern Valley produces crops for food consumptions. The Company
offers a variety of vegetables and fruits.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eApy3P at no extra charge.[CC]
SPECIALIST STAFFING: Silvas Seeks HSE Workers' Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE SILVAS, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SPECIALIST STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a PROGRESSIVE
GLOBAL ENERGY, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00627 (D. New Mexico,
July 8, 2021) is a class and collective action complaint brought
against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico
Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant from November 2018 until
December 31, 2019 as an HSE employee (also called a safe choice
coordinator) in New Mexico and Texas.
The Plaintiff brings complaint asserting that despite regularly
working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant denied him and
other similarly situated HSE workers their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
Instead, they were only paid a flat sum for each day worked
regardless of the number of hours that they worked that day.
Specialist Staffing Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Progressive Global Energy
is a global recruitment company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3250
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
ST. BASIL'S HOMES: Wants to Cut Number of Plaintiffs in COVID Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Cooper, writing for The Age, reports that two aged care homes
in Melbourne's north where a combined 83 residents died in COVID-19
outbreaks want a Supreme Court judge to make a ruling that would
reduce the number of people in a class action against the centres.
Families of some residents who died after contracting COVID-19 at
St Basil's Homes for the Aged in Fawkner and Epping Gardens Aged
Care are part of a group that has launched civil action against the
centres.
Residents who became infected and survived, and their families, are
also part of the class action.
The group and their lawyers allege the homes breached their duty of
care to residents by failing to protect them at the height of
Victoria's deadly outbreak last year, and by failing to implement
measures that would have prevented rapid transmission of the
virus.
But lawyers for the care homes on July 13 told the court there were
differences among some of the plaintiffs based on allegations that
some residents died or fell ill from COVID-19 while others died or
became sick from alleged neglect.
The centres' lawyers want Justice John Dixon to make a ruling that
would effectively separate the two types of allegation. If the
judge backed the centres, the number of plaintiffs in the action
could be reduced, which could in turn reduce the damages paid if
the court ultimately found in favour of the families.
Christopher Caleo, QC, acting for Heritage Care -- the company that
operates Epping Gardens Aged Care -- said there was no common link
between some cases and it was appropriate Justice Dixon removed
them from the class action.
"They appear to be united by nothing more than . . . the fact it
was an approved provider of aged care services," Mr Caleo told a
case management hearing.
He and Patrick Over, for St Basil's Homes for the Aged, said the
claims against the homes were individualised and had to be assessed
to determine exactly how each resident became unwell.
"These are claims of a highly individualistic nature without any
systemic or . . . common thread linking them," Mr Over said.
But Andrew Broadfoot, QC, for the families and surviving residents,
argued it was "artificial" to distinguish between neglect and
COVID-19 cases as both were attributable to the homes' alleged
failings. Some residents had claims to developing COVID-19 from
neglect, he said.
"The COVID allegations and the neglect allegations can't be
separated when there's one duty of care and the breaches of the
duty of care and the breaches of contract led to different
consequences," Mr Broadfoot said. "They all take place in the same
period and at the same facility."
The writs lodged with the court raise questions over whether the
homes provided adequate levels of hygiene and treatment to
residents. In the writ against Epping Gardens, plaintiffs allege
the centre allowed staff and residents to not wear personal
protective equipment, while St Basil's allegedly breached
government guidelines by operating the facility when people's lives
were in danger.
The lead plaintiff against St Basil's is Effie Fotiadis, whose
79-year-old father, Dimitrios, died on July 25 last year in
hospital after contracting COVID-19 at the home.
In the class action against Epping Gardens, the lead plaintiff is
Sebastian Agnello, who alleges the centre failed to place his
92-year-old mother, Carmela, in isolation to protect her. Ms
Agnello died last July 28, a week after health authorities
acknowledged an outbreak at the home.
Justice Dixon will make his ruling at a later date.
An independent review of the outbreaks at Epping Gardens, where 45
residents died, and St Basil's, where 38 lives were lost, found
both facilities had poor emergency planning, inadequate staff
training and insufficient infection prevention and control
procedures.
State Coroner John Cain is also investigating the St Basil's
outbreak. [GN]
TAQUERIA GRAMERCY: Portillo Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Dishwashers
------------------------------------------------------------------
MAURILLIO PORTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAQUERIA GRAMERCY, LLC, d/b/a
TAQUERIA GRAMERCY, TAQUERIA DOWNTOWN CATERING CO., LOS CUERNOS, and
TAQUERIA ST. MARKS PLACE; ANDREA BARRAZA a/k/a ANDREA AZPEITIA; and
PHILLIP BARRAZA, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05988 (S.D.N.Y., July
13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law
including failure to pay overtime, failure to pay minimum wage,
failure to provide annual wage notices, and failure to provide wage
statements.
The Plaintiff worked primarily as a dishwasher at Taqueria Gramercy
located at 218 3rd Avenue, New York, New York from approximately
August 2018 through June 22, 2021.
Taqueria Gramercy, LLC, doing business as Taqueria Gramercy,
Taqueria Downtown Catering Co., Los Cuernos and Taqueria St. Marks
Place, is a restaurant owner and operator located at 218 3rd
Avenue, New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 323-6980
TARGET CORPORATION: Heyday Charging Cable "Defective," Bayne Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIEKE BAYNE and ALYSSA HART, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-05938 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for fraudulent omission, unjust
enrichment, breach of implied warranty, and violations of the New
York General Business Law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's manufacturing, marketing, and
sale of the Heyday Charging Cable with a design defect. The defect
causes the product to break or otherwise stop producing a battery
charge after approximately one week of normal use. This is caused
by the plug breaking off the cable, the plug overheating and
becoming unusable, and/or the wires inside the cable breaking. Had
the Plaintiffs been aware of the defect, they would not have
purchased the product, or would have paid significantly less for
it, the suit says.
Target Corporation is an American retail corporation headquartered
in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com
- and –
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
TD BANK: Chakraborty Sues Over Improper Foreign Exchange Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------
KRISHNENDU CHAKRABORTY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TD BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-13492-RMB-AMD (D.N.J., July 9, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of contract, contractual breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations
of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act and the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's improper practice of applying
foreign exchange rates to cardholder transactions that do not
represent rates available in the wholesale foreign exchange market
as stated in the credit cardholder and deposit account agreements.
Based on the language of their credit card agreements, cardholders
reasonably expect that the member banks are charging wholesale
rates that bear some resemblance to the rates that the processors
and the banks themselves receive because the processors and banks
are themselves transacting in foreign currencies to facilitate the
cardholders' transactions. In fact, however, the banks and
processors rarely engage in wholesale market transactions to
facilitate the cardholders' transactions. Through its affirmative
misrepresentations and omissions, the Defendant actively concealed
from the Plaintiff and Class members that the exchange rates
imposed were not a wholesale market rate, alleges the suit.
TD Bank, N.A. is an American national bank, headquartered in Cherry
Hill, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
jpolakoff@bm.net
- and –
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5933
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
TEXAS: Whole Woman's Sues Over Enforcement of Texas Senate Bill 8
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH, on behalf of itself, its staff, physicians,
nurses, and patients; ALAMO CITY SURGERY CENTER PLLC d/b/a ALAMO
WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES, on behalf of itself, its staff,
physicians, nurses, and patients; BROOKSIDE WOMEN'S MEDICAL CENTER
PA d/b/a BROOKSIDE WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER AND AUSTIN WOMEN'S HEALTH
CENTER, on behalf of itself, its staff, physicians, nurses, and
patients; HOUSTON WOMEN'S CLINIC, on behalf of itself, its staff,
physicians, nurses, and patients; HOUSTON WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE
SERVICES, on behalf of itself, its staff, physicians, nurses, and
patients; PLANNED PARENTHOOD CENTER FOR CHOICE, on behalf of
itself, its staff, physicians, nurses, and patients; PLANNED
PARENTHOOD OF GREATER TEXAS SURGICAL HEALTH SERVICES, on behalf of
itself, its staff, physicians, nurses, and patients; PLANNED
PARENTHOOD SOUTH TEXAS SURGICAL CENTER, on behalf of itself, its
staff, physicians, nurses, and patients; SOUTHWESTERN WOMEN'S
SURGERY CENTER, on behalf of itself, its staff, physicians, nurses,
and patients; WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE, on behalf of itself,
its staff, physicians, nurses, and patients; ALLISON GILBERT, M.D.,
on behalf of herself and her patients; BHAVIK KUMAR, M.D., on
behalf of himself and his patients; THE AFIYA CENTER, on behalf of
itself and its staff; FRONTERA FUND, on behalf of itself and its
staff; FUND TEXAS CHOICE, on behalf of itself and its staff; JANE'S
DUE PROCESS, on behalf of itself and its staff; LILITH FUND, on
behalf of itself and its staff; NORTH TEXAS EQUAL ACCESS FUND, on
behalf of itself and its staff; REVEREND ERIKA FORBES; REVEREND
DANIEL KANTER; and MARVA SADLER, Plaintiffs v. AUSTIN REEVE
JACKSON, in his official capacity as Judge of the 114th District
Court, and on behalf of a class of all Texas judges similarly
situated; PENNY CLARKSTON, in her official capacity as Clerk for
the District Court of Smith County, and on behalf of a class of all
Texas court clerks similarly situated; MARK LEE DICKSON; STEPHEN
BRINT CARLTON, in his official capacity as Executive Director of
the Texas Medical Board; KATHERINE A. THOMAS, in her official
capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Board of Nursing;
CECILE ERWIN YOUNG, in her official capacity as Executive
Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission;
ALLISON VORDENBAUMEN BENZ, in her official capacity as Executive
Director of the Texas Board of Pharmacy; and KEN PAXTON, in his
official capacity as Attorney General of Texas, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00616 (W.D. Tex., July 13, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of rights under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
In this class suit, the Plaintiffs seek to declare the Texas Senate
Bill 8 unconstitutional due to its prohibition of abortion at
approximately six weeks in pregnancy. The Senate Bill 8 purports to
bar government defendants such as the attorney general, local
prosecutors, and the health department from directly enforcing the
law's terms. Instead, it deputizes private citizens to enforce the
law, allowing any person other than government officials to bring a
civil lawsuit against anyone who provides an abortion, aids or
abets such an abortion, or intends to do these things. The
transparent purpose of the bill's enforcement scheme was to make it
so that abortion providers and people who assist abortions could
not sue government officials for an injunction to block the law
before it takes effect, the suit says.
Whole Woman's Health is an operator of licensed abortion facilities
in Texas.
Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, d/b/a Alamo Women's Reproductive
Services, is an operator of a licensed ambulatory surgical center
in San Antonio, Texas.
Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, d/b/a Brookside Women's Health
Center and Austin Women's Health Center, is an operator of a
licensed abortion facility in Austin, Texas.
Houston Women's Clinic is a provider of medication and procedural
abortions and contraceptive care at its licensed abortion facility
in Houston, Texas.
Houston Women's Reproductive Services is an operator of a licensed
abortion facility in Houston, Texas.
Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services is a
not-for-profit corporation headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center is a not-for-profit
corporation headquartered in San Antonio, Texas.
Planned Parenthood Center for Choice is a not-for-profit
corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas.
Southwestern Women's Surgery Center is an operator of a licensed
ambulatory surgical center in Dallas, Texas.
Whole Woman's Health Alliance is a Texas not-for-profit
corporation.
The Afiya Center is a nonprofit organization incorporated in Texas
and based in Dallas.
Frontera Fund is a nonprofit organization incorporated in Texas.
Fund Texas Choice is a nonprofit organization incorporated in
Texas.
Jane's Due Process is a nonprofit organization incorporated in
Texas and based in Austin.
Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity is a nonprofit organization
incorporated in Texas.
North Texas Equal Access Fund is a nonprofit organization
incorporated in Texas and based in Dallas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christen Mason Hebert, Esq.
JOHNS & HEBERT PLLC
2028 East Ben White Blvd.
Suite 240-1000
Austin, TX 78741
Telephone: (512) 399-3150
E-mail: chebert@johnshebert.com
- and –
Marc Hearron, Esq.
CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
1634 Eye St., NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 524-5539
E-mail: mhearron@reprorights.org
- and –
Molly Duane, Esq.
Kirby Tyrrell, Esq.
Melanie Fontes, Esq.
CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
199 Water Street, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (917) 637-3631
E-mail: mduane@reprorights.org
ktyrrell@reprorights.org
mfontes@reprorights.org
- and –
Jamie A. Levitt, Esq.
J. Alexander Lawrence, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
250 W. 55th Street
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 468-8000
E-mail: jlevitt@mofo.com
alawrence@mofo.com
- and –
Julie Murray, Esq.
Richard Muniz, Esq.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA
1110 Vermont Ave., NW Ste. 300
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 973-4997
E-mail: julie.murray@ppfa.org
richard.muniz@ppfa.org
- and –
Julia Kaye, Esq.
Brigitte Amiri, Esq.
Chelsea Tejada, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2633
E-mail: jkaye@aclu.org
bamiri@aclu.org
ctejada@aclu.org
- and –
Lorie Chaiten, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
1640 North Sedgwick Street
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (212) 549-2633
E-mail: rfp_lc@aclu.org
- and –
Adriana Pinon, Esq.
David Donatti, Esq.
Andre Segura, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION OF TEXAS, INC.
5225 Katy Freeway, Suite 350
Houston, TX 77007
Telephone: (713) 942-8146
Facsimile: (713) 942-8966
E-mail: apinon@aclutx.org
ddonatti@aclutx.org
asegura@aclutx.org
- and –
Stephanie Toti, Esq.
LAWYERING PROJECT
41 Schermerhorn Street #1056
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (646) 490-1083
E-mail: stoti@lawyeringproject.org
- and –
Rupali Sharma, Esq.
LAWYERING PROJECT
197 Pine Street, Apt. 23
Portland, ME 04102
Telephone: (908) 930-6445
E-mail: rsharma@lawyeringproject.org
TMT HOLDINGS: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TMT Holdings Corp, et
al. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TMT Holdings Corp, Does
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-05747 (C.D. Cal., July
15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
TMT Holdings Corp. principal activity is that of property
rental.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
TOLL GLOBAL: C.D. California Dismisses Marquez Suit With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLOS MARQUEZ, an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOLL GLOBAL FORWARDING
(USA) INC.; TGF MANAGEMENT GROUP HOLDCO INC.; INSPERITY EXPENSE
MANAGEMENT, INC.; EDDIE RODRIGUEZ; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02667-ODW (ASx) (C.D.
Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright, II, of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.
On Sept. 26, 2018, Plaintiff Marquez initiated the representative
action under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), California
Labor Code section 2698 et seq., against Defendants Toll Global
Forwarding (USA) Inc., TGF Management Group Holdco Inc., and
Insperity Expense Management, Inc.
At the heart of the matter is an employment dispute between Marquez
and the Defendants, his former employers. The Defendants provide
freighting and logistics services and operates facilities in
California. They employed Marquez as a non-exempt, hourly-paid
truck driver. Marquez alleges the Defendants required him and
others to "work off the clock," failed to pay wages due for all
hours worked, failed to reimburse him and others for necessary
business expenditures, and failed to provide accurate and itemized
wage statements.
Mr. Marquez sued the Defendants in two separate actions, the first
framed as a putative class action and the second as PAGA only.
Marquez filed the putative class action first, on Feb. 13, 2018, in
Los Angeles County Superior Court. The Defendants removed the
Class Complaint to the Court and moved to dismiss. On June 28,
2018, the Court granted the Defendants' motion and dismissed the
Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. On Aug. 3, 2018, Marquez
appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Just over a month later, on Sept. 26, 2018, Marquez filed the PAGA
action in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The Defendants again
removed to the Court. On May 1, 2019, the Court stayed proceedings
related to the PAGA action pending the Ninth Circuit's disposition
of the Class Complaint appeal.
On May 6, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision, affirming
judgment in favor of the Defendants and dismissal of Marquez's
Class Complaint in its entirety. The parties stipulated to lift
the stay in the PAGA action and permit Marquez to amend his
complaint, as he conceded the Ninth Circuit's decision barred
several of his claims.
In his FAC, Marquez asserts four causes of action for PAGA
violations: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to reimburse
necessary expenditures; failure to pay wages due upon termination;
and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements. The
Defendants now move to dismiss Marquez's claims pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Discussion
The Defendants argue res judicata, also known as claim preclusion,
bars Marquez's PAGA wage-and-hour claims. Res judicata bars
lawsuits based on "any claims that were raised or could have been
raised in a prior action." Res judicata applies to bar a suit
where there is "(1) an identity of claims; (2) a final judgment on
the merits; and (3) identity or privity between parties."
As all elements of res judicata are present, Judge Wright holds
that Marquez's claims are barred. Although the Defendants also
raise arguments based on impermissible claim splitting and
preemption, the determination that res judicata applies is
dispositive, making it unnecessary to consider other grounds for
dismissal. The PAGA suit is merely a second attempt to litigate
issues previously determined and Marquez is rightfully barred from
attempting to do so. As such, any effort to cure the identified
deficiencies would be futile and dismissal with prejudice is
appropriate.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated, Judge Wright granted the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss, and dismissed with prejudice Marquez's claims.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/wrk5ps74 from Leagle.com.
TRINITY AUTOMOTIVE: Wilson Slams Deceptive Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Trinity Automotive Lender Network,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-01138 (C.D. Cal., June 30, 2021), seeks
injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all other
relief for violation of the Unfair Competition Law, False
Advertising Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Trinity is engaged in the automotive refinancing industry. It
represented to its consumers that if customers utilize their
refinancing services, they would get $1,000.00 cash back, as well
as a 60-day grace period of no payments. Wilson refinanced with
Trinity but the latter refused to honor the $1,000.00 cash back
that was advertised and required him to make payments immediately
despite the promise of 60 days without payments. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
TSW FABRICATION: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Mallory et al. Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
QUARTAVIOUS MALLORY and FREDERIC JOHNSON, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TSW FABRICATION
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00103-GNS (W.D. Ky., July 8,
2021) bring this complaint as a collective action against the
Defendant seeking to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Mallory was employed by the Defendant as an iron worker
from approximately August 2020 to April 2021, while Plaintiff
Johnson was employed as a welder from approximately September 2020
to June 8, 2021.
The Plaintiffs allege that although the Defendant changed its meal
break policy to provide only a 30-minute meal break, the Defendant
has been improperly and automatically deducting one-hour meal break
from their paychecks when only 30-minute meal break was provided
each workday.
TSW Fabrication Inc. owns and operates a steel construction
business that specializes in fabrication, design, and erection.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza, 414 Union St., Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Tel: (615) 244-2202
Fax: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
TURBOTENANT: Sandofsky FCRA Suit Moved From New Jersey to Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW SANDOFSKY, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. TURBOTENANT, a
corporation, Defendant, Civil Action No. 21-395 (CCC) (D.N.J.),
Magistrate Judge Mark Falk of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted the Defendant's motion to transfer
venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).
The matter is an action brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681, et seq. The Defendant claims
that the case should be venued in Colorado because of a forum
selection clause. The Plaintiff counters that the case should
proceed in New Jersey because the forum selection clause is part of
an unenforceable contract of adhesion and because New Jersey has a
strong local interest in the case.
Pro se Plaintiff Sandofsky is a citizen of Massachusetts.
Defendant TurboTenant is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Fort Collins, Colorado. TurboTenant provides
online property management software for landlords and tenants
across the country including marketing of rental properties, tenant
screening, online rental payments and application processing for
prospective tenants.
The Plaintiff alleges that TurboTenant violated the FCRA when it
transmitted a consumer report generated by TransUnion and
containing allegedly inaccurate information to a prospective
landlord in New Jersey. According to the Plaintiff, on Aug. 8,
2019, after he completed TurboTenant's online rental application
found on its Website, TurboTenant "generated a consumer report"
which compiled information from various sources. TurboTenant
transmitted the report to a prospective landlord which it used to
evaluate whether to enter into a lease with the Plaintiff for a
rental property located in New Jersey. The report allegedly
contained "injurious inaccuracies" which the Plaintiff claims
TurboTenant refused to correct. The Plaintiff claims that
TurboTenant advised him that if he wanted to dispute the
information used to create the report, he would need to contact the
source, TransUnion, which provided the alleged inaccurate
information.
According to TurboTenant, at the time the Plaintiff signed up to
use TurboTenant's services, the Plaintiff agreed to be bound by the
Terms of Use appearing on TurboTenant's website. When filling out
a rental application on the Website, potential tenants must click a
"Get Started" button, which is directly above a notice that states
"By clicking the button above you are agreeing to our Application
Authorization Policy, Terms of Use, & Privacy Policy." The Terms
of Use contain a forum selection clause that requires any legal
proceedings against TurboTenant to be brought exclusively in the
state or federal courts in Denver, Colorado.
The Plaintiff filed a putative class action Complaint on Jan. 6,
2021, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals,
asserting a violation of the FCRA.
On April 13, 2021, TurboTenant filed the present motion to transfer
the case to the U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). In support of transfer, TurboTenant
argues that the forum selection clause to which the Plaintiff
agreed is valid and enforceable, and that the case should be
transferred to the contractually agreed upon venue. The Defendant
contends that the Supreme Court's Opinion in Atlantic Marine Const.
Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for the W.D. of Tex., 134 S.Ct. 568 (2013),
requires transfer of the case to Colorado.
The Plaintiff opposes transfer asserting essentially two arguments:
(1) that New Jersey has a strong local interest in the case, and
(2) that TurboTenant's Terms of Service constitute an unenforceable
contract of adhesion.
Decision
Judge Falk opines that the issue before the Court is clearly guided
by Atlantic Marine. He says there is a forum selection agreement
stating that "any legal proceedings against TurboTenant that may
arise out of, relate to, or be in any way connected with the
Website or the Terms will be brought exclusively in the state or
federal courts located in Denver, Colorado, and the applicant
waives any venue objections to such courts." The Plaintiff has
filed an action alleging a single cause of action for violation of
the FCRA. Absent compelling circumstances unrelated to the private
interests of the parties, this matter must be transferred to
Colorado. Such circumstances are not present in the case.
On the record presented, Judge Falk finds the forum selection
clause to be valid and enforceable. First, the Plaintiff argues
that the Terms of Use are an unenforceable contract of adhesion
essentially because a prospective renter cannot decline a
background check by an agency of the landlord's choosing.
The Judge opines that the landlord's prerogative of choosing the
Defendant's online application process as a condition of rental of
its property does not make its Terms of Use a contract of adhesion.
Nor does the inclusion of a forum selection clause make the
agreement invalid. Quite to the contrary, forum selection clauses
are routinely included in all sorts of agreements, and are
considered to be prima facie valid and enforceable.
The Judge does not find Plaintiff's argument persuasive or a ground
upon which to find the forum selection clause invalid. He says the
Plaintiff's argument is insufficient to overcome the presumption
that the forum selection clause is prima facie valid and should be
enforced.
Having concluded that the forum selection clause is valid, the
Judge turns to the public interest factors to determine whether
they offset the "strong presumption in favor of enforcing
forum-selection clauses." The Plaintiff advances a single argument
with respect to the public interest factors -- that the case should
remain in New Jersey because the state has a strong local interest
in deciding the case.
The Judge finds this argument unpersuasive. He says New Jersey
have an interest in regulating any alleged wrongdoing by a New
Jersey company, as TurboTenant is a citizen of Colorado.
Essentially, the matter has little, if anything, to do with New
Jersey. More importantly, the parties agreed that Colorado law
would govern the Terms of Use. Thus, Colorado law would likely
apply in interpreting any arbitration provision regardless of where
the case is venued.
Finally, the public interest factor of court congestion also weighs
in favor of transfer. Official Court statistics maintained by the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts indicate that New Jersey
is one of the busiest Districts, and that New Jersey's weighted
case average is heavier than Colorado's. Therefore, a transfer to
the District of Colorado may permit the matter to proceed to
resolution more quickly.
On balance, the public interest factors decidedly favor venue in
Colorado.
Decision
In sum, Judge Falk concludes that the District of Colorado is the
most appropriate forum for litigation of the case. For the reasons
he stated, the Defendant's motion to transfer venue to the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado is granted. The
Clerk's Office will take no action on transfer of this case for 14
days. A separate Order accompanies the Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/vsauvj9a from Leagle.com.
UBIQUITI INC: Berger Montague Reminds of July 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Berger Montague reminds investors of the upcoming deadline of July
19, 2021 for investors to seek lead plaintiff status in a
securities fraud class action against Ubiquiti Inc. ("Ubiquiti" or
the "Company") on behalf of investors who purchased Ubiquiti
securities (NYSE: UI) between January 11, 2021 and March 30, 2021
(the "Class Period").
If you purchased Ubiquiti securities during the Class Period, have
questions concerning your rights or interests, or would like to
discuss Berger Montague's investigation, please contact attorneys
Andrew Abramowitz at aabramowitz@bm.net or (215) 875-3015, or
Donnell Much at dmuch@bm.net or (215) 875-4667, or visit
www.bergermontague.com/ubiquiti.
Whistleblowers: Anyone with non-public information regarding
ContextLogic is encouraged to confidentially assist Berger
Montague's investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower
program. Under this program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to thirty percent (30%)
of recoveries obtained by the SEC. For more information, contact
us.
Ubiquiti, headquartered in New York, develops platforms for
high-capacity Internet access, unified information technology, and
consumer electronics. A recently filed lawsuit accuses the Company
and its senior management of failing to speak candidly to investors
about a January 2021 data breach. The suit claims that defendants
downplayed the data breach, through which the attackers obtained
access to Ubiquiti's servers and to users' credentials, and as a
result, the attackers could remotely access Ubiquiti's customers'
systems.
Investors learned the truth on March 30, 2021, when noted security
expert Krebs on Security published an article entitled
"Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach 'Catastrophic,'" which accused
Ubiquiti of downplaying the January data breach and criticized its
response to the breach. The article noted that the Company should
have immediately invalidated customers' credentials and forced a
reset, rather than asking customers to change their passwords. On
this news, the Company's stock price fell $50.70 - or 14.5% - to
close at $298.30 per share on March 31, 2021.
Berger Montague, with offices in Philadelphia, Minneapolis,
Washington, D.C., and San Diego, has been a pioneer in securities
class action litigation since its founding in 1970. Berger Montague
has represented individual and institutional investors for over
five decades and serves as lead counsel in courts throughout the
United States.
Contacts
Andrew Abramowitz, Senior Counsel
Berger Montague
(215) 875-3015
aabramowitz@bm.net
Donnell Much, Associate
Berger Montague
(215) 875-4667
dmuch@bm.net [GN]
UNITED SERVICES: Dolan Sues Over Disclosure of Private Information
------------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT DOLAN, individually and on behalf of a class similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-05813 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2021) brings
this class complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act.
The Plaintiff asserts that he received a form letter from the
Defendant on June 2, 2021 informing him that an unknown person was
allowed by the Defendant to access the Plaintiff's non-public
personal information that had stored on the Defendant's website
www.usaa.com. The unknown person used the Plaintiff's private
information to open a USAA membership in the Plaintiff's name
without his consent.
The complaint further contends that there were other similarly
situated persons who had their driver's license information taken
from the data files of USAA without the permission that is in
violation of the DPPA. Thus, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff seeks liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court deems just
and proper.
United Services Automobile Association is a bank holding company
that sells automobile insurance in New York State. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 983-1300
Fax: (212) 983-0383
E-mail: gegleston@gme-law.com
tjmckenna@gme-law.com
UNITED STATES: District of Columbia Court Dismisses Hamilton Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEANDRE LAMONT HAMILTON, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 19-1105 (RDM)
(D.D.C.), Judge Randolph D. Moss of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia granted the government's motion to dismiss and
dismissed the Plaintiff's claims against the United States.
On May 19, 2016, Wayne Wright, a criminal defendant out on pretrial
release, murdered Dana Hamilton. Although Wright was prosecuted
for the crime, Plaintiff DeAndre Hamilton, as the personal
representative of Dana Hamilton's estate, alleges in the case that
the United States government bears some responsibility for not
preventing the killing. At the time Wright shot Dana Hamilton, the
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency ("CSOSA") was
supposed to be tracking Wright's whereabouts using a GPS monitor.
But the government contractor responsible for attaching the
tracking device to Wright's body, Sentinel Offender Services, LLC,
mistakenly fastened it to Wright's prosthetic leg. Leaving the
tracked prosthesis at home, Wright traveled undetected to an area
he was under a court order to avoid and, there, murdered Dana
Hamilton.
In his original complaint, the Plaintiff asserted claims against
the United States, CSOSA, Sentinel, and John Does 1-5 for
negligently installing the tracking device and thereby causing Dana
Hamilton's death. The United States and CSOSA moved to dismiss on
several grounds. In an earlier opinion, the Court granted the
federal Defendants' motion to dismiss because sovereign immunity
barred suit against those Defendants. The Court held, in
particular, that the limited waiver of sovereign immunity contained
in the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") did not permit the
Plaintiff's claims against CSOSA because the FTCA does not waive
sovereign immunity for suits against federal agencies. Likewise,
the FTCA did not permit the Plaintiff's claims against the United
States because, although the FTCA allows certain claims against the
United States, it does not waive sovereign immunity for claims
premised on the negligence of independent contractors.
Following the Court's decision, on Dec. 7, 2020, the Plaintiff
filed a motion to amend, dropping his claims against CSOSA while
seeking to add a new claim alleging that the United States was
negligent in its decisions to retain Sentinel. The United States
opposed the motion to amend on the ground that the new claim would
be barred by additional exceptions to the FTCA and that, in any
event, the new claim failed on the merits.
At a hearing on that motion, the Court (with the parties' consent)
granted the motion to amend but construed the government's
opposition as a motion to dismiss. In a new Count IV, the amended
complaint asserts that the United States "had or should have had
knowledge of Defendant Sentinel's unfitness to perform its
contractually obligated duties," in light of the company's "history
of negligence and of being sued for alleged impropriety, including
not properly monitoring offenders and providing faulty monitoring
equipment."
The amended complaint details several past accusations of
wrongdoing and incompetence against Sentinel and alleges that,
despite the controversy surrounding the company, the Pretrial
Services Agency ("PSA") awarded Sentinel a contract to provide
electronic monitoring services and equipment for pretrial and
probationary defendants and then renewed that contract year after
year. Finally, the amended complaint avers that approximately
2,800 plaintiffs have filed a class-action suit against Sentinel in
Georgia for allegedly using coercive tactics, such as threats of
additional jail time, to extract money from probationers.
Discussion
The United States moves to dismiss on several grounds. At the
threshold, the government argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction
over the Plaintiffs' negligent hiring claim based on the
intentional-tort and discretionary-function exceptions to the FTCA.
Then, on the merits, the government argues that the amended
complaint does not adequately allege that the United States owed a
duty to Dana Hamilton. In the alternative, the government contends
that, even if it did owe a duty of care to Dana Hamilton, the
amended complaint does not adequately allege a breach of that
duty.
Judge Moss concludes that a federal agency's selection of which
contractor to hire involves an element of choice. The Plaintiff's
suggestion to the contrary strains credulity. Understandably, the
Plaintiff disagrees with the government's conclusion that Sentinel
is a responsible contractor, but the discretionary-function
exception shields "even government abuses of discretion."
To be sure, certain aspects of the FAR appear to create
non-discretionary duties. For instance, under the regulations, no
purchase or award will be made unless the contracting officer makes
an affirmative determination of responsibility. The Juduge may
assume, for present purposes, that the complete failure to make
that required determination could, in certain circumstances,
constitute the negligent dereliction of a non-discretionary duty
that could give rise to liability under the FTCA. But, he says,
the Plaintiff does not identify -- in either his complaint or his
opposition to the motion to dismiss -- any specific
non-discretionary duty that PSA violated when assessing whether to
award a contract to Sentinel.
In the absence of such an allegation, PSA's overall contracting
decision involved an element of choice and the
discretionary-function exception bars the Plaintiff's negligent
hiring claim. The Court thus lacks jurisdiction over that claim
and will, accordingly, grant the government's motion to dismiss.
Conclusion
Because the Plaintiff's new claim again falls within an exception
to the FTCA -- this time, the discretionary-function exception --
Judge Moss granted the government's motion to dismiss and dismissed
the Plaintiff's claims against the United States. By July 21,
2021, the Plaintiff will file proof of service on Sentinel or will
establish good cause for his failure to effect service. If the
Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will dismiss the Plaintiff's
claims against Sentinel without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 4(m).
A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bfypdw97 from
Leagle.com.
USATESTPREP LLC: Pascual Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. USATESTPREP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-05774, (S.D. N.Y., July 6, 2021), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.
Defendant is a test preparation company, and owns and operates the
website, www.usatestprep.com that allows consumers to check out its
course offerings online. Pascual is legally blind and claims that
said website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: Joseph@cml.legal
VERIZON CONNECT: Santillan Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to S.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANTONIO HIRAM SANTILLAN, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. VERIZON CONNECT, INC. and DOES 1
to 100, inclusive, Case No. 37-2021-00023317-CU-OE-CTL, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California on July 12, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01257-BAS-KSC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages at the legal overtime
pay rate, failure to provide all meal periods, failure to pay all
wages, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to timely
furnish accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair business
practices.
Verizon Connect, Inc. is a software company headquartered in
Georgia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Carrie A. Gonell, Esq.
Nancy Nguyen, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 830-0600
Facsimile: (714) 830-0700
E-mail: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com
nancy.nguyen@morganlewis.com
WALMART ASSOCIATES: Nevada Court Enters Deadlines in Nelson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, having reviewed the amended joint case
management report, entered the following deadlines in the case,
CHRISTOPHER NELSON, Plaintiff v. WALMART ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-CV-0066-MMD-CLB (D. Nev.):
a. Initial disclosures: July 20, 2021;
b. Motions for Conditional Collective and Class Action
Certification: Sept. 1, 2021; Oppositions: Oct. 1, 2021;
Replies: Oct. 15, 2021; and
c. Precertification Discovery Deadline: Nov. 3, 2021.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3jnts5py from Leagle.com.
WALMART INC: Faces Peyton Suit Over Harmful Oil-Free Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
CAITLIN PEYTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. WALMART, INC., Case No. 7:21-cv-05880 (S.D.N.Y., July
8, 2021) is a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers
of Equate Oil-Free cosmetic products against the Defendant for harm
caused by the Defendant's deceptive, improper or unlawful conduct
in the design, marketing, manufacturing, distribution, and/or sale
of its Oil-Free Products.
According to the complaint, the labeling and packaging of the
Oil-Free Products contains false and misleading "oil-free" claims
(the Oil-Free Claims). This misleads consumers into believing that
the Oil-Free Products contain no oil or oil-inclusive ingredients
even though the Oil-Free products actually do include oil or
oil-inclusive ingredients. By doing so, the Defendant is able to
charge a substantial price premium for its Oil-Free Products on
account of the false and misleading Oil-Free Claims.
Oil-Free cosmetics are desired by consumers because "oil-free"
products purportedly nourish and renew skin without clogging pores,
causing breakouts, or making consumers' skin visibly oily.
The Defendant has allegedly engaged in widespread and deceptive
advertising of the Oil-Free Products by claiming they are
"oil-free." However, contrary to Defendant's representations, the
Oil-Free Products do, in fact, contain oil.
The Plaintiff, the Class, and Subclass Members purchased Oil-Free
Products designed, marketed manufactured, distributed, and sold by
Defendant as "oil-free." Further Plaintiff, the Class, and Subclass
Members relied to their detriment on Defendant's representation
that the Oil-Free Product are "oil-free." The Plaintiff and Class
and Subclass Members would not have paid to purchase Defendant's
Oil-Free Products -- or would not have paid as much as they did to
purchase them -- had they known that they are not, in fact,
"oil-free". Plaintiff and Class and Subclass Members thus suffered
monetary damages as a result of Defendant's deceptive and false
representations.
Plaintiff Caitlin Peyton is a citizen of New York, residing in
Westbrookville, New York. In October 2019, Plaintiff Peyton
purchased Equate Oil-Free Moisturizer for her personal use for
approximately $6.27 from Walmart in Middletown, New York.
Walmart is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business in
Little Rock Arkansas. Walmart manufactures, sells, and/or
distributes Equate-brand products, and is responsible for the
advertising, marketing, trade dress, and packaging of the Oil-Free
Products. Walmart manufactured, marketed, and sold the Oil-Free
Products during the class period.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
WELLS FARGO: McCraner Slams Involvement in Health Supplement Scam
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John McCraner, Sharon Stiansen, Janet Pollard, Michael Darlington,
Susan R. Landreau, John N. Tuffield, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wells Fargo & Company and
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01246, (S.D.
Cal., July 8, 2021), seeks to recover damages suffered as a result
of Wells Fargo's provision of substantial assistance to three
multi-million-dollar allegedly fraudulent schemes perpetrated by
the former operators of Triangle Media Corporation, Apex Capital
Group and Tarr Inc. The complaint seeks to recover money to
benefit consumers who were defrauded into paying money to the
Triangle, Apex, and Tarr Enterprises' accounts at Wells Fargo by
imposing liability on Wells Fargo as a knowing aider and abettor
and co-conspirator pursuant to the California Penal Code and the
California Business and Professions Code.
Between 2017 to 2018, Triangle, Apex Enterprises and Tarr
Enterprise ran similar, though separate, Internet risk-free trial
schemes marketing dozens of products, most of which were personal
care products and dietary supplements that purported to promote
enhanced weight loss, hair growth, clear skin, muscle development,
sexual performance, and cognitive abilities where consumers were
offered "free" trials of the products for "just the cost of
shipping and handling," around $4.95. Consumers claimed that after
signing up for the "trial," they were charged the full price of the
product and enrolled in continuity programs, which continued to
ship products on a monthly basis--charging the consumer $90 each
time.
According to the complaint, Wells Fargo bank accounts were used to
secure accounts with merchant processors in order to accept
consumers' credit and debit card payments. Plaintiffs accuse Wells
Fargo of processing credit card transactions through other
companies' merchant accounts, or "credit card laundering." [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq.
Garth A. Spencer, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
Email: info@glancylaw.com
WOOD GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Iannotti Suit Denied Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRIS IANNOTTI, individually and for others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WOOD GROUP MUSTANG, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-958-DWD (S.D. Ill.), Judge David W. Dugan of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied the
Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.
Plaintiff Iannotti, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, brings the complaint against Defendant Wood Group
Mustang, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"). The Plaintiff seeks to
bring the FLSA claim as a nationwide collective action under 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b), and the Illinois-law claims as a class
action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's FLSA claim for a
lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(2). It does not seriously dispute the Court's
personal jurisdiction over the claims brought by the named
Plaintiff, Iannoti, but instead contends that the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over potential claims brought by employees
who did not live or work in Illinois ("out-of-state opt-ins").
When challenged, the Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing
personal jurisdiction.
Where, in the case, the Court rules on a motion to dismiss "based
on the submission of written materials without holding an
evidentiary hearing, the Plaintiff 'need only make out a prima
facie case of personal jurisdiction.'" Further, the Court takes as
true all well-plead facts in the Complaint and resolves any factual
disputes in the Plaintiff's favor.
As alleged in the Plaintiff's Complaint, the Plaintiff filed suit
against the Defendant for its alleged failure to pay overtime
compensation. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is an
international organization operating around the world, and in
states across the country, including Illinois. While employed by
the Defendant, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Arkansas,
Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri. The Plaintiff alleges that he,
and others similarly situated, worked as day rate employees of
Defendant, and were paid a flat amount for each day worked,
regardless of the number of hours worked. As a result of this "day
rate scheme," the Plaintiff was not paid overtime compensation for
hours worked over 40 in a work week.
On June 1, 2021, the Court held a hearing on the Defendant's
Motion. At the hearing, the Court denied Defendant's motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim. It took the remaining
arguments under advisement.
Analysis
The Defendant compares the Plaintiff's FLSA claims to the
collective action in Bristol-Myers and argues that the party status
of the non-Illinois opt-ins requires each potential opt-in
plaintiff to establish personal jurisdiction over their claims
against the Defendant. Specifically, it argues that because the
non-Illinois opt-ins would be considered full parties to the FLSA
lawsuit upon consent, then Bristol-Myers requires each potential
opt-in plaintiff to show minimum contacts between the Defendant and
the forum state, Illinois. The Defendant further argues that a
motion to dismiss is a proper stage at which to raise this personal
jurisdiction argument because jurisdiction is a threshold matter.
The Plaintiff, however, likens the representative nature of FLSA
claims to Rule 23 class actions. More specifically, the Plaintiff
maintains that the claims of the opt-in plaintiffs are established
solely by the named Plaintiff. In other words, once personal
jurisdiction is established for the claims of the named Plaintiff,
Iannoti, then personal jurisdiction over Defendant exists without
further analysis into the potential opt-ins. Alternatively, the
Plaintiff argues that any jurisdictional analysis over the
out-of-state opt-ins should be made after conditional certification
once potential opt-ins are identified and elect to join the
matter.
Judge Dugan is persuaded by those courts which have declined to
reach the question of personal jurisdiction before individuals have
even been given notice of the collective action and an opportunity
to op-in. As some courts have persuasively reasoned, this approach
aligns with how other jurisdictional disputes are typically
handled: "The Defendants generally cannot preemptively prevent a
party from joining a suit due to lack of jurisdiction; they must
wait until the party attempts to join, then move for dismissal."
Because it is currently unclear whether any out-of-state opt-ins
will even join the suit, the Judge finds that this personal
jurisdictional analysis should take place after a ruling on the
motion for conditional certification.
For these reasons, Judge Dugan denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without prejudice to
renewal after a ruling on conditional certification.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4huvdfep from Leagle.com.
WOODSPOON INC: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Woodspoon, Inc. The
case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Woodspoon, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06063-JPO
(S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
WoodSpoon -- https://www.eatwoodspoon.com/ -- is a community-based
marketplace that connects local chefs with customers craving
homemade food.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
WYNDHAM VACATION: Nolen Wins Bid to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nolen, et al., v. Wyndham
Vacation Resorts, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-00330 (M.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an endorsed order granting
motion to certify class.
The nature of suit states Contract -- Other Contract. The Court
previously granted this Motion under seal.
Wyndham is a vacation ownership company.[CC]
YOUTUBE LLC: Faces Trump Suit Over Impermissible Censorship
-----------------------------------------------------------
DONALD J. TRUMP, the Forty-Fifth President of the U.S., KELLY
VICTORY, and AUSTEN FLETCHER, individually and on behalf of the
class, Plaintiffs v. YOUTUBE, LLC, and SUNDAR PICHAI, Defendants,
Case No. 0:21-cv-61384-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 7, 2021) is a class
action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
engaging in impermissible censorship that violated the First
Amendment to the U.S. and their callous disregard of their Users'
constitutional rights.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Youtube has been censoring
their YouTube channel as well as those other similarly situated
individuals. Specifically on January 12, 2021, Plaintiff Trump was
banned by the Defendant from his YouTube channel while exercising
his constitutional rights as President of the U.S. on his YouTube
channel. Allegedly, the Democrat legislators exerted overt coercion
to have the Defendant censor the views and content of the
Plaintiff's YouTube channel due to their fear that the Plaintiff's
skilled use of social media is a threat to their own re-election
efforts. With Plaintiff now removed from YouTube and other social
media platforms, it is considerably more difficult for him to act
as head of the Republican Party, campaign for Republican
candidates, fundraise, and lay the groundwork for his own potential
campaign run for the 2024 Republican Party nomination for President
of the U.S., the Plaintiffs add.
As for Plaintiff Victory's claim, her video post regarding Covid-19
was also deleted after 6 hours of posting and subsequently she
received an email stating that "the video violated community
standards," despite his strong medical background and extensive
experience.
Moreover, Plaintiff Fletcher began noticing in 2018 that his videos
were immediately demonetized upon upload and by the time
monetization was reinstated, he had already accumulated a majority
of their views, missing approximately 40-60% of the potential ad
revenue.
Accordingly, Defendant YouTube has increasingly engaged in
impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative
action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230 of the Communications
Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 230, and willful participation in joint
activity with federal actors. This impacted the Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated individuals' ability to communicate with
family and friends and politically.
Youtube, LLC is an American online video sharing and social media
platform that operates as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Google and
Alphabet. Sundar Pichai is the Chief Executive Officer of Google,
Inc. and of Alphabet, Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew L. Baldwin, Esq.
VARGAS GONZALES BALDWIN
DELOMBARD, LLP
815 Ponce De Leon Blvd., 3rd Flr.
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Tel: (305) 631-2528
E-mail: Matthew@VargasGonzalez.com
Service8@VargasGonzalez.com
- and –
John P. Coale, Esq.
2901 Fessenden St. NW
Washington, D.C. 20008
Tel: (202) 255-2096
E-mail: johnpcoale@aol.com
- and –
Frank C. Dudenhefer, Jr., Esq.
THE DUDENHEFER LAW FIRM L.L.C.
2721 St. Charles Ave., Suite 2A
New Orleans, LA 70130
Tel: (504) 616-5226
E-mail: fcdlaw@aol.com
- and –
John Q. Kelly, Esq.
Michael J. Jones, Esq.
Roland A. Paul, Esq.
Ryan S. Tougias, Esq.
Sean M. Hamill, Esq.
IVEY, BARNUM & O'MARA
170 Mason Street
Greenwich, CT 06930
Tel: (203) 661-6000
Fax: (203) 661-9462
E-mail: jqkelly@ibolaw.com
mjones@ibolaw.com
rpaul@ibolaw.com
rtougias@ibolaw.com
shamill@ibolaw.com
[*] 70% Class Action Payouts Over Litigation Funds Rejected
------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Mizen and Michael Pelly, writing for Australian Financial
Review, report that company directors and lawyers have rejected a
Morrison government proposal to ensure class action members receive
at least 70 per cent of any payout, saying they fear "the floor
will become the ceiling".
The Australian Institute of Company directors warned of windfall
profits on big claims while the Law Council of Australia said it
would make other claims uneconomic for litigation funders.
A joint parliamentary committee into litigation funders late in
2020 recommended the introduction of a guaranteed rate of return
and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Attorney-General Michaelia Cash
called for submissions on the idea in May.
They said the measure was "of particular importance to ensure
successful applicants were adequately compensated in their cases as
well as preventing litigation funders and law firms from taking
disproportionate fees in the process".
The Morrison government is also looking at whether the Federal
Court should be given exclusive jurisdiction to hear shareholder
and financial-product class actions.
The change would be aimed at stopping "jurisdiction shopping" and
would effectively cut out Victoria, where lawyers can now charge
contingency fees.
Australia had a record year for class actions in 2020-21, with at
least 60 filed over the year. Close to 40 were filed in the Federal
Court, while almost a third were filed in the Victorian Supreme
Court.
The AICD only offered "in principle" support for the proposal to
ensure a 70 per cent return of the gross proceeds, saying it
preferred "a graduated approach" where the minimum percentage to
class members progressively increases as the amount recovered
increases.
"In the AICD's view, however, a 50 per cent of gross proceeds
back-stop should be established to ensure that in no circumstances
will claimants receive less than that amount."
It said it recognised that funders "should be able to pursue a
financial return that is reasonable and proportionate to the risk
they undertake" but said "even a 20 or 30 per cent return of gross
proceeds to litigation funders carries with it the risk of windfall
profits for higher value claims".
"In such a scenario, say where $200 million in compensation was
provided to claimants, a funder could receive up to $40 million-$60
million in returns having only outlaid $6 million to $7 million in
legal and associated costs.
"Conversely, for smaller claims, it is possible that a large
proportion of the proceeds of litigation could be consumed by legal
fees."
The Law Council said it supported "the objectives of enhancing
protections for class action members and improving access to
justice". But it said a guaranteed statutory minimum return was "an
inferior means of securing the first objective and would positively
undermine the second".
It added that "such price control mechanisms are blunt and
inflexible instruments incapable of adapting to the complexity of
the class actions regime".
"The Law Council considers that the introduction of any minimum
return will suffer from arbitrariness," its submission says.
"Focus should instead be placed on why a low return to members has
occurred in particular cases. For example, is the low return due to
excessive legal costs or an unreasonable funder's commission, or is
the low return a result of unforeseen litigation events?"
Both groups said any mechanism that guaranteed a minimum rate of
return for class members should rely on oversight by the courts.
The AICD said courts should approve any funding agreements and
"have the power to reject, vary or amend the terms of any
litigation funding agreement if it considers the funding fee is not
fair or reasonable".
Australia's largest litigation funder, Omni Bridgeway, said in its
submission that returns to each party should be left to the courts
based on the risk profile of each case.
"Price regulation implies that the courts are not capable of or
willing to undertake this role, a proposition Omni Bridgeway
rejects."
Patrick Moloney, chief executive of Litigation Capital Management,
said most actions were pursued against well-heeled defendants
represented by top-tier legal teams with near limitless budgets.
"This unprecedented restriction would place class members at a
significant tactical disadvantage," he said.
"Most class actions will become uneconomic to run and class members
will be deprived of the opportunity to recover anything for their
losses."
The parliamentary committee also recommended Federal Court have
sole jurisdiction, a proposal that was first made by the Australian
Law Reform Commission in 2019.
It has support among senior ministers because it would eliminate
forum shopping, after Victoria introduced reforms last year
allowing for group costs orders that pay plaintiff lawyers a
percentage of any award.
Most securities and financial-product class actions are filed in
the Federal Court, according to King & Wood Mallesons analysis, but
there has been a trend towards Victoria.
The government believes limiting filings to the Federal Court would
also make class action management more consistent and reduce
competing actions. It would consult on the idea before making a
final decision. [GN]
*********
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 2021. 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 ***