/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211210.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, December 10, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 241
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Chavers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: James Thompson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Thompsons Sue Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
ABM INDUSTRY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Janitors, Garcia Says
ABP CORP: Faces Auguste Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ADVOCATE AURORA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Babbits Suit Alleges
ALL COUNTY SEWER: Martorell Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
ALLY BANK: Cornick Suit Removed to N.D. California
ASSESSOR OF MALVERNE: Tuffy Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
BLUE ORIGIN: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BOATYARD GRILL: Heffron Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
CHARLOTTE, NC: Durham Balks at Unlawful Disclosure of Drivers' Info
CORSAIR MEMORY: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EOS USA: Bernstein Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
EVERGLADES COLLEGE: Leigue TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
EVERGREEN HOMECARE: Kuprashvili Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
FIRSTGROUP AMERICA: McGinnes Class Status Bid Due Feb. 11, 2022
FLY NYON: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FOODSTATE INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Salabarria Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Santiago Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Straka Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Taylor Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Veira Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GOLF WANG: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Bartholomew Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
INFORMATION DATA: Hutchens Sues Over Unlawful Use of Identities
ITS MANAGEMENT: Rivera Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
J. M. SMUCKER: Clark Sues Over Mislabeled Coffee Products
J.M. SMUCKER: Bosso Sues Over Mislabeled Coffee Products
JBI INTERIORS: Morales Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
JEFF NEWTON: Lyons Files Suit in D. Montana
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Shampoo Contains Formaldehyde, Carr Alleges
KRAFT HEINZ: Boss Sues Over Mislabeled Water-Flavoring Products
MARINA SECURITY: Kittles Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MARKEL INSURANCE: Fountain Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
MISSOURI GAMING: Class Cert. Approval in Lipari-Williams Appealed
MY IMPORTS USA: Kallamni Files Suit in S.D. New York
OMS INVESTMENTS: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Faces Bar-Asher Suit Over Drop in Share Price
QUALITY CARRIERS: Salter Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal
REDDIT INC: Does Appeal Dismissal of Child Pornography Suit
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Glinoga Says
SCHLUMBERGER LIFT: Seeks Review of Class Cert. Ruling in Garcia
SPORTS TUTOR: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STARBRIGHT FLORAL: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TDS MANAGEMENT: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TEAM LIQUID: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TEXAS BANK: Martin Files Suit in D. Texas
TRUEACCORD CORP: Faces Boettger Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
UNITED STATES: Summary Judgment Ruling in N.S. Suit Appealed
VIKING INSURANCE: Bradley Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
WINE ADVOCATE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WISE MEDICAL: Has Until Dec. 10 to Response to Pre-Discovery Bid
WM. B. REILY: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Faces Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Products Defends 152 PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ballantyne Strong Defends PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Intl. Defends Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emerson Electric Faces Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Faces Personal Injury Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Defends Asbestos Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Natura &Co's Subsidiary Faces 152 PI Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 124 PI Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Defends 57 Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc.'s Subsidiary Defends PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Defends Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners' Subsidiary Has 45 Tort Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TVA Increased Abatement Costs by $19MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Has 1,600 PI Lawsuits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Williams Industrial Assumes Asbestos PI Claims
*********
3M COMPANY: Chavers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
-----------------------------------------------------
Danny Chavers, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS,
INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC, ARCHROMA U.S.,
INC., ARKEMA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to
Atofina, S.A., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as
successor-in-interest to Ciba, Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.,
CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually and as successor-interest
to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC.,
CHEMICALS, INC., CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, CORTEVA,
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS,
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS &
COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions Enterprise, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and
as successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc., KIDDE PLC,
INC., NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-03864-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 24,
2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. 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. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
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. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, 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 Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
throat cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants’ AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of
PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 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
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: James Thompson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
James V. Thompson, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC,
ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to Atofina, S.A., BASF CORPORATION,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba, Inc., BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually and as
successor-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT
CORPORATION, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise,
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually
and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions
Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc., KIDDE PLC,
INC., NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-03861-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 24,
2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. 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. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
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. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, 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 Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants’ AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of
PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-855-6060
Facsimile: 732-726-4860
3M COMPANY: Thompsons Sue Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
------------------------------------------------------
James V. Thompson, and Regina Thompson, his wife, and other
similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC., AMEREX
CORPORATION, ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC, ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA,
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Atofina, S.A.,
BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to
Ciba, Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION,
individually and as successor-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.,
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHUBB
FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, CORTEVA, INC., individually and
as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise,
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually
and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions
Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc., KIDDE PLC,
INC., NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-03863-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 24,
2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. 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. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
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. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, 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 Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
pancreatic cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants’ AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 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
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
ABM INDUSTRY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Janitors, Garcia Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adalinda Garcia, Levis Barrientos, Jonathan Barrientos, Sterling
Barrientos, and Ronald Balbuena, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ABM Industry Groups, LLC;
ABM Industries Incorporated, Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-10197
(S.D.N.Y., December 1, 2021) is brought by the Plaintiffs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to
recover from Defendants unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
wages, damages for failure to give required notices and wage
statements, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, compensatory damages for retaliatory termination, and
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiffs were employed as janitors at various branches of the
Defendants in New York.
ABM Inc. operates through its subsidiaries as a provider of
integrated facility solutions, including janitorial services to
businesses in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (718) 669-0714
E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com
ABP CORP: Faces Auguste Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
SABINE AUGUSTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ABP CORPORATION and SUE MORELLI Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-04906-MHC (N.D. Ga., Nov. 30, 2021) arises from
the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act's overtime requirements as well as Defendant's failure to pay
Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers for their earned
overtime wages for "off the clock" hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek.
Plaintiff Sabine Auguste was employed at the Piedmont Atlanta
Hospital Au Bon Pain store. Her primary daily duties were
cashiering, preparing sandwiches, preparing salads, serving
customers, restocking products and supplies and cleaning work areas
and equipment.
ABP Corporation doing business as Au Bon Pain, owns and operates a
chain of cafes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arnold J. Lizana, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III
1175 Peachtree Street NE, 10th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30361
Telephone: (470) 207-1559
Facsimile: (470) 231-0672
E-mail: alizana@attorneylizana.com
- and -
Taft L. Foley II, Esq.
THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (832) 778-8182
Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
E-mail: taft.foley@thefoleylawfirm.com
ADVOCATE AURORA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Babbits Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
RENEE BABBITTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ADVOCATE AURORA HEALTH, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-06293 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 23, 2021) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Babbitts was employed by the Defendant as nurse.
ADVOCATE AURORA HEALTH, INC. is a non-profit health care system
with dual headquarters located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Downers
Grove, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Megan E. Shannon, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP.
100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 233-1550
Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
jzouras@stephanzouras.com
mshannon@stephanzouras.cm
-and-
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
ALL COUNTY SEWER: Martorell Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against All County Sewer &
Drain, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Joaquin Martorell, on
behalf of all others similarly-situated v. All County Sewer &
Drain, Inc., Daniel McNally, Case No. 7:21-cv-10396 (S.D.N.Y., Dec.
6, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
All County Sewer & Drain, Inc. --
https://www.allcountysewerdraininc.com/ -- offers sewer and drain
cleaning service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank J. Tantone, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
910 Franklin Avenue, Ste. 200
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 248-5550
Fax: (516) 248-6027
Email: ft@belllg.com
ALLY BANK: Cornick Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Bill Cornick, David Abbott, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Ally Bank, Ally
Financial Inc., Case No. 21CV003506, was removed from the Monterey
County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on Dec. 6, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-09439 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Ally Bank -- https://www.ally.com/ -- is a popular online bank
among people seeking strong rates and robust customer service.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephen Patrick Blake, Esq.
SIMPSON THACHER BARTLETT LLP
2475 Hanover St
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Phone: (650) 251-5000
Fax: (650) 251-5002
Email: sblake@stblaw.com
ASSESSOR OF MALVERNE: Tuffy Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Assessor of the
Village of Malverne, et al. The case is styled as Lisa Tuffy, and
all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A,
Petitioner v. Assessor of the Village of Malverne, Board of
Assessment Review of the Village of Malverne, Respondent, Case No.
614888/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Nov. 23, 2021).
The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."
The Malverne Village Assessor's office --
https://www.malvernevillage.org/assessment -- places values on all
land and improvements to land within the Village of Malverne.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG LLP
132 SPRUCE STREET
CEDARHURST, NY 11516
BLUE ORIGIN: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Origin, LLC. The
case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Blue Origin, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10389 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Blue Origin, LLC -- https://www.blueorigin.com/ -- is an American
privately funded aerospace manufacturer and sub-orbital spaceflight
services company headquartered in Kent, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
BOATYARD GRILL: Heffron Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILLIE JO HEFFRON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE BOATYARD GRILL, LLC, and MARK
CAMPAGNOLO, individually, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-01282-LEK-ML, (N.D.N.Y., December 1, 2021) seeks to recover
minimum wages, overtime compensation, unlawful deductions, uniform
reimbursement, spread of hours pay, and other damages for Plaintiff
and her similarly situated co-workers -- servers, runners, bussers,
bartenders, barbacks (collectively "Tipped Workers"), pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a tipped worker for
The Boatyard Grill from approximately May 2014 until August 21,
2021.
The Boatyard Grill, LLC is a seafood restaurant located in Ithaca,
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
David J. Sack, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
CHARLOTTE, NC: Durham Balks at Unlawful Disclosure of Drivers' Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER NICOLE DURHAM, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE, a North Carolina
municipal corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00638-RJC-DSC
(W.D.N.C., November 30, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged
violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act.
According to the complaint, from at least 2007 through late 2020,
Defendant City of Charlotte has systematically disclosed the names,
addresses, and drivers' license numbers of thousands of drivers,
including Plaintiff's, by making paper copies of DMV-349 motor
vehicle accident reports containing that information publicly
available in the City's offices at its records desk. The City was
asked to stop this practice in 2016, but it continued violating the
DPPA until late 2020, says the suit.
The Plaintiff, for herself and others similarly situated, seeks
liquidated damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of
individuals who can prove (a) that their information was disclosed
for marketing purposes by the City; and (b) that at least one
marketer sent Plaintiff a solicitation mailing as a result of the
City's unlawful disclosure of Plaintiff's DPPA-protected name and
address information.
City of Charlotte is a North Carolina municipal corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. David Stradley, Esq.
Robert P. Holmes, IV, Esq.
WHITE & STRADLEY, PLLC
3105 Charles B. Root Wynd
Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone: (919) 844-0400
E-mail: stradley@whiteandstradley.com
rob@whiteandstradley.com
- and -
John F. Bloss, Esq.
Frederick L. Berry, Esq.
HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC
301 North Elm Street, Suite 800
Greensboro, NC 27401
Telephone: (336) 273-1600
E-mail: jbloss@greensborolaw.com
fberry@greensborolaw.com
- and -
Andrew H. Brown, Esq.
James R. Faucher, Esq.
BROWN, FAUCHER, PERALDO & BENSON, PLLC
822 N. Elm Street, Suite 200
Greensboro, NC 27401
Telephone: (336) 478-6000
E-mail: drew@greensborolawcenter.com
james@greensborolawcenter.com
CORSAIR MEMORY: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corsair Memory, Inc.
The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Corsair Memory, Inc., Case No.
1 1:21-cv-10382 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Corsair Gaming, Inc. -- https://www.corsair.com/ww/en/ -- is an
American computer peripherals and hardware company headquartered in
Fremont, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
EOS USA: Bernstein Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
INA BERNSTEIN, Plaintiff v. EOS USA INC d/b/a EOS CCA, Defendant,
Case No. 614953/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., November 30,
2021) is a class action complaint arising from the Defendant's
alleged deceptive, misleading, unfair, unconscionable, and false
debt collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
The complaint asserts that Defendant uses the instrumentalities of
interstate commerce or the mails in their business, the principal
purpose of which is the collection of debts. The Defendant also
regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly,
debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. As a
result of Defendant's alleged practices, Plaintiff has been
damaged, says the suit.
EOS USA Inc., doing business as EOS CCA, is a financial services
company that provides outsourcing and receivables management
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tamir Saland, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201)282-6500
E-mail: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com
EVERGLADES COLLEGE: Leigue TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Maria Fernando Soto Leigue, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Everglades College, Inc.
doing business as: Keiser University, Case No. 21-024187-CA-01, was
removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County
to the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District Court Southern
District of Florida on Dec. 6, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-24267-KMW to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Everglades University -- https://www.evergladesuniversity.edu/ --
is an accredited, private not-for-profit university offering
bachelor's and master's degree programs online and on-campus.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Adam Edelsberg, I, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Justin Canner Sorel, Esq.
COLE SCOTT & KISSANE
1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, 2nd Floor
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 383-9200
Fax: 683-8977
Email: justin.sorel@csklegal.com
EVERGREEN HOMECARE: Kuprashvili Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evergreen Homecare
Service Of Ny Inc., et al. The case is styled as Maia Kuprashvili,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. Evergreen Homecare Service Of Ny Inc., et al, Case No.
160870/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Dec. 3, 2021).
Evergreen HomeCare Service is a home health agency in Bayside,
Queens of NYC.[BN]
FIRSTGROUP AMERICA: McGinnes Class Status Bid Due Feb. 11, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jeffrey McGinnes, Wendy
Berry, Lorri Hulings, and Kathleen Sammons, individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of the FirstGroup America, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan, v.
FirstGroup America, Inc., Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc.,
and John Does 1-20, Case No. 1:18-cv-00326-TSB (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Timothy S. Black entered an order granting motion to
extend the class certification motion deadline and briefing
schedule:
-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class February 11, 2022
Certification:
-- Defendants Opposition to March 18, 2022
Class Certification:
-- Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum: April 8, 2022
Pursuant to the Court's May 4, 2021 Calendar Order, the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is currently due January 14, 2022;
Defendants' response in opposition to class certification is due
February 18, 2022; and Plaintiffs' reply in support of class
certification is due March 11, 2022.
A brief extension of these deadlines is necessary to allow
sufficient time for relevant document discovery (which is underway
after extensive negotiations between the parties) and depositions
(which are in the process of being scheduled), and in light of the
upcoming holidays, the Plaintiffs say.
FirstGroup is a private sector provider of public transport.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dwCFCo at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George M. Reul, Jr., Esq.
FREKING MYERS & REUL
600 Vine Street, Suite 900
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: 513-721-1975
Facsimile: (513) 651-2570
E-mail: greul@fmr.law
- and -
Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
Kai H. Richter, Esq.
Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
Brandon McDonough, Esq.
Chloe A. Raimey, Esq.
Mark E. Thomson, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 S 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: 612-256-3200
Facsimile: 612-338-4878
E-mail: lukas@nka.com
krichter@nka.com
cengstrom@nka.com
bmcdonough@nka.com
craimey@nka.com
mthomson@nka.com
FLY NYON: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fly Nyon LLC. The
case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Fly Nyon LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10393 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
FlyNYON -- https://www.flynyon.com/ -- provides the ultimate
helicopter ride.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
FOODSTATE INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foodstate, Inc. The
case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Foodstate, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10384 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
FoodState, Inc. -- https://www.foodstate.com/ -- is a manufacturer
and distributor of whole food nutritional supplements.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Salabarria Files Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as Carlos
Salabarria, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No.
1:21-cv-24192-RNS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Property Damage Product Liability.
Gebrueder Knauf KG -- https://www.knauf.com/en/ -- manufactures
building materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James V. Doyle, Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
201 Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 677-3388
Fax: (844) 638-5812
Email: jim.doyle@doylefirm.com
- and -
James Victor Doyle, Jr., Esq.
James Victor Doyle, Sr., Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: (205) 533-9500
Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Santiago Files Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as Aliesky
Santiago, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No.
1:21-cv-24217-RNS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Property Damage Product Liability.
Gebrueder Knauf KG -- https://www.knauf.com/en/ -- manufactures
building materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James V. Doyle, Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
201 Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 677-3388
Fax: (844) 638-5812
Email: jim.doyle@doylefirm.com
- and -
James Victor Doyle, Jr., Esq.
James Victor Doyle, Sr., Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: (205) 533-9500
Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Straka Files Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as Karina Jannine
Svoboda Straka, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No.
1:21-cv-24206-RNS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Property Damage Product Liability.
Gebrueder Knauf KG -- https://www.knauf.com/en/ -- manufactures
building materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James V. Doyle, Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
201 Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 677-3388
Fax: (844) 638-5812
Email: jim.doyle@doylefirm.com
- and -
James Victor Doyle, Jr., Esq.
James Victor Doyle, Sr., Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: (205) 533-9500
Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Taylor Files Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as Levi Taylor, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Gebrueder
Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No. 1:21-cv-24188-RNS (S.D.
Fla., Nov. 29, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Property Damage Product Liability.
Gebrueder Knauf KG -- https://www.knauf.com/en/ -- manufactures
building materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James V. Doyle, Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
201 Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 677-3388
Fax: (844) 638-5812
Email: jim.doyle@doylefirm.com
- and -
James Victor Doyle, Jr., Esq.
James Victor Doyle, Sr., Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: (205) 533-9500
Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Veira Files Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as Laura Veira, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Gebrueder
Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No. 1:21-cv-24164-RNS (S.D.
Fla., Nov. 29, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Property Damage Product Liability.
Gebrueder Knauf KG -- https://www.knauf.com/en/ -- manufactures
building materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James V. Doyle, Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
201 Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 677-3388
Fax: (844) 638-5812
Email: jim.doyle@doylefirm.com
- and -
James Victor Doyle, Jr., Esq.
James Victor Doyle, Sr., Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: (205) 533-9500
Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com
GOLF WANG: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golf Wang Retail,
Inc. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Golf Wang Retail,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10380 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Golf Wang -- https://golfwang.com/ -- is an American streetwear
brand established in 2011 by American musician Tyler, the
Creator.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Bartholomew Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goodman Manufacturing
Company, L.P., et al. The case is styled as Martin Bartholomew, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Goodman
Manufacturing Company, L.P., a Texas Limited Partnership; Goodman
Global Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Goodman Global
Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Does 1-50; Case No.
34-2021-00311588-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov.
23, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Goodman Manufacturing -- https://www.goodmanmfg.com/ -- is an
American company operating as an independent subsidiary of Daikin
Group, the world's largest manufacturer of heating, ventilation and
air conditioning products and systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq.
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
1901 Avenue Of The Stars, Ste. 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006
Phone: 818-456-6168
Email: josh@falakassalaw.com
- and -
Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
BOKHOUR LAW GORUP, PC
1901 Avenue Of The Stars, Ste. 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006
Phone: 310-975-1493
Fax: 310-675-0861
Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com
INFORMATION DATA: Hutchens Sues Over Unlawful Use of Identities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Hutchens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INFORMATION DATA RESOURCES, LLC, a California limited
liability company, Case No. 3:21-cv-01487-NJR (S.D. Ill., Nov. 24,
2021), is brought to put an end to the Defendant's unlawful
practice of using the names and identities of Illinois residents
without their consent in order to promote its service on its
website, Publicinfoservices.com, in violation of the Illinois Right
of Publicity Act.
The Defendant owns and operates a
website--Publicinfoservices.com--which sells access to a database
containing proprietary information about people to anybody willing
to pay the Defendant for a monthly subscription. To market its
service, Defendant encourages prospective customers to perform a
free people search on its website. When consumers perform a free
search for an individual—by typing the individual’s first and
last name into the search bar Publicinfoservices displays a preview
page featuring the searched individual’s full name alongside
certain uniquely identifying information, including aliases,
location, possible relatives, and age. The purpose of this page is
twofold: first, it shows potential customers that the Defendant’s
database contains the specific individual they searched for and
represents that a paid subscription grants access to much more
information about the individual than the “free” preview; and
second, it offers to sell them a paid subscription, where they can
access proprietary information about anybody in its database.
In other words, the Defendant does not offer to sell information
about the individuals searched on its website, but rather, uses
their identities to sell subscriptions to its paid service.
Unsurprisingly, the people appearing in these advertisements never
provided the Defendant with their consent (written or otherwise) to
use their identities for any reason, let alone for marketing
purposes. By using Illinois residents’ identities in its
advertisements without consent and for its own commercial gain,
Defendant violated--and continues to violate--the IRPA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person and a citizen of the State of
Illinois who never provided the Defendant with her written consent
(or consent of any kind) to use any attribute of her identity for
commercial purposes, and certainly never authorized the Defendant
to use her identity to promote any of its products or services.
Information Data Resources, LLC, is a limited liability company
existing under the laws of the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: 646.837.7150
Fax: 212.989.9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
Benjamin Thomassen, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 312.589.6370
Fax: 312.589.6378
Email: ascharg@edelson.com
bthomassen@edelson.com
ITS MANAGEMENT: Rivera Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------
Misma Rivera and Madeleine Bakey, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ITS MANAGEMENT, LLC and PULSO MIAMI,
LLC, Case No. CACE-21-021108 (Fla. Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty.,
Nov. 24, 2021), is brought for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and violations of the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants do not possess a valid
Consumer Collection Agency license with the Florida Department of
State. Defendants are required to possess a valid license to
lawfully collect debts from Florida consumers. The Defendants began
attempting to collect the Consumer Debts from Plaintiffs. The
Defendants sent a letter, dated September 24, 2021, to Plaintiff
Bakey (the "Bakey Collection Letter") in an attempt to collect the
Consumer Debt. The Bakey Collection Letter is a communication from
Defendants to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of a
debt. In the Bakey Collection Letter, Defendant attempts to collect
charges for "painting of the unit to the original color," whereby
Defendant unlawfully assessed Plaintiffs $2,500 for such services.
The Defendants sent a letter, dated July 16, 2021, to Plaintiff
Rivera (the "Rivera Collection Letter") in an attempt to collect
the Consumer Debt. The Rivera Collection Letter and the Bakey
Collection Letter are a communication from Defendants to Plaintiffs
in connection with the collection of a debt. In the Rivera
Collection Letter, Defendant attempts to collect charges for
"cleaning and removal of items abandoned in the unit," and
"replacement of broken blinds" whereby Defendants unlawfully
assessed Plaintiffs $400 for such services.
The Defendants do not have any contractual or statutory right to
assess or otherwise attempt to collect the $2,900 worth of services
that Defendants demanded in the Collection Letters. Put
differently, Defendants unlawfully assessed Plaintiffs charges
and/or amounts that Defendants did not actually incur or otherwise
have any legitimate authority to collect. Defendants engaged in
activity constituting "any action to collect a debt" by mailing the
Collection Letter to Plaintiff, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are natural persons and are citizens of the State of
Florida.
The Defendants regularly collect or attempt to collect, directly or
indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due
another.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-628-5793
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
J. M. SMUCKER: Clark Sues Over Mislabeled Coffee Products
---------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLEY CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE J. M. SMUCKER COMPANY; and THE FOLGER
COFFEE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 6:21-cv-00457 (E.D. Tex., Nov.
23, 2021) is an action against the Defendants' false and deceptive
labeling and advertising of their Folgers ground coffee products
(hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Products").
According to the complaint, the Defendants have sold the Products
to consumers based on the representation that they contain enough
ground coffee to make up to a specific number of servings. e.g.,
"240 6 floz cups". However, by following Defendants' own
preparation instructions, the Folgers ground coffee products
allegedly do not contain nearly enough ground coffee to make the
number of servings represented.
The Plaintiff and other consumers purchased the Folgers ground
coffee products because they reasonably believed, based on the
Defendants' misrepresentations, that these products contained
enough coffee to make the specified number of servings. Had the
Plaintiff and other consumers known the truth, they would have paid
less for them, or would not have purchased them at all. As a
result, the Plaintiff and other consumers have been deceived and
have suffered economic injury, says the suit.
THE J. M. SMUCKER COMPANY is an American manufacturer of jam,
peanut butter, jelly, fruit syrups, beverages, shortening, ice
cream toppings, and other food products in North America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
WALSH PLLC
1561 Long Haul Road
Grangeville, ID 83530
Telephone: (541) 359-2827
Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
Email: bonner@walshpllc.com
J.M. SMUCKER: Bosso Sues Over Mislabeled Coffee Products
--------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH BOSSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE J. M. SMUCKER COMPANY; and THE FOLGER
COFFEE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01239 (W.D.N.Y., Nov.
23, 2021) is an action against the Defendants' false and deceptive
labeling and advertising of their Folgers ground coffee products
(hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Products").
According to the complaint, the Defendants have sold the Products
to consumers based on the representation that they contain enough
ground coffee to make up to a specific number of servings. e.g.,
"240 6 floz cups". However, by following the Defendants' own
definitions and instructions, the Products do not contain enough
ground coffee to make the number of servings represented or even
close to it, says the suit.
The Defendants allegedly engage in classic and unlawful
bait-and-switch scheme that causes unsuspecting consumers to spend
more money for less than the advertised amount of coffee they
believe they are purchasing. The Plaintiff and other consumers
purchased the Products because they reasonably believed - based on
the Defendants' representations - that these Products contained
enough coffee to make the specified number of servings. Had the
Plaintiff and other consumers known the truth they would have paid
less for them, or would not have purchased them at all. As a
result, the Plaintiff and other consumers have been deceived and
have suffered economic injury, added the suit.
THE J. M. SMUCKER COMPANY is an American manufacturer of jam,
peanut butter, jelly, fruit syrups, beverages, shortening, ice
cream toppings, and other food products in North America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Innessa M. Huot, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
Email: ihuot@faruqilaw.com
JBI INTERIORS: Morales Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elias Morales, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. JBI INTERIORS, LLC., a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
21STCV43284 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 24, 2021), is
brought for recovery of unpaid wages and penalties under the
California Business and Professions Code, as a result of
Defendants' failure to pay all minimum wages, overtime wages, as
well as meal period premium wages and rest period premium wages.
The Defendants’ timekeeping policies and/or practices would
unlawfully shave and/or round the time worked by the Plaintiff and
other non-exempt employees such that the Plaintiff and the other
non-exempt employees would not be fully paid for all time worked.
Specifically, the Plaintiff would often arrive and begin working 15
to 30 minutes prior to his scheduled start time. However, the
Defendants would not pay the Plaintiff for this time and would not
begin compensating the Plaintiff until his scheduled start time.
This time-shaving and/or rounding practice utilized by the
Defendants was not even-handed over time and would almost
exclusively round and shave in the Defendants' favor such that the
Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees were routinely not paid
for all time worked. As a result, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees all required minimum and
overtime wages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
Painter at the Defendants’ location in Long Beach, California.
The Defendants did (and continue to do) business by manufacturing
furniture for the restaurant industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
Milan Moore, Esq.
LIDMAN LAW, APC
2155 Campus Drive, Suite 150
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: (424) 322-4772
Fax: (424) 322-4775
Email: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
enguyen@lidmanlaw.com
mmoore@lidmanlaw.com
- and -
Paul K. Haines, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: (424) 292-2350
Fax: (424) 292-2355
Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
JEFF NEWTON: Lyons Files Suit in D. Montana
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jeff Newton, et al.
The case is styled as McKenzie Lyons, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly-situated v. Jeff Newton, individually and in his
official capacity as Chief of the Great Falls Police Department;
Officer Travis Palmer, individually and in his capacity as an
Officer of the Great Falls Police Department; City of Great Falls,
Montana by and through the City of Great Falls Police Department;
John Does 1-10; Case No. 4:21-cv-00121-BMM (D. Mont., Dec. 6,
2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights (Employment
Discrimination).
Jeff Newton has been chosen as the new chief of the Great Falls
Police Department.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian J. Miller, Esq.
Anne E. Sherwood, Esq.
MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON & DEOLA, PLLP
401 N Last Chance Gulch
PO Box 557
Helena, MT 59624
Phone: (406) 442-3261
Fax: (406) 443-7294
Email: bmiller@mswdlaw.com
anne@mswdlaw.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Shampoo Contains Formaldehyde, Carr Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
TYESHAH CARR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.; and VOGUE
INTERNATIONAL LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06557 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 23, 2021) alleges that the shampoo and conditioner sold by the
Defendants contain dangerous ingredient called DMDM hydantoin ("OGX
Products").
According to the complaint, the OGX Products are marketed to
customers, through labeling and other advertisements, as containing
a formula that will smooth hair, add softness and shine, and
prevent frizzing and tangling. The Defendants says that the OGX
Products "help to infuse nutrients into every strand and creates
the appearance of thicker, fuller, healthier looking hair."
Contrary to the Defendants' representations, the OGX Products'
formula contains or contained DMDM, a formaldehyde donor known to
slowly leach formaldehyde when combined with water. Formaldehyde is
a well-known human carcinogen and allergen shown to cause cancer
and other harmful reactions when applied to the skin. DMDM has long
been associated with causing hair loss, thinning hair, dermatitis,
and other adverse scalp reactions and has been the subject of
numerous complaints and various lawsuits well before the Plaintiff
was injured, says the suit.
The Plaintiff was injured and suffered damages due to the
Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct when designing, manufacturing,
testing, packaging, marketing, distributing, labeling, and selling
the OGX Products.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. engages in the research and
development of products. The Company provides products for
newborns, babies, toddlers, and mothers, including cleansers, skin
care, moisturizers, hair care, diaper care, sun protection, and
nursing products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
Paul Sweeny, Esq.
SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
424 Madison Ave., 3rd Fl.
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 421-6492
Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
Email: stephen@sfclasslaw.com
paul@sfclasslaw.com
KRAFT HEINZ: Boss Sues Over Mislabeled Water-Flavoring Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
LISA BOSS, LINDA GUNNETT, AND PEGGY TATUM on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE KRAFT HEINZ
COMPANY, KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY (LLC) Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-06380 (N.D. Ill., November 30, 2021) is a national consumer
class action for violation of state consumer protection, unfair
competition, and false advertising statutes, and for common-law
breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud by
omission.
The Defendants manufacture, label, distribute, advertise, and sell
"water enhancer" water-flavoring products packaged under the trade
name, "MiO."
According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully conceal from
consumers the fact that these products contain artificial flavoring
chemicals that simulate the products' claimed natural flavors. The
Defendants' packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme for these
products is intended to give consumers the false impression that
they are buying a premium all-natural product instead of a product
that is artificially flavored, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Defendants to, inter alia:
(1) cease packaging, distributing, advertising, and selling the
Products in violation of U.S. Food and Drug Administration
regulations and state consumer protection laws; (2) inform
consumers regarding the products' misbranding; (3) award Plaintiffs
and the other Class members restitution, actual damages, statutory
damages, and punitive damages; and (4) pay all costs of suit,
expenses, and attorney fees.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Elliot, Esq.
ELLIOT LAW OFFICE, PC
2028 3rd Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 468-4865
E-mail: davidelliot@elliotfirm.com
MARINA SECURITY: Kittles Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marina Security
Services, et al. The case is styled as Deangela Kittles,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Marina Security Services, a California corporation, Does 1 through
50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC21596761 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., Nov. 22, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Marina Security Services -- https://marinasecurityservices.com/ --
is the leading security service provider founded in the San
Francisco/Greater Bay Area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
HYUN LEGAL, APC
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
Email: dhyun@hyunlegal.com
MARKEL INSURANCE: Fountain Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Fountain Enterprises, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Fountain Enterprises,
LLC doing business as: Anytime Fitness - West Point; Vita Grata LLC
doing business as: Anytime Fitness Spokane Valley; individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Markel Insurance
Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-00027-AWA-LRL, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Norfolk.
The Plaintiffs filed this suit on January 12, 2021 alleging the
insurance company breached its contract by denying its business
interruption claim due to COVID-19.
On May 24, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.
On October 26, 2021, District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen entered
an order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss and denied a motion
for hearing.
The Plaintiffs seek a review of the dismissal order.
The appellate case is captioned as Fountain Enterprises, LLC v.
Markel Insurance Company, Case No. 21-2326, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on November 30,
2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants FOUNTAIN ENTERPRISES, LLC, d/b/a Anytime
Fitness - West Point, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; VITA GRATA LLC, d/b/a Anytime Fitness - Spokane
Valley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; KZONE SPORTS, FITNESS, AND WELLNESS LLC, d/b/a Anytime
Fitness - Schuylkill Haven, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; NORTHWEST WELLNESS & FITNESS LLC, d/b/a
Anytime Fitness - Redmond, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; EWT ENTERPRISES INC., d/b/a Anytime Fitness -
Irwin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
GMT FITNESS ENTERPRISES LLC, d/b/a Anytime Fitness - Glenshaw,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and B
FIT B YOU LLC, d/b/a Anytime Fitness - Danville, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
David Michael Kopstein, Esq.
KOPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
4300 Forbes Boulevard
Lanham, MD 20706
Telephone: (301) 552-3330
Defendant-Appellee MARKEL INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by:
John Becker Mumford, Jr., Esq.
Lindsay Lankford Rollins, Esq.
HANCOCK DANIEL & JOHNSON, PC
4701 Cox Road
Glen Allen, VA 23060
Telephone: (804) 237-7411
E-mail: jmumford@hancockdaniel.com
lrollins@hancockdaniel.com
- and -
Henrik Jonathan Redway, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT, PLLC
1875 I Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-5420
Telephone: (202) 457-0160
E-mail: jredway@dickinsonwright.com
- and -
Timothy Mark Strong, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
1850 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: (602) 285-5000
E-mail: tstrong@dickinsonwright.com
MISSOURI GAMING: Class Cert. Approval in Lipari-Williams Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Penn National Gaming, Inc. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled GINA R. LIPARI-WILLIAMS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE MISSOURI GAMING COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-06067-SRB, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri - St. Joseph.
The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Missouri Minimum Wage Law,
breach of contract and unjust enrichment/quantum meruit on behalf
of herself and others allegedly similarly situated against the
Defendants.
The lawsuit was removed from the Missouri Circuit Court, Platte
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri on May 1, 2020.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on November 30, 2021,
Judge Stephen R. Bough of the Western District of Missouri, Western
Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification of
ERISA Claim. Specifically, the Court certified this Class and
Sub-class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(1)(B),
(b)(2), and (b)(3):
(1) Nationwide ERISA Class-Failure to Provide Notice of a
Reasonable Alternative Standard: All participants in Defendant's
group health plan for plan years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020
who had a tobacco surcharge deducted from their wages.
(2) Nationwide ERISA Sub-Class-Failure to Provide a Reasonable
Alternative Standard or Notice of the Same:
All participants in Defendant's group health plan for plan years
2019 and 2020 who had a tobacco surcharge deducted from their
wages.
The Defendant appeals this class certification ruling.
The appellate case is captioned as Penn National Gaming, Inc. v.
Gina Lipari-Williams, et al., Case No. 21-8011, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on November
30, 2021.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner Penn National Gaming, Inc. is represented by:
Sari M. Alamuddin, Esq.
Patrick R. Duffey, Esq.
MORGAN & LEWIS
110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 324-1158
- and -
Jeremy Paul Blumenfeld, Esq.
MORGAN & LEWIS
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000
Telephone: (215) 963-5000
- and -
Michael E. Kenneally, Esq.
MORGAN & LEWIS
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-2541
Telephone: (202) 739-5604
Plaintiffs-Respondents Gina R. Lipari-Williams, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; Marissa T. Hammond; and
Lucinda M. Layton, are represented by:
George Allan Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
STUEVE & SIEGEL
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
- and -
Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
Michael James Rahmberg, Esq.
MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM
The Flagship Building
200 Westwoods Drive
Liberty, MO 64068-0000
Telephone: (816) 781-0002
- and -
Caleb Wagner, Esq.
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
615 E. 13th Street, Suite 401
Kansas City, MO 64106
Telephone: (816) 889-5000
MY IMPORTS USA: Kallamni Files Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MY Imports USA LLC.
The case is styled as Rachid Kallamni, individually on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. MY Imports USA LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-10261 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.
MY Imports -- https://myproducts99.com/ -- is one of the fastest
growing manufacturer and distributor of branded and private label
goods on the East Coast.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Phone: (845) 483-7100
Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
OMS INVESTMENTS: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OMS Investments, Inc.
The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. OMS Investments, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10271 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Miracle-Gro -- https://www.miraclegro.com/en-us -- usually refers
to a garden products brand licensed by OMS Investments Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Phone: (917) 957-0978
Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com
PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Faces Bar-Asher Suit Over Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
IDAN BAR-ASHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PLAYTIKA HOLDING CORP.; ROBERT ANTOKOL;
CRAIG J. ABRAHAMS; TROY J. VANKE; WEI LIU; MARC BEILINSON; BING
YUAN; and TIAN LIN, Defendants, Case 1:21-cv-06571 (E.D.N.Y., Nov.
23, 2021) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all who purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Playtika
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial
public offering conducted on or about January 15, 2021 (the "IPO"
or "Offering"); or (b) Playtika securities between January 15, 2021
and November 2, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
the Plaintiff seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants under
the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
According to the complaint, on January 15, 2021, pursuant to the
Registration Statement, Playtika's securities began trading on the
NASDAQ Global Select Market ("NASDAQ") under the symbol "PLTK."
That same day, Playtika filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the
SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part
of the Registration Statement (collectively, the "Offering
Documents").
Allegeldy, the 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 and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and
regulations governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout
the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, the Offering Documents and
Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company's year-over-year total costs and
costs related to sales & marketing and research & development were
on track to rise significantly by the third quarter of 2021; (ii)
the success of the Company's game portfolio was less sustainable
than the Company had represented; (iii) the foregoing issues were
likely to negatively impact the Company's revenue and earnings; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
As of the time the filing of the complaint was filed, Playtika
ordinary shares continue to trade below the Offering price,
damaging investors. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts
and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of
Playtika's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, the suit added.
PLAYTIKA HOLDING CORP. operates as a digital entertainment company.
The Company specializes in the development and publication of free
to play mobile games. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
QUALITY CARRIERS: Salter Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Clayton Salter filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled CLAYTON SALTER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUALITY
CARRIERS INC., an Illinois Corporation; et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00479-JFW-JPR, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
challenges an employer's misclassification of employees as
independent contractors. The employer in this case, a trucking
company named Quality Carriers, initially classified its truck
drivers as employees. To save money, however, Quality Carriers
started classifying some of its drivers as independent contractors
instead. The drivers' jobs stayed much the same but their wages
changed significantly. Once the drivers were reclassified, the
company started passing along its business expenses to the drivers
in violation of California's wage-and-hour laws, asserts the
complaint.
The misclassified workers, represented by one of the drivers,
Clayton Salter, sued Quality Carriers to recover lost wages. All of
the drivers' claims flow from the same theory of liability -- that
Quality illegally classified them as independent contractors, the
Plaintiff contends.
On April 9, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
On October 27, 2021, Judge John F. Walter entered an order granting
in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for partial summary
judgment on the issue of employment; and an order granting
Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment.
On November 9, 2021, the Court ordered that Plaintiff's fifth and
eighth causes of action are dismissed with prejudice in their
entirety.
The Plaintiff seeks a review of the October 27 and November 9, 2021
orders.
The appellate case is captioned as Clayton Salter v. Quality
Carriers, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-56291, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 30,
2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Clayton Salter Mediation Questionnaire was due
December 7, 2021;
-- Appellant Clayton Salter opening brief is due on January 31,
2022;
-- Appellees Quality Carriers, Inc. and Quality Distribution,
Inc. answering brief is due on March 3, 2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant CLAYTON SALTER, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Daniel Joseph Bass, Esq.
MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES, APLC
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 312-0299
E-mail: daniel@kicklawfirm.com
- and -
Jennifer D. Bennett, Esq.
GUPTA WESSLER
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 573-0336
- and -
Taras Kick, Esq.
THE KICK LAW FIRM
815 Moraga Drive, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Telephone: (310) 395-2988
E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com
- and -
Matthew W.H. Wessler, Esq.
GUPTA WESSLER, PLLC
2001 K Street, NW, Suite 850 N
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 888-1741
Defendants-Appellees QUALITY CARRIERS, INC., an Illinois
Corporation; and QUALITY DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Florida Corporation,
are represented by:
Christopher James Eckhart, Esq.
Elizabeth Ashley Paynter, Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, PC
10 W Market Street, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 637-1777
E-mail: ceckhart@scopelitis.com
apaynter@scopelitis.com
- and -
Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
2 North Lake Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 795-4700
E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com
REDDIT INC: Does Appeal Dismissal of Child Pornography Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jane Does, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REDDIT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-00768, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Santa Ana.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 28, 2021, the
lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for receipt and
distribution of child pornography, distribution of private sexually
explicit materials, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the California's Unfair
Competition Law, and duty to report child sexual abuse material.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to prevent child
pornography on its websites. Despite Reddit's ability to enforce a
policy banning child pornography and its awareness of the continued
prevalence of child pornography on its websites, Reddit continues
to serve as a safe haven for such content. The Defendant's inaction
caused users to upload and post images and videos of commercial sex
acts. Moreover, Reddit knowingly benefits from lax enforcement of
its content polices, including for child pornography. By allowing
sensational and illegal content to be posted on Reddit, it receives
substantial advertising revenues, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order dated October
28, 2021, dismissing all of Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as Jane Does, et al. v. Reddit,
Inc., Case No. 21-56293, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 30, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Jane Does and John Does Mediation Questionnaire
was due on December 7, 2021;
-- Appellants Jane Does and John Does opening brief is due on
January 28, 2022;
-- Appellee Reddit, Inc. answering brief is due on February 28,
2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JANE DOES, No. 1-6; and JOHN DOES, No. 2, 3,
and 5, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:
Davida Brook, Esq.
Halley W. Josephs, Esq.
Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4405
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
E-mail: dbrook@susmangodfrey.com
hjosephs@susmangodfrey.com
kpachman@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Tamar Lusztig, Esq.
Arun Subramanian, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 336-8330
E-mail: tlusztig@susmangodfrey.com
asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com
Defendant-Appellee REDDIT, INC. is represented by:
Michael Dore, Esq.
Theane Evangelis, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
333 S Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7652
E-mail: mdore@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Kristin Andrea Linsley, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 393-8395
E-mail: klinsley@gibsondunn.com
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Glinoga Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK GLINOGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.; ROBINHOOD CRYPTO,
LLC; ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC; and ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC.
Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-09290-KAW (N.D. Cal., December 1,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment,
declaratory judgment and violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law and the California's Consumer Privacy Act.
The class action arises out of the November 3, 2021 cyberattack and
data breach that was perpetrated against Robinhood. The alleged
data breach resulted in unauthorized access and exfiltration of
sensitive and personal identifiable information of approximately
seven million Robinhood users, including Plaintiff. As a result,
affected Class Members are vulnerable to present injury and damages
in the form of identity theft, out-of-pocket expenses and the value
of time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of
the unauthorized access, exfiltration, and subsequent criminal
misuse of the private information, says the suit.
Robinhood Markets, Inc. is a financial services company,
headquartered in Menlo Park, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Hwy E., Fl. 2
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (756) 772-7200
E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
SCHLUMBERGER LIFT: Seeks Review of Class Cert. Ruling in Garcia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schlumberger Lift Solutions, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled CRISTOBAL GARCIA, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SCHLUMBERGER LIFT SOLUTIONS, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-01261-DAD JLT, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California, Fresno.
According to the complaint, Garcia asserts that he and others
employed by the Defendants suffered wage and hour law violations,
including unpaid wages for required tasks, uncompensated travel
time, improper meal periods, failure to pay wages timely after
termination, and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff asserts that he was "employed in Kern County by the
Defendants as a non-exempt employee," beginning around April 2015.
Defendants Schlumberger Rod Lift, Inc. and Schlumberger Lift
Solutions, LLC "are the successive owner operators of the KBA
product line." KBA is an oil and gas servicing company that sells,
distributes, and maintains customer pumping units throughout
Southern California. The administrative office and main yard are
located in Bakersfield, California. The company supplies workers
for several locations on a regular basis, including locations in
Belridge, Taft, Lost Hills, Kern River, San Ardo, and Coalinga.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 16, 2021,
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California recommended that the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification be granted in part and
denied in part.
On July 10, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class.
On November 16, 2021, District Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order
granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification in part.
The Defendants appeal Judge Drozd's ruling.
The appellate case is captioned as Schlumberger Rod Lift, Inc., et
al. v. Cristobal Garcia, Case No. 21-80120, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 30,
2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent CRISTOBAL GARCIA, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Esq.
5211 East Washington Blvd. No 2262
Commerce, CA 90040
Telephone: (213) 599-8255
E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com
- and -
Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Eq.
THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200
Westlake Village, CA 91301
Telephone: (818) 883-4900
E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com
- and -
Jeff Holmes, Esq.
3311 E. Pico Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90023
Telephone: (310) 396-9045
E-mail: jeffholmesjh@gmail.com
Defendants-Petitioners SCHLUMBERGER LIFT SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and SCHLUMBERGER ROD LIFT, INC., a
Delaware corporation, are represented by:
Heather D. Hearne, Esq.
THE KULLMAN FIRM
4605 Bluebonnet Boulevard, Suite A
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 906-4245
E-mail: hdh@kullmanlaw.com
SPORTS TUTOR: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sports Tutor, Inc.
The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Sports Tutor, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10284 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sports Tutor -- https://sportstutor.com/ -- manufactures and sells
practice machines for Tennis, Baseball, Softball, Volleyball,
Soccer and Pickleball. Products made in the USA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Phone: (917) 957-0978
Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com
STARBRIGHT FLORAL: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Starbright Floral
Design, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Starbright Floral
Design, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10283 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Starbright Floral Design -- https://www.starbrightnyc.com/ -- is an
established flower shop offering fresh flower arrangements, gift
baskets, corporate services & more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Phone: (917) 957-0978
Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com
TDS MANAGEMENT: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TDS Management, LLC.
The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. TDS Management, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10269 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
TDS Management started selling ice cream novelties on the streets
of Sherwood Park Alberta in the year 1993.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Phone: (917) 957-0978
Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com
TEAM LIQUID: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Team Liquid
Enterprises, L.L.C. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Team Liquid
Enterprises, L.L.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-10275-AT (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Team Liquid -- https://www.teamliquid.com/ -- is a world renowned
professional gaming organization established in 2000.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Phone: (917) 957-0978
Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com
TEXAS BANK: Martin Files Suit in D. Texas
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Texas Bank and Trust
Company. The case is styled as Beverly Martin, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated v. Texas Bank and Trust Company,
Case No. 2021-2121-B (D. Tex., Gregg Cty., Dec. 2, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Damages."
Texas Bank and Trust -- https://www.texasbankandtrust.com/ -- is a
Community Bank committed to creating a better financial life for
our customers and communities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford St
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: 713-369-5997
Fax: 888-995-3335
Web: https://www.ellzeylaw.com/
TRUEACCORD CORP: Faces Boettger Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE BOETTGER, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUEACCORD CORP. and LVNV FUNDING
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01370 (E.D. Wis., November 30,
2021) seeks redress for the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, and the Wisconsin Consumer Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the laws by
placing non-emergency robocalls to Plaintiff's phone number
utilizing an artificial or prerecorded voice without Plaintiff's
consent. The Defendants' collection calls to Plaintiff were
allegedly made with the specific intent of annoying, harassing, and
abusing Plaintiff as Plaintiff informed TrueAccord that she no
longer wished to be contacted on her cellular telephone.
TrueAccord Corp. and LVNV Funding LLC are debt collection
agencies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 South Highland Avenue Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 575-8180
E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
UNITED STATES: Summary Judgment Ruling in N.S. Suit Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Robert A. Dixon filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled as N.S., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. MICHAEL A. HUGHES, in his
official capacity as U.S. Marshal for the District of Columbia
Superior Court, Case No. 1:20-cv-00101-RCL, in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia.
N.S., a resident of the District of Columbia proceeding under a
pseudonym, was arrested on January 13, 2020, for robbery and
destruction of property and arraigned before Magistrate Judge Heide
L. Herrmann the following day. Magistrate Judge Herrmann ordered
N.S. released on his own recognizance. But instead of releasing him
from custody, the United States Marshals Services detained N.S.
until officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement took him
into custody.
The USMS's failure to release N.S. was based on an ICE detainer. An
ICE detainer is an "Immigration Detainer-Notice of Action[] to any
other Federal, state, or local law enforcement agency" that
"advise[s] another law enforcement agency that the Department [of
Homeland Security] seeks custody of an alien presently in the
custody of that agency." An ICE detainer "request[s] that such
agency advise the Department, prior to the release of the alien, in
order for the Department to arrange to assume custody, in
situations when gaining immediate physical custody is either
impracticable or impossible." This "ICE hold" forms the basis of
N.S.'s complaint -- N.S. maintains that the USMS lacks the
authority to make civil immigration arrests.
N.S. brought this complaint as a putative class action, alleging
that the USMS's "ICE hold" practice was in excess of statutory
jurisdiction and must be set aside under the Administrative
Procedure Act. He also alleged that the USMS acted ultra vires.
The Defendant now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated
September 30, 2021 and Memorandum and Opinion dated October 7,
2021, granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment; and granting in part and denying in part
Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
The appellate case is captioned as Robert Dixon v. N.S., Case No.
21-5275, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit, filed on November 30, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- APPELLANT docketing statement is due on December 30, 2021;
-- APPELLANT certificate as to parties is due on December 30,
2021;
-- APPELLANT statement of issues is due on December 30, 2021;
-- APPELLANT underlying decision is due on December 30, 2021;
-- APPELLANT deferred appendix statement is due on December 30,
2021;
-- APPELLANT entry of appearance is due on December 30, 2021;
-- APPELLANT transcript status report is due on December 30,
2021;
-- APPELLANT procedural motions are due on December 30, 2021;
-- APPELLANT dispositive motions are due on January 14,2022;
-- APPELLEE certificate as to parties is due on December 30,
2021;
-- APPELLEE entry of appearance is due on December 30, 2021;
-- APPELLEE procedural motions are due on December 30, 2021;
and
-- APPELLEE dispositive motions are due on January 14, 2022.
Defendant-Appellant Robert A. Dixon, United States Marshal,
District of Columbia (Superior Court), in his official capacity, is
represented by:
R. Craig Lawrence, Esq.
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 252-2500
Plaintiff-Appellee N.S., Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Steven Marcus, Esq.
PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
633 Indiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 628-1200
E-mail: smarcus@pdsdc.org
VIKING INSURANCE: Bradley Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs DeMarkus Bradley filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled DeMarkus Bradley, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Viking Insurance Company
of Wisconsin, Case No. 3:20-CV-640, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson.
According to the complaint, Bradley has brought the present action
asserting claims for bad faith breach of contract, negligence and
gross negligence, based on allegations that the policy provisions
on which Viking relied to deny his claim violate the Mississippi
Uninsured Motorist Act, Mississippi Code Section 83-11-101 et seq.,
and thus are invalid and unenforceable, making Viking's denial of
his claim wrongful. He notes that the Act's definition of
"insured" expressly includes a resident relative of the named
insured and he points out that well-established Mississippi law
bars an insurer from diminishing the uninsured/underinsured
motorist coverage required by statute.
On November 9, 2021, the Court ordered and adjudged that
Plaintiffs' complaint in this cause is dismissed with prejudice.
The Court ordered and adjudged that the policy issued by Viking
Insurance Company of Wisconsin to Plaintiff Angela Hawkins provides
no coverage for Plaintiff Demarkus Bradleys April 6, 2018 accident
due to the misrepresentation by Hawkins in her application for
insurance, which misrepresentation was a breach of the contract,
and Bradley will recover no benefits under the policy for said
accident.
The Plaintiffs now seeks a review of the Court's dismissal order.
The appellate case is captioned as Bradley v. Viking Insurance,
Case No. 21-60907, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, filed on November 30, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants DeMarkus Bradley, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated; and Angela Hawkins are
represented by:
Brent Hazzard, Esq.
RICHARD SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
162 E. Amite Street
Jackson, MS 39201-0000
Telephone: (601) 988-8888
E-mail: brent.hazzard@hazzardlaw.net
Defendant-Appellee Viking Insurance Company of Wisconsin is
represented by:
James E. Welch, Jr., Esq.
COPELAND, COOK, TAYLOR & BUSH, P.A.
200 E. Beach Boulevard, Building 5
Gulfport, MS 39507
Telephone: (228) 863-6101
E-mail: jwelch@cctb.com
WINE ADVOCATE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Wine Advocate,
Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. The Wine Advocate, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10268 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Wine Advocate -- https://www.robertparker.com/ -- is the
world's most trusted authority in wine for over 30 years providing
unbiased, professional tasting notes, reviews, articles, videos,
daily news and much more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Phone: (917) 957-0978
Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com
WISE MEDICAL: Has Until Dec. 10 to Response to Pre-Discovery Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA FORTIN v. WISE
MEDICAL STAFFING, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01467-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an order
granting the Defendant's motion for additional extension of time to
respond to Plaintiff's pre-discovery motion for conditional
certification.
The Defendant shall have until Dec. 10, 2021, to file a response to
Plaintiff's Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional Class
Certification and Court-Authorized Notice to Potential Opt-In
Plaintiffs, Judge Deavers says.
Wise Medical is a hospital staffing and home health care company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pyJI36 at no extra charge.[CC]
WM. B. REILY: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WM. B. Reily &
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. WM. B. Reily &
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10293 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Reily Foods Company -- https://reilyproducts.com/ -- is the primary
division of Wm. B. Reily & Company Inc. and specializes in selling
food and beverages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Phone: (917) 957-0978
Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Faces Personal Injury Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. is subject to liabilities from claims
alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Such claims result primarily from indemnification obligations
undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of Riley Stoker
Corporation (Riley), a former subsidiary. Although Riley was
neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos, its industrial
boilers contained some asbestos containing components provided by
other companies.
Hercules LLC (formerly Hercules Incorporated), an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland, is also subject to liabilities
from asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits involving claims
which typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from
resin encapsulated pipe and tank products which were sold by one of
Hercules’ former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market.
Ashland and Hercules are also defendants in lawsuits alleging
exposure to asbestos at facilities formerly or presently owned or
operated by Ashland or Hercules.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3Ex3To1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Products Defends 152 PI Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc., has been named a defendant in numerous
personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, alleging that
certain talc products the it sold in the past were contaminated
with asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Many of these actions involve a number of
co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including
manufacturers of cosmetics and manufacturers of other products
that, unlike the Company's products, were designed to contain
asbestos. As of September 30, 2021, there were 152 individual cases
pending against the Company. During the three months ended
September 30, 2021, 33 new cases were filed and 10 cases were
dismissed, settled or otherwise resolved. The value of the
settlements was not material, either individually or in the
aggregate, to the Company's results of operations for the three
months ended September 30, 2021. Additional similar cases arising
out of the use of the Company's talc products are reasonably
anticipated."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/305uMAK
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ballantyne Strong Defends PI Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------
Ballantyne Strong, Inc. and its subsidiaries are named as
defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing materials, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "A majority of the cases involve product
liability claims based principally on allegations of past
distribution of commercial lighting products containing wiring that
may have contained asbestos. Each case names dozens of corporate
defendants in addition to Ballantyne Strong. In our experience, a
large percentage of these types of claims have never been
substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. We have not
suffered any adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to
asbestos claims and intend to continue to defend these lawsuits.
When appropriate, we may settle certain claims. We do not expect
the resolution of these cases to have a material adverse effect on
our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3005yDF
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Intl. Defends Product Liability Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc., has reported that asbestos-related
product liability claims continue to be filed against two of the
its subsidiaries: Spence Engineering Company, Inc. ("Spence"), the
stock of which the Company acquired in 1984; and CIRCOR
Instrumentation Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a Hoke, Inc.) ("Hoke"), the
stock of which it acquired in 1998, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
CIRCOR states, "The Hoke subsidiary was divested in January 2020
through the sale of the I&S business. However, the Company has
indemnified the buyer for asbestos-related claims that are made
against Hoke. Due to the nature of the products supplied by these
entities, the markets they serve and the Company's historical
experience in resolving these claims, the Company does not expect
that these asbestos-related claims will have a material adverse
effect on the financial condition, results of operations or
liquidity of the Company.
"During the second quarter of 2021, the Company was notified of a
contract termination by one of its Industrial segment customers.
The basis for this termination is under dispute and the ultimate
outcome of this matter is uncertain. The Company has a net
receivable in the amount of $4.6 million as of October 3, 2021
relating to this contract. Further, the Company has outstanding
guarantees of its performance under the contract in the aggregate
amount of $3.4 million. Should the negotiation or settlement
process be unfavorable for the Company, the Company is exposed to
risk of loss for some or all of the net receivable under the
contract, performance guarantees and potential future claims should
any be asserted."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3y3TRIB
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emerson Electric Faces Product Liability Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Electric Co. is a party to a number of pending legal
proceedings and claims, including those involving general and
product liability (including asbestos) and other matters, several
of which claim substantial amounts of damages, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Emerson Electric states, "The Company accrues for such liabilities
when it is probable that future costs (including legal fees and
expenses) will be incurred and such costs can be reasonably
estimated. Accruals are based on developments to date; management's
estimates of the outcomes of these matters; and the Company's
experience in contesting, litigating and settling similar matters.
The Company engages an outside expert to develop an actuarial
estimate of its expected costs to resolve all pending and future
asbestos claims, including defense costs, as well as its related
insurance receivables. The reserve for asbestos litigation, which
is recorded on an undiscounted basis, is based on projected claims
through 2065.
"Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
these matters, the Company historically has been largely successful
in defending itself against claims and suits that have been brought
against it, and will continue to defend itself vigorously in all
such matters. While the Company believes a material adverse impact
is unlikely, given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, a remote
possibility exists that a future development could have a material
adverse impact on the Company. The Company enters into certain
indemnification agreements in the ordinary course of business in
which the indemnified party is held harmless and is reimbursed for
losses incurred from claims by third parties, usually up to a
prespecified limit. In connection with divestitures of certain
assets or businesses, the Company often provides indemnities to the
buyer with respect to certain matters including, for example,
environmental or unidentified tax liabilities related to periods
prior to the disposition. Because of the uncertain nature of the
indemnities, the maximum liability cannot be quantified. As such,
contingent liabilities are recorded when they are both probable and
reasonably estimable. Historically, payments under indemnity
arrangements have been inconsequential."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3Dw5wkE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Faces Personal Injury Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc and certain of its subsidiaries,
along with numerous other third parties, have been named as
defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to
asbestos containing materials, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These cases typically involve product
liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture,
sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained
asbestos or were used with asbestos containing components. We
cannot predict with certainty the extent to which we will be
successful in litigating or otherwise resolving lawsuits in the
future and we continue to evaluate different strategies related to
asbestos claims filed against us including entity restructuring and
judicial relief."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3oweYQY
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Defends Asbestos Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC, as successor by merger to other entities, and
D/C Distribution Corporation have been named as defendants in
personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "While there are relatively few cases that name
Kaanapali Land, there were a substantial number of cases that were
pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California).
Cases against Kaanapali Land (hereafter, "Kaanapali Land asbestos
cases") are allegedly based on its prior business operations in
Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on sale of
asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business
operations primarily in California. Each entity defending these
cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against these
actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
these cases. The defense of these cases has had a material adverse
effect on the financial condition of D/C as it has been forced to
file a voluntary petition for liquidation. Kaanapali Land does not
believe that it has liability, directly or indirectly, for D/C's
obligations in those cases. Kaanapali Land does not presently
believe that the cases in which it is named will result in any
material liability to Kaanapali Land; however, there can be no
assurance in that regard.
"On January 21, 2020, certain asbestos claimants filed a Stay
Relief Motion in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, Case No. 07-12776 ("motion to lift
stay") in connection with the D/C bankruptcy proceeding. The motion
seeks the entry of an order, among other things, modifying the
automatic stay in the D/C bankruptcy to permit those claimants to
prosecute various lawsuits in state courts against D/C
Distribution, LLC, and to recover on any judgment or settlement
solely from any available insurance coverage. Various oppositions
to the motion to lift stay have been filed, and the matter was
heard and taken under advisement in April 2020. On July 21, 2020,
the bankruptcy court issued an order granting the motion to lift
stay to permit the movants to pursue their claims and to recover
any judgment or settlement from and to the extent of any available
insurance coverage of D/C Distribution, LLC, only."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3DvwCbC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc., along with many other companies, have been named as
a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos used in certain components of products of
Rockwell International Corporation ("Rockwell"), according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "Liability for these claims was transferred to
us at the time of the spin-off of Rockwell's automotive business to
Meritor in 1997.
"The uncertainties of asbestos claims and other litigation,
including the outcome of litigation with insurance companies
regarding the scope of asbestos coverage and the long-term solvency
of our insurance carriers, make it difficult to predict accurately
the ultimate resolution of asbestos claims. The possibility of
adverse rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim
litigation or the settlement process increases that uncertainty.
Although we have established reserves to address asbestos liability
and corresponding receivables for recoveries from our insurance
carriers, if our assumptions with respect to the nature of pending
and future claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of
available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of
liability for asbestos-related claims, and the effect on us, could
differ materially from our current estimates and, therefore, could
have a material impact on our financial position and results of
operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3ovhp6b
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Natura &Co's Subsidiary Faces 152 PI Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Natura &Co Holding S.A.'s subsidiary, Avon International was
included as a defendant (jointly with other manufacturers of
cosmetics and other products that, opposite to those manufactured
by Avon, were produced with asbestos) in personal injury
proceedings filed in the courts of the United States, according to
the Company's Form 6-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "As of September 30, 2021, there were 152
individual cases pending against Avon International. During the
nine-month period ended September 30, 2021, 33 cases were shelved
and 10 were dismissed or settled. The value of the settlements was
not material, either individually or in the aggregate, to the
Company's or subsidiary Avon International operational results."
A full-text copy of the Form 6-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3rHYPJX
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 124 PI Cases
--------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., is a co-defendant in approximately 124
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 228 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.
"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought.
To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the
amount applies to claims against all named defendants.
"There are four asbestos cases, involving 20 plaintiffs, that plead
specified damages against named defendants. In each of the four
cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In
two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at $3.0 million
compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at $3.0 million
compensatory and $1.0 million punitive damages; one count at $1.0
million. In the third case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
and punitive damages, each in the amount of $20.0 million, for
three separate causes of action, and $5.0 million compensatory
damages for the fifth cause of action. In the fourth case, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in
the amount of $10.0 million, for ten separate causes of action.
"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned above; (b) many cases have been improperly filed
against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs
have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our
products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable
injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they
have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos;
and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants
and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to
individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the
amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful
indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed
typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury,
if any."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Ewul1p
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Defends 57 Product Liability Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc, as of October 2, 2021, has been named in 57
individual lawsuits seeking compensatory and punitive damages and
has accepted a tender for a portion of the defense costs and
liability from a retailer for one additional matter, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Perrigo Co. states, "The Company has been named, together with
other manufacturers, in product liability lawsuits in state courts
in California, Florida, Missouri, New Jersey, Louisiana and
Illinois alleging that the use of body powder products containing
talcum powder causes mesothelioma and lung cancer due to the
presence of asbestos. All but one of these cases involve legacy
talcum powder products that have not been manufactured by the
Company since 1999. One of the pending actions involves a current
prescription product that contains talc as an excipient. The
Company has several defenses and intends to aggressively defend
these lawsuits. Trials for these lawsuits are currently scheduled
throughout 2021, 2022 and 2023, with the earliest that began in
September 2021."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3DwYHiL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc.'s Subsidiary Defends PI Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Warner-Lambert is actively
engaged in the defense of, and will continue to explore various
means of resolving, these claims, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned
American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured
and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety
clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982,
Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain
liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims.
Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Pfizer.
"Numerous lawsuits against American Optical, Pfizer and certain of
its previously owned subsidiaries are pending in various federal
and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from
exposure to products allegedly containing asbestos and other
allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and certain of its
previously owned subsidiaries.
"There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to
asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its
subsidiaries."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3ouiIlM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Defends Exposure Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company has been named as a defendant in a
number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted
from exposure to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on
the its historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
In many of these cases, the complaints are not specific about the
plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products. The cases
vary, but complaints in these cases generally seek unspecified
monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential and punitive)
from multiple defendants. The Company believes that the claims
against it are without merit and is vigorously defending against
them. No accruals have been recorded in the Company's consolidated
financial statements as the likelihood of a loss is not probable at
this time; and the Company does not believe a reasonably possible
loss would be material to, nor the ultimate resolution of these
cases will have a material adverse effect on, the Company's
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. There can
be no assurance that future developments related to pending claims
or claims filed in the future, whether as a result of adverse
outcomes or as a result of significant defense costs, will not have
a material effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/337P4ux
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners' Subsidiary Has 45 Tort Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Partners Holdings L.P. reported that a subsidiary of BNS
Holdings Liquidating Trust ("BNS Sub") has been named as a
defendant in multiple alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims
filed over a period beginning in 1994 through September 30, 2021,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "In many cases these claims involved more than
100 defendants. There remained approximately 45 pending asbestos
claims as of September 30, 2021. BNS Sub believes it has
significant defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the
merits. None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and,
therefore, there can be no assurance that these defenses will
prevail. BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related
claims for years beginning 1974 through 1988. BNS Sub annually
receives retroactive billings or credits from its insurance
carriers for any increase or decrease in claims accruals as claims
are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate
settlement costs for the then-existing claims are revised. As of
both September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, BNS Sub has accrued
$1,349 relating to the open and active claims against BNS Sub. This
accrual includes the amount of unpaid retroactive billings
submitted to the Company by the insurance carriers and also the
Company's best estimate of the likely costs for BNS Sub to settle
these claims outside the amounts funded by insurance. There can be
no assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs
of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the
experience to-date of existing claims and that BNS Sub will not
need to significantly increase its estimated liability for the
costs to settle these claims to an amount that could have a
material effect on the consolidated financial statements."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Gi7A1u
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TVA Increased Abatement Costs by $19MM
-------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has increased its plant
decommissioning obligations by $19 million, primarily due to
asbestos and hazardous material abatement costs, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "This decommissioning cost estimate involves
estimating the amount and timing of future expenditures and making
judgments concerning whether or not such costs are considered a
legal obligation. Estimating the amount and timing of future
expenditures includes, among other things, making projections of
the timing and duration of the asset retirement process and
predicting how costs will escalate with inflation. These costs are
predominantly CCR closure, CCR post-closure care and monitoring,
and plant powerhouse asbestos removal. CCR closure estimates are
primarily closure-in-place except for specific ponds located at
Allen and Gallatin, which are closure-by-removal. CCR post-closure
care and monitoring primarily includes costs for grounds
maintenance, cover system and mechanical maintenance, inspections,
and groundwater monitoring costs. Asbestos removal is based on cost
per square foot to remove and dispose of asbestos-containing
materials. TVA revises estimates of CCR closure on a project by
project basis when updated cost information becomes available that
causes management's expectation of cost to change materially. CCR
post-closure care and monitoring costs and asbestos removal are
studied for revision at least every five years, but revised more
frequently if updated cost information becomes available that
causes management's expectation of cost to change materially."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3lIr6MO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Has 1,600 PI Lawsuits at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
WestRock Company, at September 30, 2021, is a defendant of
approximately 1,600 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We have been named a defendant in
asbestos-related personal injury litigation.. To date, the costs
resulting from the litigation, including settlement costs, have not
been significant. We believe that we have substantial insurance
coverage, subject to applicable deductibles and policy limits, with
respect to asbestos claims. We also have valid defenses to these
asbestos-related personal injury claims and intend to continue to
defend them vigorously. Should the volume of litigation grow
substantially, it is possible that we could incur significant costs
resolving these cases. We do not expect the resolution of pending
asbestos litigation and proceedings to have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash
flows. In any given period or periods, however, it is possible such
proceedings or matters could have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. At
September 30, 2021, we had $15.2 million reserved for these
matters."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3pCunOG
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Williams Industrial Assumes Asbestos PI Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Industrial Services Group Inc. has assumed defense of the
asbestos personal injury lawsuit subject to a reservation of rights
and objection to the claim for indemnification, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Williams Industrial states, "The acquiror of certain assets from a
former operating unit of the Company has been named as a defendant
in an asbestos personal injury lawsuit and has submitted a claim
for indemnification and tendered defense of the matter to the
Company. Neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined,
manufactured, produced, or distributed asbestos fiber, the material
that allegedly caused the injury underlying this action. The
Company does not expect that this claim will have a material
adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or
liquidity. Moreover, during 2012, the Company secured insurance
coverage that will help to reimburse the defense costs and
potential indemnity obligations of its former operating unit
relating to these claims. The Company intends to vigorously defend
all currently active actions, and it does not anticipate that this
action will have a material adverse effect on its financial
position, results of operations or liquidity. However, the outcomes
of any legal action cannot be predicted and, therefore, there can
be no assurance that this will be the case."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3IsyIwx
*********
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 ***