/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220720.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 20, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 138 Headlines 3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Cheatham Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: Demaria Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Drakeford Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Forand Claims 3M COMPANY: Faces Feeney Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Elements 3M COMPANY: Napper Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Ramirez Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Ricketts Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products 52-03 CENTER: Faces Stewart Suit Over Workplace-Related Injuries 80 ENTERPRISES: Underpays Bartenders, Thome Suit Claims A&E REAL ESTATE: Wins Bid to Comply With Subpoenas in Stafford Suit ALBERICI CORP: Court Amends Case Management Order in James Suit ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Hilario Files Bid for Class Certification AMAZON.COM INC: Rittman, et al., File Bid for Class Certification APRIO LLP: Sept. 2 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Sought ASCENA RETAIL: NJ Dismisses Putative Securities Class Action B. BRAUN MEDICAL: Nunez Wins Class Certification Bid BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Payment App's Security Risks BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Warn Payment App's Security Risks BASS PRO INC: Faces Slaughter Class Suit Over Mislabeled Socks BEYOND MEAT INC: Cascio Files Suit in E.D. New York BLUE BELL: Coker Sues Over Discrimination Based on Disability BOFI HOLDING: Securities Class Settlement Hearing Set October 7 NO HEADLINE - c C. PEPPER: Bourque FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. La. to N.D. Texas CABLE NEWS: Black Employees File Class-Action Lawsuit CAL-MART INC: Razon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CAMP LEJEUNE: Faces Water Contamination Class Action Lawsuit CAREERBUILDER LLC: To Pay $3.8M to Settle Sales Reps' Class Action CLOROX COMPANY: Fails to Disclose Mascara's PFAS Content, Baez Says CLOVER HEALTH: Bond, Tremblay Seek to Certify Class Action CNY FERTILITY PLLC: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York COLLABORATIVE BOATING: Berman Sues Over Unsolicited Texts/Calls CONDUENT COMMERCIAL: Ventura Labor Suit Goes to E.D. California CONTINENTAL INTERMODAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Soezeri Says COOPERATIVA DE SEGUROS: Ortiz, et al., Seek Class Certification CORECIVIC INC: Barrientos, et al., Seek to Certify Two Classes CORECIVIC INC: Court Extends Class Cert Deadlines CREDIT CONTROL: Vallo Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Mexico CREDIT SUISSE: Set Capital, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action DL FRANCHISING: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DL1961 PREMIUM DENIM: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DOLGENCORP LLC: Ingram Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Managers DRAPER AND KRAMER: Seeks Denial of Vasquez Class Certification Bid EAGLE NATIONAL: Wilson, et al., Seek to Certify Class, Subclasses ECL GROUP LLC: Solomon Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina EISENHOWER MEDICAL: Supreme Court Rules on Nurse's Lawsuit FALCONS MANAGEMENT: Olade Sues Over Unpaid Servers' Minimum Wages FILTERS FAST: Powers Must Give More Info on Class Deal & Atty. Fees G.L.A. COLLECTION: Grondland FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida GIFTLY INC: Faces Wecare Suit Over Misleading Gift Cards Items GOOGLE INC: AG Urges SCOTUS to Hear Consumer Rights Class Action GOOGLE INC: Top Lawyers Ask to Review Charity-Only Settlements GREAT CLIPS INC: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HAIR BAR NYC: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HAWAII: Opulento Wins Class Certification Bid HC SALON HOLDINGS: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HEAVYWEIGHT COLLECTIONS: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HILCORP ENERGY: Colton Files Suit in D. Wyoming HOME DEPOT: Chiarito Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California HOMEWARD MORTGAGE: Misclassifies Loan Advisors, Gonzales Claims IFIT INC: Treinish Suit Removed to C.D. California INCUBOOM INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ISIS LOGISTICS: Dwyer Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Overtime JACOBY & MEYERS: Review of Class of Cert. Denial in Harding Tossed JUUL LABS: Battle Creek Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Marion Public Claims KSF ACQUISITION: Nacarino Sues Over Mislabeled Smoothie Products KSF ACQUISITION: Wittman Sues Over Mislabeled Smoothie Products LAVISH LASHES INC: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LIGHTING BY JARED: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MCLANE COMPANY: Casler Files Suit in N.D. New York MERCK & CO: $250-Mil. Equal-Pay Suit Affected More Women Sales Reps MERRILL GARDENS: Holguin Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California META PLATFORMS: Faces Metroplex Suit Over False Advertisements MIDLAND CREDIT: Klimovich FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey MIDLAND CREDIT: Pistone FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey MONOGRAM AEROSPACE: Underpays Machine Operators, Briceno Alleges MUNICIPAL CREDIT: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Thompson NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS: Case Management Deadlines Extended in Hook NEW TAIWAN TRADING: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Loses Bid to Junk Anfibio Class Action OUTSET MEDICAL: Faces Plymouth Suit Over Drop in Share Price OUTSET MEDICAL: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action PARKVIEW HOUSE: Cruz Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Cooks PENN FIVE: Fails to Reimburse Drivers' Expenses, Trimble Claims PHL VARIABLE: Scheduling Order Entered in Advance Trust Suit POUGHKEEPSIE GALLERIA: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York R.J. REYNOLDS: Punitive Damages Award in Harris Suit Partly Upheld REGIS CORPORATION: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York RESEARCH STRATEGIES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Response RESTORATION HOLDINGS: Scheduling Order Entered in Krausslach SALVATION ARMY: Scheduling Order Entered in Tassinari Class Suit SOCLEAN INC: Lattimorre Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee SOLANA FOUNDATION: Faces Cryptocurrency Class Action Lawsuit SOLANA LABS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Unregistered Security SOLLIS HEALTH: Faces Davenport Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ST. LOUIS, MO: Appeals Narrowed Class Definitions in Cody Suit SUITE MANAGEMENT: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SUPERIOR SCAFFOLDING: Fernandez Suit Alleges Retaliatory Discharge TEAM HEALTH: Masiowski Can't Intervene in Forward Momentum Suit TEAM NOMAD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Williams Suit Alleges THERANOS INC: Patients Sues Over Misleading Blood Test Results THGPP LLC: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TOTAL LONGTERM: Williams Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. UNITED STATES: Settlement Reached in Lompoc Prison COVID-19 Suit UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Faces ERISA Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Ninivaggi, et al., Seek to Certify Class VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settles Audi Vehicles' Transmission Defect Suit WALMART INC: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Great Value Creamer WALMART INC: Order on Class Cert Briefing, Hearing Dates Entered WILD THING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Medina Suit Alleges ********* 3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Cheatham Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- EFFORT CHEATHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02188-RMG (D.S.C., July 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the suit. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and ??? Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Demaria Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD DEMARIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02185-RMG (D.S.C., July 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the suit. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and ??? Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Drakeford Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------------- MELVIN DRAKEFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02191-RMG (D.S.C., July 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the suit. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and ??? Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Forand Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEONARD FORAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02184-RMG (D.S.C., July 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the suit. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and ??? Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Faces Feeney Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Elements ---------------------------------------------------------------- DOUG FEENEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02182-RMG (D.S.C., July 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer and commenced on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via a right and left orchiectomy, the suit added. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq. VETERAN LEGAL GROUP 700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (888) 215-7834 E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com - and ??? S. James Boumil, Esq. BOUMIL LAW OFFICES 120 Fairmount Street Lowell, MA, 01852 Telephone: (978) 458-0507 E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com - and ??? Konstantine Kyros, Esq. KYROS LAW 17 Miles Rd. Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (800) 934-2921 E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com 3M COMPANY: Napper Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products --------------------------------------------------------------- ROY NAPPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02217-RMG (D.S.C., July 9, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with skin cancer, says the suit. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and ??? Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Ramirez Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICKOLAS RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02216-RMG (D.S.C., July 9, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with bladder cancer, says the suit. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and ??? Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Ricketts Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM RICKETTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02183-RMG (D.S.C., July 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and commenced on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via a left nephrectomy, the suit added. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq. VETERAN LEGAL GROUP 700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (888) 215-7834 E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com - and ??? S. James Boumil, Esq. BOUMIL LAW OFFICES 120 Fairmount Street Lowell, MA, 01852 Telephone: (978) 458-0507 E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com - and ??? Konstantine Kyros, Esq. KYROS LAW 17 Miles Rd. Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (800) 934-2921 E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com 52-03 CENTER: Faces Stewart Suit Over Workplace-Related Injuries ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANAVAN STEWART, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 52-03 CENTER LLC; 52-03 CENTER (LIHTC) LLC; 52-03 CENTER GC LLC; SELFHELP HPS NORTH HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND COMPANY, INC.; and TF CORNERSTONE INC., Defendants, Case No. 714126/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., July 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to provide a safe and proper place to work for the Plaintiff and similarly situated workers in violation of the laws and ordinances of the State of New York. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured while working at the Defendants' premises in New York on January 20, 2020 as a result of the Defendants' failure to provide safe equipment, safety devices, and a safe work place. 52-03 Center LLC is a property owner in New York. 52-03 Center (LIHTC) LLC is a property owner in New York. 52-03 Center GC LLC is a property owner in New York. Selfhelp HPS North Housing Development Fund Company, Inc. is a property owner in New York. TF Cornerstone Inc. is a property owner in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Mangona, Esq. GEORGAKLIS & MALLAS, PLLC 9118 Fifth Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11209 Telephone: (718) 238-2400 80 ENTERPRISES: Underpays Bartenders, Thome Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------- The case, ALLEN THOME, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 80 ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a KILLARNEY ROSE, and JOHN MORAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05901 (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a bartender at Killarney Rose from approximately March 2022 to June 2022. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff a Notice and Acknowledgement of Pay Rate when he began his employment. In addition, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff lower than the regular minimum wage as required by the FLSA, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action, for himself and all other similarly situated bartenders, seeking damages in the amount of their unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 80 Enterprises, Inc. operates Killarney Rose bar. John Moran is the owner and operator of Killarney Rose. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Michael DiGiulio, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 688-5640 Fax: (212) 981-9587 A&E REAL ESTATE: Wins Bid to Comply With Subpoenas in Stafford Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHN STAFFORD, TIMOTHY HICKERNELL, JEFFREY NATT, DANIEL FEYKA, JULIAN JONES, DONALD G. HALL, THOMAS HUNTER, SEUN JAE OH, JANE KIM, DENISE STARAKIEWICZ, WOJTEK STARAKIEWICZ, RYAN KORELL, EMAN ASIRI, MOHAMMAD A. HAQUE, RYAN M. HALEY, MARISOL MARTINEZ, WINFIELD COOPER, MATTHEW SULLIVAN, ELISE CZAJKOWSKI, JOHN PETRALITO, ROYA BASSAM, MOLLY CROOG, SAM T. TANABE, JASON BAILEY, ALEXANDER RICHARDS, HAJERA DEHQANZADA, ALI ABIDI, DERIC MIZOKAMI, JOHN RIVERA, ALVIN REALUYO, FABIENNE FERREIRA, K.M.O. VERA, KRISTIN MYERS, JESSE NEIL, CRAIG NADEAU, ANNMARIE COLUCCI, ROSHEN CARMAN, ALVIN FERNANDEZ, MARGARET PLESS, JOSE CALVILLO, EMMANUELLA PAUL, JESUS RIOS, NINA CHIDICHIMO, NATALIE HIRSH, CRAIG CONNOLE, ALEXANDRIA KIRCHER, EARL BARRETT-HOLLAWAY, SANTA PENA, DONNA DEMPSEY, SERENA FORBES, SOPHIA GREER, RUXANDRA STANCU, LEAH O'REILLY McKUNE, RASUEL McKUNE, DAVID WARTH, MOHAMMAD UDDIN, ELI JAMES, RICHARD DURO, NICHOLAS NAVIGLIA, MONICA THORNE, VINCENT WALLGREN, EILEEN WALLGREN, JEANNINE FRUMESS, EVAN JACOBS, WILLIAM RIVERS, GRACE SIERRA RIVERS, DANIEL REYES, OSCAR VALENCIA, Plaintiffs v. A&E REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, LLC, A&E REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Index No. 655500/2016, Motion Seq. No. 008 (N.Y.), the Supreme Court, New York County, grants the Defendants' motion to compel the Non-Parties' compliance with the Subpoenas to the extent of compelling compliance and otherwise denies without prejudice. Defendants A&E Real Estate Holdings, LLC and A&E Real Estate Management, LLC move to compel non-parties Alba Stone Works, Inc., Gold & Reiss Kitchen and Bath Center, Corp., D&R Marble & Granite, Inc., Freedom Marble & Granite LLC, Kitchen World Corp., and Nikqi GC, Inc. (the "Non-Parties") to comply with subpoenas duces tecum issued to them by the Defendants and for related relief. No opposition has been filed by the Non-Parties or any party. I. Background The lawsuit is a putative class action in which the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants charged rents in excess of what is legally permissible. The Court has previously resolved multiple discovery disputes between the parties. The Non-Parties allegedly completed "individual apartment improvements" or "IAI's" on certain units relevant to this litigation that Defendants contend may justify rental increases. The Defendants' motion is supported by documents indicating that the Non-Parties completed work at the Defendants' properties. The Defendants have also submitted copies of the Subpoenas, affidavits of personal service on each of the Non-Parties, and correspondence indicating the Defendants' multiple efforts to have Non-Parties voluntarily comply with the Subpoenas. The Defendants filed an Affidavit of Service indicating that they served their motion on Non-Parties by FedEx. II. Discussion Where a nonparty fails to comply with a subpoena, a party may move under CPLR Section 3124 to compel compliance. The Supreme Court holds that the Defendants' motion is sufficient to show that the Subpoenas seek relevant information and that the Non-Parties have not responded despite the Defendants' efforts to obtain compliance. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion seeking to compel responses to the Subpoenas will be granted. Those branches of the Defendants' motion made pursuant to CPLR Section 2308 for statutory penalties and Judiciary Law Section 773 for costs and expenses including attorney' fees will be denied without prejudice to renewal should the Non-Parties fail to comply with the Order within 20 days of service with notice of entry upon them. III. Disposition Accordingly, the Supreme Court grants the Defendants' motion to compel Non-Parties' compliance with the Subpoenas to the extent of compelling compliance and otherwise denies without prejudice. The Non-Parties will comply with the Subpoenas within 20 days of the service of a copy of this Decision & Order with notice of entry upon them. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2022 Decision + Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bddbs5z5 from Leagle.com. ALBERICI CORP: Court Amends Case Management Order in James Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY H. JAMES, v. ALBERICI CORPORATION, Case No. 2:21-cv-01723-RJC (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to extend certain deadlines in the Court's January 20, 2022 Case Management Order, and amending the Case Management Order as follows: -- The parties shall complete class Sept. 23, 2022 certification discovery by: -- The Plaintiff;'s Memorandum in Oct. 21, 2022 Support of class certification and all supporting evidence shall be filed by: -- All documents, declarations, Sept. 23, 2022 or other evidence relied on in Plaintiff's motion must have been disclosed to Defendant on or before: -- The Defendant's Memorandum in Nov. 28, 2022 Opposition to class certification and all supporting evidence shall be filed by: -- All documents, declarations, or Sept. 23, 2022 other evidence relied on in Defendant's opposition to the motion must have been disclosed to Plaintiff on or before: Alberici is an employee-owned corporate parent of nearly 20 construction subsidiaries, the largest of which is Alberici Construction Company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3c9jD7A at no extra charge.[CC] ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Hilario Files Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TISHA HILARIO, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-05459-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting class certification in the above-captioned action against the Defendant Allstate Insurance Company, pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All Allstate California policyholders from 2019 to the present with at least one built-in garage who paid premiums for homeowners or renters insurance to Allstate;" 2. appointing Tisha Hilario as Class Representative; and 3. appointing the law firms of Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge LLC and Shane Law as Class Counsel. Allstate claims it recently discovered that, for decades, it failed to insure built-in garages for the vast majority of properties in California. In March 2019, instead of advising its insureds (let alone the Department of Insurance) that Allstate underinsured their properties, Allstate implemented Project UIN 203019, which, by design, added square footage -- 288 square feet per garage bay -- to all California properties with built-in garages. The problem with Allstate's broad-brush tactic is that certain homes were properly insured, i.e., the garage space was already included in the insured square footage. For these homes, the 10 implementation of Project UIN had the effect of doubling their insured garage space and thereby artificially inflating their premiums, the lawsuit says. Allstate knew this going in, but instead of taking a focused, forensic approach, Allstate applied Project UIN across-the-board. For some it worked, but for others, including the Plaintiff, it did not. This case is to redress this problem and provide a refund to the thousands of Allstate insureds that have paid inflated premiums. The Allstate Corporation is an American insurance company, headquartered in Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook since 1967. Founded in 1931 as part of Sears, Roebuck and Co., it was spun off in 1993. The company also has personal lines insurance operations in Canada. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IGfZOP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Shane, Esq. SHANE LAW 1000 Drakes Landing Rd #200 Greenbrae, CA 94904-3027 Telephone: (414) 464-2020 Facsimile: (415) 464-2024 E-mail: dshane@shanelaw1.com - and - Brian Eldridge, Esq. Jack Prior, Esq. HART McLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE LLC Steven Hart (Pro Hac Vice) 22 West Washington St., Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 955-0545 Facsimile: (312) 971-9243 E-mail: beldridge@hmelegal.com jprior@hmelegal.com shart@hmelegal.com AMAZON.COM INC: Rittman, et al., File Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADEAN RITTMANN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM INC. and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01554-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification. The Court should certify state law Rule 23 classes on behalf of Amazon Flex drivers alleging misclassification (and resulting state law violations) under the laws of Washington, California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York, the lawsuit contends. This case has been brought on behalf of Amazon Flex delivery drivers who contend that they have been misclassified as independent contractors and thereby deprived of their 4 rights and wages owed to them as employees under federal and state law. In addition to the federal claims they have brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. sections 201 et seq., the Plaintiffs have also brought state law class claims under the laws of Washington, California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York. The Plaintiffs moved for class certification on these state law claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 in December 2021, and that motion was denied without prejudice while the case was stayed pending two Supreme Court decisions. Amazon is an electronic retailer based in Seattle, Washington, which does business throughout the country, fulfilling customer orders by dispatching delivery drivers to deliver orders to its customers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Pqy31n at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Adelaide Pagano, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com hlichten@llrlaw.com apagano@llrlaw.com - and - Michael C. Subit, Esq. FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98104-1729 Telephone: (206) 682-6711 Facsimile: (206) 682-0401 E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com APRIO LLP: Sept. 2 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lechter, et al., v. Aprio, LLP et al., ANDREW LECHTER, et al., v. APRIO, LLP f/k/a HABIF, AROGETI & WYNNE, LLP, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01325-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending by an additional five weeks the current deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs request that the Court set September 2, 2022 as the new deadline. On March 18, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Extend Deadlines and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof wherein they sought to extend the deadline by which they must move for class certification from May 15, 2022 to September 15, 2022. The Court heard argument on the First Motion on April 12, 2022 and entered an Order the following day extending the deadline by which Plaintiffs must move for class certification to July 30, 2022. However, during the April 12th hearing the Court expressly indicated that it would consider a later request for a further extension if the circumstances warranted. This action concerns a scheme by the Defendants to design, promote, and sell to the Plaintiffs and putative class members interests in limited liability companies ("Syndicates") that made charitable donations of conservation easements. The Defendants represented to Plaintiffs and the class members that the SCE Strategy transactions would provide legitimate tax deductions; however, because of intentional and negligent defects in the SCE Strategy, Defendants knew or should have known that the IRS would audit and disallow the deductions. The named Plaintiffs each purchased a membership interest in such a Syndicate and the Complaint describes three representative SCE Strategy transactions that the Defendants sold to Plaintiffs???all three of which were disallowed by the IRS. The Plaintiffs seek damages against Defendants related to these failed transactions, but they also seek to represent a class of taxpayers who participated in the same and similarly defective SCE Strategy transactions (either through the same Syndicates in which the Plaintiffs purchased membership interests or other Syndicates that fall within the class definition). During the April hearing, the Court advised the Plaintiffs to select sample Syndicates to present in its class motion as opposed to presenting a class motion that broadly analyzed all class Syndicates identified by the Aprio Defendants. Aprio, a financial consulting and CPA firm, is passionate for what's next with industry expertise and insights that help businesses thrive. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aAyUxM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David R. Deary, Esq. W. Ralph Canada, Jr., Esq. Jeven Sloan, Esq. Wilson E. Wray, Jr., Esq. John McKenzie, Esq. Donna Lee, Esq. Tyler M. Simpson, Esq. LOEWINSOHN DEARY SIMON RAY LLP 12377 Merit Drive, Suite 900 Dallas, Texas 75251 Telephone: (214) 572-1700 Facsimile: (214) 572-1717 E-mail: davidd@ldsrlaw.com ralphc@ldsrlaw.com jevens@ldsrlaw.com wilsonw@ldsrlaw.com johnm@ldsrlaw.com ASCENA RETAIL: NJ Dismisses Putative Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ On June 28, 2022, Judge Kevin McNulty of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action against a retail clothing brand (the "Company") and two of its executives ("Individual Defendants") alleging violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. In re Ascena Retail Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. CV1913529KMJBC, 2022 WL 2314890 (D.N.J. June 28, 2022). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company knowingly or recklessly overstated the value and business prospects of the Company and its subsidiaries in public statements and SEC filings. The Court dismissed plaintiffs' complaint for failure to plead an actionable misrepresentation or allegations sufficient to support a strong inference of scienter. According to plaintiffs, the Company, a publicly traded retailer of clothing and apparel, engaged in an "expansion-driven strategy" of acquiring other women's clothing companies during the period from December 2015 to May 2017. The Company reported in SEC filings that the value of the Company's goodwill and tradenames were generally stable, and that the value of its goodwill ranged from $1.268 billion to $1.29 billion while the value of its other intangible assets, such as tradenames, ranged from $1.263 billion to $1.283 billion. Plaintiffs alleged that, during the same period, "key metrics underlying the value of [the Company's] goodwill and other intangible assets" eroded due to factors such as declining sales and store traffic, a shift in consumer spending, a significantly altered competitive environment, and a steady decline in the Company's stock price and market capitalization. The Company allegedly acknowledged the impact of these key metrics on the value of the Company's goodwill and tradenames in June 2017 when the Company reported an impairment charge of over $1.3 billion. Plaintiffs alleged, however, that the Company knew that these metrics demonstrated the need for an impairment analysis and a concomitant impairment charge much sooner under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). The Court first considered whether the alleged misstatements were actionable, noting that the challenged statements regarding the value of the Company's goodwill and tradenames were opinion statements that were properly analyzed under the Supreme Court's holding in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, 575 U.S. 175 (2015). According to the Court, although the Company's statements about goodwill and tradenames "rest on the accounting procedures outlined by GAAP for evaluating and testing these assets," it "require[s] the exercise of subjective judgment." Applying Omnicare, the Court held that the challenged statements about the Company's valuation were not false or misleading because, even though the Company allegedly knew of its challenging business environment (and said so publicly), GAAP leaves it to the Company's judgment when to reevaluate the value of its intangible assets. And even though the size of the impairment when taken "suggests that Defendants' valuations were overly optimistic and that the impairment could or even should have been recorded earlier," the impairment charge appears better explained as a result of Defendants' mistakes, bad luck, or poor performance, not a longstanding effort by Defendants to dupe investors. Accordingly, plaintiffs failed to show that Defendants "disbelieved their own statements; conveyed false statements of fact; or omitted material facts going to the basis of their opinions." The Court also held that plaintiffs failed to plead allegations sufficient to support a strong inference of scienter. The Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that Individual Defendants' statements "in press releases and investor conference calls . . . showed [the Company's] goodwill and tradenames [were] overvalued and demonstrated the need for an impairment analysis." Instead, the Court held that plaintiffs' "allegations more plausibly yield the inference that Defendants' valuations of [the Company's] goodwill and tradenames were judgment calls-reasonable at the times they were made, even if ultimately shown to be overly optimistic." According to the Court, although the Company's "rosy assessments" "may bespeak mistakes in [the Company's] management . . . they . . . do not constitute culpable conduct demonstrating the necessary scienter for securities fraud." Finally, the Court granted plaintiffs' request for leave to amend their complaint to incorporate new allegations from confidential witnesses that plaintiffs had recently identified. [GN] B. BRAUN MEDICAL: Nunez Wins Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TANIA NUNEZ, JOHNNY CHU, and DAVID E. STERN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. B. BRAUN MEDICAL, INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS AT B. BRAUN MEDICAL INC., THE RETIREMENT COMMITTEE OF B. BRAUN MEDICAL INC., and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 5:20-cv-04195-EGS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Edward G. Smith entered an order: 1. granting the motion to certify class; 2. certifying a class of plaintiffs under the following definition: "All persons, except [the] [d]efendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the [B. Braun Medical Inc. Savings] Plan, at any time between August 26, 2014 through the date of judgment (the "Class Period")." 3. approving the plaintiffs as representatives of the certified class; and 4. approving Capozzi Adler, P.C. as class counsel. B. Braun offers medical equipment as well as health care solutions across a wide range of applications. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O8eVUK at no extra charge.[CC] BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Payment App's Security Risks ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Finney at abc11.com reports that 7 On Your Side has reported about the many scams that drain their victims' bank accounts using Zelle, the popular quick-payment app owned by major banks. Fraudsters use a variety of schemes to trick victims into sending them money. The transfers are so fast, that they can't be traced or reversed. Now, a class-action lawsuit claims Bank of America has failed to warn customers about the risks of sending money through Zelle. Zelle is the most widely-used peer-to-peer payment app in the country. Hundreds of banks automatically add Zelle to their online and mobile banking apps. It's simple to use and money is gone fast. Which makes it the perfect tool for scammers. 7 On Your Side has interviewed many Bank of America customers who were tricked into sending money to bank imposters using Zelle. All were shocked to find out that Bank of America offers no fraud protections for Zelle transactions. Now, Bank of America is defending a federal class-action lawsuit claiming it encourages customers to use Zelle without warning about the "huge security risks" of linking Zelle to a bank account. The suit, filed in federal court in Oakland, says Zelle is now the nation's most popular peer-to-peer payment app with $490 billion in money transfers last year alone. And yet it has "a massive fraud problem." The suit says Bank of America is aware of the risks to customers, but still "touts Zelle as a secure, free and convenient way to make money transfers." SEE ALSO: Scams targeting Zelle app users rising as criminals get more creative; how to avoid losing thousands Once money is sent, it says, "there is virtually no recourse for consumers to recoup losses" due to fraud. A Bank of America spokesman said only: "We disagree with the allegations and will seek to have the case dismissed." The plaintiff is a San Jose man who fell for a phony job scam. He sent $2,500 to the fraudsters via Zelle, and another $2,400 using Venmo. Bank of America denied his claim for reimbursement. BofA has often pointed to the customer service agreement which says: "Neither the bank nor Zelle offer a protection program for authorized payments." But the suit says that warning is missing from marketing materials. BofA initially denied claims of those who were defrauded by those bank imposters over the past two years. However, after 7 On Your Side pointed out they were tricked into sending the money, B of A reversed itself and reimbursed each of the customers we brought to their attention. The class action names only Bank of America as a defendant - not Zelle or Venmo. It asks for relief for B of A customers who were defrauded through Zelle or other payment apps, without being refunded. Bank of America has yet to file a response in court. 7OYS's consumer hotline is a free consumer mediation service for those in the San Francisco Bay Area. We assist individuals with consumer-related issues; we cannot assist on cases between businesses, or cases involving family law, criminal matters, landlord/tenant disputes, labor issues, or medical issues. Please review our FAQ here. As a part of our process in assisting you, it is necessary that we contact the company / agency you are writing about. If you do not wish us to contact them, please let us know right away, as it will affect our ability to work on your case. Due to the high volume of emails we receive, please allow 3-5 business days for a response. [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Warn Payment App's Security Risks ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael Finney at abc7chicago.com reports that 7 On Your Side has reported about the many scams that drain their victims' bank accounts using Zelle, the popular quick-payment app owned by major banks. Fraudsters use a variety of schemes to trick victims into sending them money. The transfers are so fast, that they can't be traced or reversed. Now, a class-action lawsuit claims Bank of America has failed to warn customers about the risks of sending money through Zelle. Zelle is the most widely-used peer-to-peer payment app in the country. Hundreds of banks automatically add Zelle to their online and mobile banking apps. It's simple to use and money is gone fast. Which makes it the perfect tool for scammers. 7 On Your Side has interviewed many Bank of America customers who were tricked into sending money to bank imposters using Zelle. All were shocked to find out that Bank of America offers no fraud protections for Zelle transactions. RELATED: California woman loses over $18K through 'Zelle' after scammers text, call her pretending to be bank Now, Bank of America is defending a federal class-action lawsuit claiming it encourages customers to use Zelle without warning about the "huge security risks" of linking Zelle to a bank account. The suit, filed in federal court in Oakland, says Zelle is now the nation's most popular peer-to-peer payment app with $490 billion in money transfers last year alone. And yet it has "a massive fraud problem." The suit says Bank of America is aware of the risks to customers, but still "touts Zelle as a secure, free and convenient way to make money transfers." SEE ALSO: Scams targeting Zelle app users rising as criminals get more creative; how to avoid losing thousands Once money is sent, it says, "there is virtually no recourse for consumers to recoup losses" due to fraud. A Bank of America spokesman said only: "We disagree with the allegations and will seek to have the case dismissed." The plaintiff is a San Jose man who fell for a phony job scam. He sent $2,500 to the fraudsters via Zelle, and another $2,400 using Venmo. Bank of America denied his claim for reimbursement. BofA has often pointed to the customer service agreement which says: "Neither the bank nor Zelle offer a protection program for authorized payments." But the suit says that warning is missing from marketing materials. BofA initially denied claims of those who were defrauded by those bank imposters over the past two years. However, after 7 On Your Side pointed out they were tricked into sending the money, B of A reversed itself and reimbursed each of the customers we brought to their attention. The class action names only Bank of America as a defendant - not Zelle or Venmo. It asks for relief for B of A customers who were defrauded through Zelle or other payment apps, without being refunded. Bank of America has yet to file a response in court. 7OYS's consumer hotline is a free consumer mediation service for those in the San Francisco Bay Area. We assist individuals with consumer-related issues; we cannot assist on cases between businesses, or cases involving family law, criminal matters, landlord/tenant disputes, labor issues, or medical issues. Please review our FAQ here. As a part of our process in assisting you, it is necessary that we contact the company / agency you are writing about. If you do not wish us to contact them, please let us know right away, as it will affect our ability to work on your case. Due to the high volume of emails we receive, please allow 3-5 business days for a response. [GN] BASS PRO INC: Faces Slaughter Class Suit Over Mislabeled Socks -------------------------------------------------------------- KENT SLAUGHTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BASS PRO, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-03174-RK (D. Mo., July 8, 2022) is a class action brought for the benefit and protection of the Plaintiff and all other similarly-situated consumers who purchased from the Defendant Bass Pro "Redhead Lifetime Guarantee All- Purpose Wool Socks," in order to obtain damages, restitution, injunctive, and other relief necessitated by the Defendant's unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent advertisement concerning its Redhead Lifetime Guarantee All- Purpose Wool Socks (the "Socks" or the "Product"). According to the complaint, the Defendant's representations regarding the Product's Lifetime Warranty are false. For some period of time, as alleged in more detail below, when a consumer would visit a Bass Pro store to return a pair of the Socks, the Defendant would actually honor the Lifetime Warranty by replacing the consumer's Socks with a new pair of the Socks, at no charge. However, by approximately January 2021, the Defendant changed its practices and decided to no longer honor the Lifetime Warranty. According to the Defendant's current practices, when a purchaser returns the Socks pursuant to the purported Lifetime Warranty, Defendant merely replaces the Socks with a new, different pair of socks that only comes with a limited 60-day warranty (the "60-Day Socks"), says the suit. The Defendant has changed the design of the 60-Day Socks in order to differentiate them from the Socks???by adding a distinctive stripe pattern to them???presumably so that its store employees know that no warranty will be honored for those 60-Day Socks beyond the limited warranty period. By making false, fraudulent, and misleading statements to consumers, the Defendant Bass Pro has deceived thousands of consumers who have purchased the Socks under the false belief that the Socks come with the purported Lifetime Warranty. Consumers have been misled, induced and defrauded into spending money on a product that cannot be replaced for any reason at any time during a consumer's lifetime and as a result, the Plaintiff and other purchasers have been harmed by Defendant's fraudulent misrepresentations and false advertising, the suit further asserts. BASS PRO INC. doing business as Bass Pro Outdoor World, provides fishing and boating equipment. The Company offers hunting, camping, and outdoor cooking gear, as well as outdoor footwear and nature-themed gifts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Singleton, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP 1414 K Street, Suite 470 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 248-8478 Email: gsingleton@singletonschreiber.com BEYOND MEAT INC: Cascio Files Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beyond Meat, Inc. The case is styled as Kathlyn Cascio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Beyond Meat, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-04018-GRB-ARL (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Beyond Meat, Inc. -- https://www.beyondmeat.com/ -- is a Los Angeles???based producer of plant-based meat substitutes founded in 2009 by Ethan Brown.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. SHUB LAW FIRM LLC 134 Kings Highway Second Floor Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Phone: (856) 772-7200 Email: ecf@shublawyers.com - and - Lisa A. White, Esq. Gary E Mason, Esq. MASON LLP 5101 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite Washington, DC 20016 Phone: (202) 429-2290 Fax: (202) 429-2294 Email: lwhite@masonllp.com gmason@masonllp.com BLUE BELL: Coker Sues Over Discrimination Based on Disability ------------------------------------------------------------- QUINTON COKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE BELL CREAMERIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00843-AMM (N.D. Ala., July 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for unlawful discrimination pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff worked as a territory manager at the Defendant's location in Birmingham, Alabama from April 2006 until January 27, 2021. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff's request for reasonable accommodation after he was diagnosed degenerative disc disease. His employment was terminated effective January 27, 2021. The Plaintiff was subjected to unlawful discrimination by the Defendant based on his disability and/or perceived disability and/or history of disability including, but not limited to, being denied reasonable accommodations, being denied work, being removed from the Defendant's workforce, and having his employment effectively terminated, says the suit. Blue Bell Creameries, Inc. is an ice cream company headquartered in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Temple D. Trueblood, Esq. WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0500 - and ??? Edward L.D. Smith, Esq. Post Office Box 1643 Mobile, AL 36633-1643 Telephone: (251) 432-0447 BOFI HOLDING: Securities Class Settlement Hearing Set October 7 --------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES, REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES, AND LEAD PLAINTIFF'S SERVICE AWARD This notice is for all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the publicly traded common stock of BofI Holding, Inc. (now known as Axos Financial, Inc.), as well as purchasers of BofI call options and sellers of BofI put options, between September 4, 2013 through and including October 13, 2015. Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class as set forth in detail in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated April 13, 2022 ("Stipulation") and the Notice described below. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California ("Court"), that the parties to the above-captioned action ("Action") have reached a proposed settlement for $14,100,000 in cash ("Settlement") that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on October 7, 2022, at 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel at the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse, Courtroom 2D, 221 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice described below) should be entered; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, and Lead Plaintiff's application for a service award, should be approved. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. This notice provides only a summary of the information contained in the detailed Notice of (I) Proposed Class Action Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses and Lead Plaintiff's Service Award ("Notice"). You may obtain a copy of the Notice, along with the Claim Form, on the website for the Settlement, www.BofISecuritiesLitigation.com. You may also obtain copies of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation Settlement, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91425, Seattle, WA 98111; 1-888-921-1538; info@BofISecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than November 7, 2022, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Claim Form. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any releases, judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is postmarked no later than August 8, 2022, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any releases, judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the net proceeds of the Settlement. Excluding yourself is the only option that may allow you to be part of any other current or future lawsuit against Defendants or any of the other released parties concerning the claims being resolved by the Settlement. Please note, however, if you decide to exclude yourself from the Class, you may be time-barred from asserting the claims covered by the Action by a statute of repose. If you are a member of the Class and previously requested exclusion, you now have the opportunity to opt-back into the Class and participate in the Settlement. If you elect to opt-back into the Class, you will be able to submit a Claim Form and be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement. If you elect to opt-back into the Class, you will be bound by any releases, judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, regardless of whether or not you submit a Claim Form. Class Counsel will apply to the Court to be paid from the Settlement Fund, and any payment will be made only in the amount that is approved by the Court. Class Counsel will ask the Court for an award of attorneys' fees of no more than 25% of the Settlement Fund (i.e., no more than $3,525,000). In addition, Class Counsel will ask the Court to reimburse them out of the Settlement Fund for the expenses they reasonably incurred and will incur in litigating this case on behalf of Class Members, in an amount not to exceed $1,400,000. Class Counsel will also ask the Court to approve a Service Award of up to $15,000 for the Class Representative as an award for its service to the Class as Plaintiff and Class Representative out of the Settlement Fund. Class Counsel will also request authorization to pay the Claims Administrator, directly from the Settlement Fund, all Notice and Administration Costs actually incurred and paid or payable up to $350,000, which Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator estimate to be the maximum amount likely to be required. Any amount in excess of that would be payable from the Settlement Fund only upon further approval of the Court. The amount of the Settlement Fund that remains after the payment of all Court-approved attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, Service Award, and Notice and Administration Costs will be distributed to Class Members who have submitted valid claims for compensation and have not timely excluded themselves from the Settlement in a manner approved by the Court. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and Lead Plaintiff's requested Service Award, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than August 8, 2022, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. The issuance of this Notice is not an expression of any opinion by the Court concerning the merits of any claim in the Action, and the Court still has to decide whether to approve the Settlement. The Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing asserted in this Action, and deny any liability whatsoever to any member of the Class. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR THEIR COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Class Counsel or the Claims Administrator. [GN] NO HEADLINE - c --------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN SKRANDEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly Situated, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Case No. 9:21-cv-80826-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following classes: -- Florida Class "All Costco members, persons or entities that purchased an Interstate-branded battery with the words "Free Replacement" on the label (the Reinstate battteries) at a Costco location in the State of Florida who: (a) returned the Interstate Battery to Costco within the warranty period, and (b) incurred an out-of-pocket cost to obtain a replacement Interstate-branded battery;" and -- National Class "All Costco members, persons or entities in the United States (including its Territories and the District of Columbia) that purchased an Interstate-branded battery with the words "Free Replacement" on the label (the Reinstate battteries) at a Costco location who: (a) returned the Interstate Battery to Costco within the warranty period, and (b) incurred an out-of-pocket cost to obtain a replacement Interstate-branded battery." Costco is the second largest retailer in the world and operates a chain of 559 retail stores. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify classes dated July 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3o9gUxO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. Jason H. Alperstein, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 E-mail: alperstein@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com cardoso@kolawyers.com - and - Steven G. Calamusa, Esq. Geoffrey Stahl, Esq. GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A. 4114 Northlake Boulevard Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 799-5070 Facsimile: (561) 799-4050 E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com gstahl@fortheinjured.com C. PEPPER: Bourque FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. La. to N.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CHARLES R. BOURQUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. C. PEPPER LOGISTICS, LLC, INDEPENDENT SERVICE PROVIDER, LLC, and JAMES L. PEPPER, Case No. 6:19-cv-01558, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on July 8, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Texas assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01473-S to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and breach of contract claim under Louisiana state law. C. Pepper Logistics, LLC is a logistics company, doing business in Louisiana. Independent Service Provider, LLC is an express overnight pickup and delivery service provider, doing business in Louisiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Arthur Smith, III, Esq. SMITH LAW FIRM 830 North Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Telephone: (225) 383-7716 Facsimile: (225) 383-7773 E-mail: jasmith@jarthursmith.com CABLE NEWS: Black Employees File Class-Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- thedailybeast.com reports that a group of black CNN employees have announced they they will file a class-action lawsuit against the network, Turner Broadcasting, and Time Warner, claiming racial discrimination. The suit reportedly alleges that employees suffered from abuse of power, nepotism, and retaliation at the hands of the powerful cable network. Attorney Daniel Meachum said in a press release that an initial suit filed by DeWayne Walker led to uncovering the further discrimination claimed in the class-action filing. Walker, a producer, sued CNN in January. It is not yet clear which other employees are involved in the suit. [GN] CAL-MART INC: Razon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cal-Mart, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Patricia Razon, on behalf of herself and all, others similarly situated, and the general public v. Cal-Mart, Inc., Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CGC22600628 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., July 8, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Cal-Mart Supermarket -- https://calmartsf.com/ -- is a full-service supermarket offering a range of quality items and fresh produce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Spivak, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 203 Encino, CA 91436-4535 Phone: 818-582-3086 Fax: 213-634-2485 Email: david@spivaklaw.com CAMP LEJEUNE: Faces Water Contamination Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Ronald V. Miller, Jr. at lawsuit-information-center.com reports that our lawyers are representing victims looking to bring a Camp Lejeune lawsuit for injuries and deaths from toxic chemicals and water contamination on this Marine Corps base. Our attorneys believe that after so many years of suffering and death, reasonable settlement amounts may finally be offered in an expected settlement. The legislation that will allow victims to file a Camp Lejeune water contamination lawsuit could pass. If you have a potential Camp Lejeune lawsuit for an injury or death of a loved one, call our lawyers at 800-553-8082 or get a free online consultation. There is no fee or cost unless you get financial compensation for the harm that was done to you.[GN] CAREERBUILDER LLC: To Pay $3.8M to Settle Sales Reps' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Bilyk at cookcountyrecord.com reports that job search advertising company Careerbuilder will pay about $3.8 million to settle a class action lawsuit accusing it of shorting pay to its sales representatives, by allegedly stripping those workers of commissions they had earned. Under the terms of the settlement presented in Cook County Circuit Court, sales representatives who worked for Careerbuilder in 2018-2019 could receive payments ranging from a minimum of $625 to "the thousands of dollars." The amount they receive will depend on their individual claims and how many other Careerbuilder sales reps submit eligible claims, according to court documents. Attorneys from the firm of McGuire Law P.C., of Chicago, which represented the plaintiffs, could receive up to one-third of the total settlement fund, or about $1.25 million, according to settlement documents filed in the court in June. Cook County Circuit Judge Thaddeus Wilson granted preliminary approval to the settlement on June 7. According to his order, eligible Careerbuilder sales reps have until Oct. 5 to submit claims for a share of the settlement funds. A hearing to consider granting final approval to the settlement is scheduled for Nov. 14. The settlement would end a class action lawsuit that dates back to November 2019. At that time, the McGuire attorneys filed suit in Cook County court against Careerbuilder, on behalf of named plaintiff Benjamin Fongers. They sought to expand the lawsuit to potentially include "hundreds, if not thousands" of additional plaintiffs who worked at Careerbuilder. The lawsuit accused Careerbuilder of refusing to pay sales reps the commissions they believed they deserved under a compensation plan instituted by Careerbuilder in the spring of 2019. Under the previous compensation plan, sales representatives allegedly were paid monthly commissions of 4% of monthly net revenue from the sale of "most Careerbuilder products and services." Under the 2019 plan, however, Careerbuilder adjusted the commissions down to 0.25% of net revenue, and then removed commissions entirely. However, Careerbuilder also allegedly sought to apply those changes retroactively, allegedly stripping commissions previously earned by sales representatives under the prior compensation plan. ". . . In other words, these employees would be completely unable to recover past commissions that they were still owed," the plaintiffs wrote in their complaint. The lawsuit asserted Careerbuilder's alleged actions violated the Illinois Sales Representative Act and the Illinois Wage and Payment Collection Act. The plaintiffs brought the lawsuit on behalf of all current and former Careerbuilder sales representatives who allegedly were denied commissions under Careerbuilder's revamped compensation plan. The plaintiffs have been represented by attorneys Myles McGuire, Paul T. Geske and Brendan Duffner, of the McGuire firm. In court, proceedings between the two sides was described as "contentious." Careerbuilder sought to remove the case to federal court, which is generally considered a less hostile environment for corporate defendants than Cook County's court system. However, in October 2020, U.S. District Judge Norgle granted the plaintiffs' request to send the case back to Cook County court. Norgle later ordered Careerbuilder to pay the attorney fees sought by the McGuire lawyers to compensate them for their work in getting the case back to Cook County court. Throughout 2021, the parties argued in court over Careerbuilder's attempts to dismiss the case. Cook County Judge Mullen ultimately never ruled on those motions. The two sides then engaged in settlement talks, and reached an agreement on Feb. 7, according to the memorandum filed in court explaining the settlement. According to that document, the settlement class would include anyone employed by Careerbuilder as an "account executive," or closed a sale under the previous compensation plan from January 2018 to March 2019. The settlement documents estimate the class will include approximately 342 people, who would be eligible to receive a minimum of $625 each. Careerbuilder was represented by attorneys Noah Finkel and Andrew Scroggins, of the firm of Seyfarth Shaw, of Chicago. [GN] CLOROX COMPANY: Fails to Disclose Mascara's PFAS Content, Baez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARISOL BAEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CLOROX COMPANY AND THE BURT'S BEES PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03990-PKC-RML (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the New York General Business Law, breach of express warranty, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Burt's Bees mascara line of products. The Defendants do specifically list both the active and inactive ingredients of these products but fail to disclose that the products contain per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a harmful toxin. Despite knowing of the presence and/or material risk of containing PFAS in the products, the Defendants still omitted PFAS from the ingredients list. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known the truth, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them, says the suit. The Clorox Company is a manufacturer of household products, with its principal place of business in Oakland, California. The Burt's Bees Products Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Clorox Company, with its primary place of business located in Oakland, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Joseph Lipari, Esq. Daniel Markowitz, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and ??? David C. Magagna Jr., Esq. Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: dmagagna@lfsblaw.com cschaffer@lfsblaw.com CLOVER HEALTH: Bond, Tremblay Seek to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY BOND and JEAN-NICOLAS TREMBLAY individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CLOVER HEALTH INVESTMENTS, CORP. f/k/a SOCIAL CAPITAL HEDOSOPHIA HOLDINGS CORP. III, VIVEK GARIPALLI, ANDREW TOY, JOE WAGNER and CHAMATH PALIHAPITIYA, Case No. 3:21-cv-00096 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying this matter as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and 3. approving their selection of Pomerantz LLP as Class Counsel. Clover Health is an American health care company founded in 2014. The company provides Medicare Advantage insurance plans and operates as a direct contracting entity with the U.S. government. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated July 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yJbcaz at no extra charge.[CC] The Lead Counsel and Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, are: Brian Calandra, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com bcalandra@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com The Liaison Counsel, are: Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq. Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq. BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES 40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200 P.O. Box 150734 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 248-2828 Facsimile: (866) 816-4116 E-mail: PKNASHLAW@aol.com Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com The Additional Counsel for Plaintiff Firas Jabri, are: Brian Schall, Esq. Rina Restaino, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 303-1964 Facsimile: (877) 590-0482 E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com rina@schallfirm.com The Additional Counsel for Plaintiff Jean-Nicolas Tremblay, are: Corey D. Holzer, Esq. Marshall P. Dees, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com mdees@holzerlaw.com CNY FERTILITY PLLC: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CNY Fertility, PLLC. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CNY Fertility, PLLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05838 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. CNY -- https://www.cnyfertility.com/ -- is a fertility clinic for all who democratizes fertility care by offering high-quality treatment for a fraction of the price.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com COLLABORATIVE BOATING: Berman Sues Over Unsolicited Texts/Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW BERMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLLABORATIVE BOATING, INC. d/b/a BOATSETTER, Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-009870 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., July 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent text messages and calls to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products and services. The Plaintiff and Class members did not provide their express written consent to receive such text messages from the Defendant. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class members have been harmed, including invasion of privacy, aggravation, and annoyance, says the suit. Collaborative Boating, Inc., doing business as Boatsetter, is an operator of an online marketplace that connects vessel operators with marinas and customers, headquartered in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Dover, Esq. DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC 1650 SE 17th Street, Suite 100 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (866) 954-6673 Facsimile: (954) 916-8499 E-mail: Jdover@attorneysoftheinjured.com CONDUENT COMMERCIAL: Ventura Labor Suit Goes to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ROSIO VENTURA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONDUENT COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. BCV-22-101374, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, Kern County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 6, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 1:22-at-00511 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide lawful meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation from employment, failure to reimburse necessary expenses, knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized wage statement provisions, and unfair competition. Conduent Commercial Solutions, LLC is an American business services provider company doing business in California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Heather D. Hearne, Esq. THE KULLMAN FIRM A Professional Law Corporation 9800 Mount Pyramid Court, Suite 400 Englewood, CO 80112 Telephone: (720) 447-6628 Facsimile: (225) 906-4230 E-mail: hdh@kullmanlaw.com CONTINENTAL INTERMODAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Soezeri Says --------------------------------------------------------------- AXEL SOEZERI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL INTERMODAL GROUP ??? TRUCKING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00505 (D.N.M., July 8, 2022) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Soezeri was employed by the Defendant as driver. CONTINENTAL INTERMODAL GROUP - TRUCKING LLC is a logistics provider offering transloading, inventory management, transportation, and storage solutions to customers in the oil and gas industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin W. Allen, Esq. WALLACE & ALLEN, LLP 440 Louisiana, Suite 590 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 227-1744 Facsimile: (713) 600-0034 Email: ballen@wallaceallen.com COOPERATIVA DE SEGUROS: Ortiz, et al., Seek Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joel Vega Ortiz, et al. v. Cooperativa de Seguros Multiples de Puerto Rico, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-02056-SCC-BJM (D.P.R.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed class and appointing the law firms of Fishman Haygood LLP and Vicente & Cuebas as class counsel: "All participants or beneficiaries of the Plan who suffered a reduction in accrued benefits under the Plan at the time the Plan was terminated. Excluded from the Class are any high- level executives at RLA and/or Cooperativa or any employees who had responsibility for or involvement in the administration of the Plan or who are subsequently determined to be fiduciaries of the Plan, including the Individual Defendants." The Plaintiffs and proposed class members are former employees of Real Legacy Assurance Company, Inc., which sponsored the Real Legacy Assurance Plan. The Plaintiffs are each "participants" with vested rights in the Plan. On October 18, 2019, Plaintiffs were notified that due to the Plan's significant underfunding, they will never receive benefits from the Plan, even though their rights are fully vested. The Plan was terminated on December 31, 2018, and RLA entered into liquidation in 2019. The Plaintiffs assert the Plan is underfunded because Defendants (1) imprudently caused a significant amount of the Plan's funds to be invested in Puerto Rico bonds such that the Plan's assets were not properly diversified, and retained those investments even after Puerto Rico bonds were designated as "junk" bonds; (2) failed to ensure that adequate contributions were made to the Plan, and the Plan thus did not meet certain minimum funding requirements; and (3) failed to make an irrevocable election for the Plan to be covered by the Penson Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") and therefore Plaintiffs cannot benefit from the protections afforded by the PBGC. The Plaintiffs further contend certain Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) as a result of these actions (or inactions) and are therefore jointly and severally liable. The Plaintiffs filed this suit to redress their own damages and those of the other class members. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yKQJSP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kaja S. Elmer, Esq. Jason W. Burge, Esq. Rebekka C. Veith, Esq. FISHMAN HAYGOOD, LLP 201 St. Charles, 46th Floor New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 585-5252 Facsimile: (504) 586-5250 E-mail: jburge@fishmanhaygood.com rveith@fishmanhaygood.com kelmer@fishmanhaygood.com - and - Harold D. Vicente, Esq. VICENTE & CUEBAS Capital Center Sur Ph1-1201 239 Arterial Hostos Hato Rey Telephone: (787) 751-8000 Facsimile: (787) 756-5250 E-mail: hdvc@vclawpr.com CORECIVIC INC: Barrientos, et al., Seek to Certify Two Classes -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILHEN HILL BARRIENTOS, et al, v. CORECIVIC, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-00070-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying two classes: -- the Forced Labor Class "All civil immigration detainees who performed work for CoreCivic at Stewart in the "Volunteer Work Program" starting ten years prior 1 to the date the original complaint was filed (April 17, 2018) until the date of final judgment in this matter;" -- the Unjust Enrichment Class "All civil immigration detainees who performed work for CoreCivic at Stewart in the "Volunteer Work Program" starting four years prior to the date the original complaint was filed (April 17, 2018) until the date of final judgment in this matter " The Plaintiffs assert class claims for violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), and unjust enrichment under Georgia common law. The Plaintiffs also request that the Court designate them as class representatives for both classes, appoint their counsel as class counsel, and order that notice of this action be provided to the classes. CoreCivic owns and manages private prisons and detention centers and operates others on a concession basis. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated July 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PpNQOg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Meredith B. Stewart, Esq. Rebecca M. Cassler, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 201 Saint Charles Avenue, Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 486-8982 Facsimile: (504) 486-8947 E-mail: meredith.stewart@splcenter.org rebecca.cassler@splcenter.org - and - Caitlin J. Sandley, Esq. Jaqueline Aranda Osorno, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Ave. Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 303-6822 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 E-mail: cj.sandley@splcenter.org jackie.aranda@splcenter.org - and - Vidhi Bamzai, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 111 East Capitol St., Suite 280 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 948-8882 Facsimile: (601) 948-8885 E-mail: vidhi.bamzai@splcenter.org - and - Azadeh Shahshahani, Esq. Priyanka Bhatt, Esq. PROJECT SOUTH 9 Gammon Avenue SE Atlanta, GA 30315 Telephone: (404) 622-0602 Facsimile: (404) 622-4137 E-mail: azadeh@projectsouth.org priyanka@projectsouth.org - and - Alan B. Howard, Esq. John T. Dixon, Esq. Emily B. Cooper, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1155 Avenue of the Americas, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10036-2711 Telephone: (212) 262-6900 Facsimile: (212) 977-1649 E-mail: AHoward@perkinscoie.com JohnDixon@perkinscoie.com ECooper@perkinscoie.com - and - Jessica L. Everett-Garcia, Esq. John H. Gray*, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788 Telephone: (602) 351-8000 Facsimile: (602) 648-7000 E-mail: jeverettgarcia@perkinscoie.com jhgray@perkinscoie.com - and - Jessica Tseng Hasen, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 359-3293 Facsimile: (206) 359-9000 E-mail: jhasen@perkinscoie.com - and - Daniel H. Charest, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 900 Jackson St., Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 Facsimile: (469) 444-5002 E-mail: dcharest@burnscharest.com CORECIVIC INC: Court Extends Class Cert Deadlines -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILHEN HILL BARRIENTOS, et al., v. CORECIVIC, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-00070-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Clay D. Land entered an order granting the Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines and Exceed Page Limitations for Responses and Replies Re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Motion to Exclude Defendant's Proposed Expert Dr. Joseph V. Penn's Testimony and Opinions The Court also entered an order that: -- The Defendant's Responses to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Daubert Motion are due by August 5, 2022. -- The Plaintiffs' Replies to those Responses are due by September 9, 2022. -- The Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification may be up to 40 pages, and Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their Motion for Class Certification may be up to 20 pages. CoreCivic, formerly the Corrections Corporation of America, is a company that owns and manages private prisons and detention centers and operates others on a concession basis. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IE9bkB at no extra charge.[CC] CREDIT CONTROL: Vallo Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Mexico ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control Services, Inc. The case is styled as Joey Vallo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credit Control Services, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00504-SCY-KK (D.N.M., July 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Credit Control -- https://www.credit-control.com/ -- is a nationally licensed provider of customized, performance-driven receivables management services that was founded in 1989.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com CREDIT SUISSE: Set Capital, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SET CAPITAL LLC, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL, TIDJANE THIAM, DAVID R. MATHERS, JANUS HENDERSON GROUP PLC, JANUS INDEX & CALCULATION SERVICES LLC, and JANUS DISTRIBUTORS LLC d/b/a JANUS HENDERSON DISTRIBUTORS, Case No. 1:18-cv-02268-AT-SN (S.D.N.Y.), Lead Plaintiffs Set Capital LLC, Stefan Jager, Aleksandr Gamburg, and Apollo Asset Limited ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying this matter as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(3) and (g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, as Class Counsel. Credit Suisse is a global investment bank and financial services firm founded and based in Switzerland. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oqrQax at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq. Laura H. Posner, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 Facsimile: (212) 838-7745 E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com lposner@cohenmilstein.com - and - Steven J. Toll, Esq. Brendan Schneiderman, Esq. 1100 New York Ave. N.W., Fifth Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-3640 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com bschneiderman@cohenmilstein.com - and - Carol V. Gilden, Esq. 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 357-0370 E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com - and - Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq. Alexander A. Krot III LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP Adam M. Apton 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: ek@zlk.com nporritt@zlk.com aapton@zlk.com akrot@zlk.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com DL FRANCHISING: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DL Franchising, LLC. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DL Franchising, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05836 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. DL Franchising, LLC doing business as Deka Lash -- https://dekalash.com/ -- are a beauty company that specializes in eyelash extension services and products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com DL1961 PREMIUM DENIM: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DL1961 Premium Denim, Inc. The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DL1961 Premium Denim, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05837 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dl1961 Premium Denim Inc. -- https://www.dl1961.com/ -- provides apparels. The Company offers shirts, jackets, leggings, and paints, as well as other related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com DOLGENCORP LLC: Ingram Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Managers ------------------------------------------------------------- AMY INGRAM and TAMMY BUCKELEW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOLGENCORP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00847-NAD (N.D. Ala., July 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and similarly situated managers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Amy Ingram was employed by the Defendant as a manager in Alabama from November 26, 2021 until about February 15, 2022. Tammy Buckelew has worked for the Defendant as a manager in Alabama from about January 8, 2022 to the present. Dolgencorp, LLC is a discount retailer headquartered in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert C. Epperson, Esq. P.O. Box 477 Foley, AL 36536 Telephone: (251) 943-8870 E-mail: repperson@rcelaw.com DRAPER AND KRAMER: Seeks Denial of Vasquez Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. DRAPER AND KRAMER MORTGAGE CORP., Case No. 2:21-cv-00693-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting DKMC's Motion to deny class certification. This motion is made on the grounds that: (1) the Court must deny certification of Vasquez's class claims because it cannot assert supplemental jurisdiction over a state law wage and hour class action; and (2) the Court must deny certification of Vasquez's class claims because Vasquez cannot satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s superiority requirement. The majority of putative class members had the opportunity to join the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action and prosecute any related California Labor Code claims but abstained is demonstrative of the lack of interest in his Rule 23 class. Draper and Kramer Mortgage is a property and financial services provider company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3o2KvsC at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Ronald J. Holland, Esq. Christopher A. Braham, Esq. Brian Casillas, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 415 Mission St Suite 5600 San Francisco, CA 94105-2533 Telephone: (628) 218 3800 Facsimile: (628) 877 0107 E-mail: rjholland@mwe.com cbraham@mwe.com bcasillas@mwe.com EAGLE NATIONAL: Wilson, et al., Seek to Certify Class, Subclasses ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sam Wilson, Jr., et al., v. Eagle National Bank, et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-01344-JRR (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs Sam Wilson, Jr., and John and Jackie Unthank ask the Court to enter an order certifying class action and certifying the following Class and Subclasses: -- The Eagle Class "All individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a loan originated or brokered by Eagle National Bank or Eagle Nationwide Mortgage Company for which All Star Title, Inc. provided a settlement service, as identified in Section 1100 on the borrower's HUD-1, between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2011;" Exempted from this class is any person who, during the period of January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011, was an employee, officer, member and/or agent of Defendants Eagle National Bank, Eagle Nationwide Mortgage Company, Eagle National Bancorp Inc., ESSA Bank & Trust, Inc., ESSA Bancorp Inc., or All Star Title, Inc.; and any judicial officer who handles this case, and the immediate family members of such judicial officer(s); -- The Antitrust Class The Antitrust Class is comprised of all members of the Eagle Class; and -- The RESPA Subclass "All individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a federally related mortgage loan (as defined under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. section 2602) originated or brokered by Eagle National Bank or Eagle Nationwide Mortgage Company for which All Star Title, Inc. provided a settlement service, as identified in Section 1100 on the borrower's HUD-1, between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2011." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated July 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IKvdSF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy F. Maloney, Esq. Veronica B. Nannis, Esq. JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A. 6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400 Greenbelt, MD 20770 Telephone: (301) 220-2200 Facsimile: (301) 220-1214 E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com vnannis@jgllaw.com - and - Michael Paul Smith, Esq. Melissa L. English, Esq. Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Towson, Maryland 21204 Telephone: (410) 821-0070 Facsimile: (410) 821-0071 E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com menglish@sgs-law.com ECL GROUP LLC: Solomon Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ECL Group, LLC. The case is styled as Detrina Solomon, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. ECL Group, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00526-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C., July 8, 2022). The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. ECL Group, LLC doing business as Eye Care Leaders -- https://eyecareleaders.com/ -- offers the most comprehensive eye care solutions, focused on delivering solutions, services, and software to ophthalmology practices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Ryan Langley, I, Esq. HODGE & LANGLEY LAW FIRM, P.C. 229 Magnolia S. Spartanburg, SC 29306 Phone: (864) 585-3873 Fax: (864) 585-6485 Email: rlangley@hodgelawfirm.com EISENHOWER MEDICAL: Supreme Court Rules on Nurse's Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- hcamag.com at hcmag.com reports that the California Supreme Court recently found that a hospital and a staffing agency's divergent interests meant that there was no privity between them. Thus, a nurse could bring a second action against the hospital even if the first action against the agency had been settled. In Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center, a nurse briefly worked at a hospital in line with a staffing arrangement between the hospital and a temporary staffing agency, which provided the following: -- The hospital had the discretion to assign shifts; -- Nurses should use the hospital's time and attendance system; -- The staffing agency, as the supposed employer, retained total and exclusive legal responsibility and the obligation to comply and to satisfy wage and hour requirements; -- The agency agreed to indemnify the hospital for certain obligations relating to this arrangement. Someone brought a putative class action against the staffing agency, among others. The class included the staffing agency's nonexempt employees placed across California, not just those in the hospital. The nurse became a named plaintiff and claimed wage and hour violations during the time she worked at the hospital, which was not a named defendant in that action. In the first lawsuit, the parties made a settlement agreement where the staffing agency would pay $750,000. The trial court approved the agreement and issued a judgment releasing the staffing agency and its agents. The nurse then filed the second putative class action, this time against the hospital. Again, she alleged breaches of wage and hour laws. The putative class included nonexempt employees placed at the hospital by any staffing agency. The hospital argued that it should also benefit from the release in the first action and that, under the rule of claim preclusion, the first judgment would bar the nurse from bringing the second lawsuit. The Court of Appeal of California disagreed with the hospital's argument and ruled in the nurse's favour. The California Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment and disapproved of the decision in Castillo v. Glenair, Inc. (2018) insofar as it was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. Meta prepares for layoffs California CEO charged with murder The Supreme Court held that the hospital was not in privity with the staffing agency, as a party to the first judgment, to benefit from the claim-preclusive effect of a judgment binding the nurse, as an opposing party. There was no privity because the hospital and the staffing agency had different legal interests, the Supreme Court said. An adverse judgment in the first action would not have bound the hospital. Even if the hospital would allege indemnification or an agency relationship between it and the staffing agency, this could not be the basis for claim preclusion either. [GN] FALCONS MANAGEMENT: Olade Sues Over Unpaid Servers' Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAROD OLADE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FALCONS MANAGEMENT GEORGIA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00182-WHR-CHG (S.D. Ohio, July 11, 2022) brings this complaint as a class and collective action to challenge the Defendant's alleged unlawful policies and practices that willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was among the servers, who were employed by the Defendant at its TGIF restaurant within the last three years. The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the Defendant, he and other similarly situated servers were not properly paid by the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant paid them the tipped minimum wage and utilized the tip credit to meet its obligation to pay them the mandatory minimum wage. However, the Defendant failed to properly pay them at the applicable full minimum wage rate for the non-tip duties that the Defendant required them to perform and has allegedly misappropriated the Plaintiff' and other similarly situated servers' tips, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks actual damages for unpaid wages for himself and all other similarly situated servers, as well as liquidated damages in an amount equal to two times the amount of unpaid wages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Falcons Management Georgia, LLC owns and operates a chain of TGI Fridays restaurants in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E. 9th St., Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Tel: (216) 230-2955 Fax: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com - and ??? Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher St., N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Tel: (330) 470-4428 Fax: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com FILTERS FAST: Powers Must Give More Info on Class Deal & Atty. Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SANGER POWERS, ROBERT LEGG, JENNIFER McCREARY, BETTY OWEN, and LYDIA POSTOLOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FILTERS FAST, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-982-jdp (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin orders the Plaintiffs to provide the additional information requested in his Order regarding their motion for final approval of their proposed settlement and for attorney fees. The class action involves a data breach. A review of the materials filed in support of motion reveals three issues that the Plaintiffs will have to address before the settlement approval hearing on July 22, 2022. First, the Plaintiffs say that the class members have submitted claims totaling nearly $174,000, but the claims administrator has approved less than $132,000. The administrator has approved all of the $25 claims for class members in "Tier Three," which includes any Filters Fast customer who used a credit card on Filters Fast's website during the class period. But the administrator has approved only $2,131 of the $33,907 claimed by class members who suffered out-of-pocket losses and only $1,717 of the $12,243 claimed by the class members who lost time redressing the data breach. Neither the Plaintiffs nor the administrator explain why such a small fraction of the claims have been approved. Part of the reason may be that the administrator was still reviewing the claims at the time plaintiffs filed their motion for final approval. So, Judge Peterson directs the Plaintiffs are directed to provide updated information regarding the claims that have been approved. For any claims that were rejected, they should explain why, along with any appropriate documentation. Second, the Plaintiffs didn't provide billing records for the time their counsel spent on the case after filing their previous motion for fees, which the court denied without prejudice. As the Court has already informed the Plaintiffs, its procedures require fee petitions to be accompanied by billing logs. That requirement has increased significance in the case because the Plaintiffs are seeking fees using the lodestar method, which requires the Court to consider the reasonableness of the time counsel spent on the case. So, the Plaintiffs will have to produce those records before the hearing. Third, and also related to the fee petition, the Plaintiffs didn't provide adequate support for the hourly rates of all the lawyers representing them in the case. The Plaintiffs submitted declarations from partners at Mason Lietz & Klinger LLP (MLK) and Federman & Sherwood, the two main law firms representing the Plaintiffs. The MLK partner listed the credentials, experience, and expertise of each MLK lawyer working on the case. But the Federman & Sherwood partner discussed his own credentials only, without providing any background about the other lawyers from the firm. The Plaintiffs will have to supplement their fee petition with additional information about the Federman & Sherwood lawyers. The Plaintiffs will provide the additional information requested in the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3b6h6knb from Leagle.com. G.L.A. COLLECTION: Grondland FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Eliezer Grondland, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. G.L.A. Collection Company Incorporated, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 8, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-10054-XXXX to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. G.L.A. Collection Company Incorporated -- https://glacompany.com/ -- has over 40 years of experience in recovering accounts receivables and offers a full range of services.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Ernest Henry Kohlmyer, III, Esq. SHEPARD, SMITH, KOHLMYER & HAND, P.A. 2300 Maitland Center Parkway, Suite 100 Maitland, FL 32751 Phone: (407) 622-1772 Fax: (407) 622-1884 Email: skohlmyer@shepardfirm.com GIFTLY INC: Faces Wecare Suit Over Misleading Gift Cards Items -------------------------------------------------------------- WECARE RG, INC.; and GRACIE BAKED LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GIFTLY INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02672 (E.D. Pa., July 8, 2022) is an action brought on behalf of nationwide, New York, and Pennsylvania classes of small businesses to seek redress for Defendant's systematic violations of federal and state unfair competition laws. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, countless consumers are misled and confused about exactly what to do with these Giftly "gift cards." They repeatedly try to use the gift cards at the businesses the cards were intended for. And businesses, which have no idea they have been drafted into Giftly's scheme, are left with negative experiences and harm to businesses' reputations when customers blame the businesses for not accepting unauthorized Giftly "gift cards," says the suit. Consumers who purchase Giftly "gift cards" are upset to discover that they did not actually purchase a gift card but instead paid Giftly significant sums just to transfer money. Gift recipients then become upset when they show up at businesses that do not accept Giftly cards, the suit added. GIFTLY INC. provides the online sale of gilft cards. The Company offers gifts cards for restaurants, shopping centers, spas, sports and outdoor products, and other activities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. POLLOCK COHEN LLP 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd. 20th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 667-8607 Email: Rafi@PollockCohen.com -and- Adam Pollock, Esq. Alison Borochoff-Porte, Esq. POLLOCK COHEN LLP 111 Broadway, Suite 1804 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 337-5361 Email: Adam@PollockCohen.com Alison@PollockCohen.com GOOGLE INC: AG Urges SCOTUS to Hear Consumer Rights Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Delaney Murray at wric.com reports that Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares, in a group of 20 state attorneys general, is urging the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to hear a case that will reexamine the rights of consumers in class action lawsuits. Attorney General Miyares and other state attorneys general have filed an amicus brief urging the SCOTUS to hear Lowery v. Joffe. Lowery v. Joffe is a recent case that stems from a 2010 Google class action lawsuit. In the original lawsuit, plaintiffs alleged that Google's Street View cars collected millions of consumers' private data, including emails, passwords, and usernames, on their WiFi networks without consumers' knowledge. The parties settled, creating a $13 million cash fund to pay attorneys and organizations dealing with consumer protection and education. However, the harmed consumers received nothing from the fund. This is known as a "cy pres-only" settlement, where class members receive no direct benefit from a court settlement. Lowery v. Joffe was filed to determine if such settlements are fair. "Cy-pres-only settlements like these typically benefit corporate giants and trial lawyers. They rarely deliver justice to the victims harmed by large corporations," Attorney General Miyares said. "All too often, they are a way for big business to escape justice for injuries they inflicted on consumers. I hope the Supreme Court takes this case and reins in the abuse of this sort of settlement." The full brief for Lowery v. Joffe is available here. [GN] GOOGLE INC: Top Lawyers Ask to Review Charity-Only Settlements -------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel at Reuters reports that state attorneys general are once again calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to restrict the use of charitable donations as an alternative to class payouts in class action settlements. Led by Arizona's Mark Brnovich, 20 state AGs filed an amicus brief, backing a petition for Supreme Court review of a $13 million privacy class-action settlement that called for Google Inc to donate money to universities and non-profits dedicated to internet privacy issues instead of paying the funds to class members. The petition was filed last month by Ted Frank of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, who, as you will surely recall, is a longtime critic of class settlements calling for charitable donations in lieu of payments to class members, which are known as cy pres-only settlements. Broadly speaking, Frank contends that cy pres deals contravene the principle that class settlements belong to class members. Frank previously argued a challenge to a different Google cy pres settlement at the Supreme Court, but the justices dismissed the case in 2019 because of concerns about the constitutional standing of the lead plaintiff in the underlying class action. Frank and his state AG amici contend that cy pres remains a critical problem in class action litigation in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed approval of the $13 million Google settlement in December. (I've previously written about the case, which alleges that Google Street View vehicles improperly accessed wireless electronic communications of as many as 60 million internet users.) The 9th Circuit's permissive view of cy pres - and, in particular, of cy pres-only class settlements that do not even attempt to distribute funds to class members - has made it an outlier among appellate courts that have become increasingly skeptical of cy pres, according to Frank and the AGs. So it's up to the Supreme Court, they said, to resolve the split and rein in the 9th Circuit. Neither Google counsel Brian Willen of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati nor class counsel Daniel Small of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll responded to my query about the AGs' brief and Frank's petition. But it's a very good bet that Google will argue in this case - much as it argued in Frank's previous cy pres foray at the Supreme Court - that cy pres-only settlements have become a vanishing species. My admittedly anecdotal sense of the prevalence of cy pres settlements aligns with what Google told the Supreme Court in 2018: Settlements like the Street View deal are extremely rare. Courts continue to approve cy pres donations for leftover money after class funds have been disbursed to class members, but class action lawyers on both sides of the bar have become wary of deals that resort to cy pres donations without even attempting to pay class members. I haven't seen any good statistical analysis of cy pres-only settlements in recent years. The AGs' new brief cites a 2021 law review article, Saving Class Members from Counsel, for the broad proposition of increased reliance on cy pres settlements. But that study just searched Westlaw for references to cy pres in federal-court class actions. It didn't actually analyze the cases. The Supreme Court dockets in Ted Frank's 2018 and 2022 cy pres cases, moreover, suggest that there may be less backing for his new call for Supreme Court intervention. In the previous case, Frank's cert petition attracted an amicus brief from 16 state AGs, but also briefs from the Cato Institute, the Center for Individual Rights and the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. This time, there are more AGs rallying behind Frank's petition - but they are his only amici. Frank had good answers to my email questions about fewer amici and the apparent rarity of cy pres-only settlements. A couple of potential amicus briefs fell through at the last minute, he said, and it's no surprise that one of his amici in the last go-round, John Eastman of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, was preoccupied in the last several weeks with matters more pressing than cy pres settlements. Frank acknowledged the dearth of cy pres-only settlements in his email. In fact, he took some credit for it, asserting that the Supreme Court's interest in his previous challenges has had a deterrent effect. "I'm told by both [plaintiffs] and [defense] attorneys that they use the bogeyman threat, 'Ted Frank would object to that,' to negotiate better settlements than cy pres," Frank said. His pitch to the Supreme Court, he said, is forward-looking. The 9th Circuit's ruling in the Street View case, he said, endorsed the use of cy pres-only settlements when the administrative difficulty of determining class membership outweighs the minimal recovery class members can expect to receive. (In the Street View case, with 60 million potential class members, that recovery would have amounted to pennies.) The 9th Circuit's holding, in Frank's view, will allow plaintiffs' lawyers who file cases in the 9th Circuit to justify cy pres deals with arguments that it's not worth bothering to identify class members. "By defining a plaintiff class broadly enough, class counsel can grease the skids for a quick and easy cy pres deal with defendants that sells class members 'down the river," Frank said in the new petition. Ninth Circuit precedent "would permit almost every consumer class-action settlement to completely ignore payments to class members." That scenario would indeed be a setback in consumer class action litigation, in which plaintiffs' lawyers and claims administrators have spent the last several years thinking about ways to identify and notify class members. Google's response to the Frank petition is due on August 22. [GN] GREAT CLIPS INC: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Great Clips, Inc. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Great Clips, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05843 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Great Clips -- https://www.greatclips.com/ -- is an American hair salon chain with over 4,100 locations across the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com HAIR BAR NYC: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hair Bar NYC Inc. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hair Bar NYC Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05820 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hair Bar NYC -- https://hairbarnyc.com/ -- is one of the fastest growing chains of hair salons in NYC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com HAWAII: Opulento Wins Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA OPULENTO, ON BEHALF OF HER DAUGHTER JESSICA FORTSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; AND FRANK HAMPP, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, NOLAN ESPINDA, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; GAVIN TAKENAKA, HEALTH CARE DIRECTOR, HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, CORRECTIONS DIVISION; AND DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-LEK-RT (D. Haw.), the Hon. Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification: "All persons who are now, or will in the future be, incarcerated in a jail or prison operated by the State of Hawaii, Department of Public Safety, and who have a Serious Mental Illness or a Serious and Persistent Mental Illness as defined by Department of Public Safety Policy No. COR.10.1G.04 (the "Class")." The Plaintiffs bring the following claims: (1) a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim against the Defendants for violation of Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment ("Count I"); (2) a section 1983 claim against the Defendants for violation of the Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process ("Count II"); (3) a section 1983 claim against Defendants for failure to train or supervise ("Count III"); (4) a claim against Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 12132 and 29 C.F.R. section 35.152(b)(1) ("Count IV"); and (5) a claim against Defendants for violations of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 794 ("Count V"). On February 11, 2022, the Plaintiffs Donna Opulento, on behalf of her daughter, Jessica Fortson; and Frank Hampp, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated filed their Motion for Class Certification. On April 22, 2022, the Defendants State of Hawaii Department of Public Safety, Nolan Espinda, and Gavin Takenaka filed their memorandum in opposition to the April 29, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed their reply on May 13, 2022. The operative pleading in the instant action is Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, filed on December 12, 2019. According to Plaintiffs, DPS is authorized and required under Hawaii law to "establish and adhere to procedures and policies to ensure the physical, emotional, and mental health and safety of prisoners under its jurisdiction." DPS operates at least eight correctional facilities in Hawaii and "houses over 1,400 inmates from Halawa [Correctional Facility ('HCF')] at an out-of-state facility in Arizona." The Plaintiffs allege "DPS has a policy and practice of failing to provide sufficient mental health care to more than 1,000 individuals with serious mental health needs in its prisons and jails." The Plaintiffs further allege the Defendants failed to provide necessary mental health treatment to Fortson, Hampp, and others similarly situated. The failure to treat inmates with Serious Mental Illness ("SMI") or Serious and Persistent Mental Illness ("SPMI") "stem[s] from severe staff shortages in the Heath Care Division" within DPS. The staff shortage allegedly led to, among other things, inadequate mental health screening, untimely responses to mental health crises, improper treatments, and the failure to formulate pre-release discharge planning for inmates suffering from mental health issues. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3z3FkPf at no extra charge.[CC] HC SALON HOLDINGS: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HC Salon Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HC Salon Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Hair Cuttery Family of Brands, Case No. 1:22-cv-05824 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. HC Salon Holdings, Inc. doing business as Hair Cuttery -- https://www.haircuttery.com/ -- is an American unisex hair salon chain and the largest privately held hairdressing chain in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com HEAVYWEIGHT COLLECTIONS: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heavyweight Collections, Inc. The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Heavyweight Collections, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05840 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Heavyweight Collections -- https://www.heavytshirt.com/ -- is dedicated to providing a high quality heavy t-shirt with classic vintage prints.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com HILCORP ENERGY: Colton Files Suit in D. Wyoming ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hilcorp Energy Development LP. The case is styled as Gregg B. Colton, Cindy H. Colton, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons v. Hilcorp Energy Development LP, Case No. 2:22-cv-00149-ABJ (D. Wyo., July 8, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Real Property. Hilcorp Energy Development, L.P. -- https://www.hilcorp.com/ -- operates as an oil and natural gas producer.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kelly Shaw, Esq. KOCH LAW PC PO Box 2660 Cheyenne, WY 82003 Phone: (307) 426-5010 Email: kshaw@kochlawpc.com HOME DEPOT: Chiarito Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled KENNETH CHIARITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 4:22-cv-01796, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 8, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04662-CAS-SK to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including unpaid overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, meal period violations, rest period violations, non-compliant wage statements and failure to maintain accurate payroll records, failure to timely pay wages during employment, unreimbursed business-related expenses, civil penalties, unlawful and unfair business practices. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is an American multinational home improvement retail corporation, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. Aaron H. Cole, Esq. Melis Atalay, Esq. Omar M. Aniff, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com aaron.cole@ogletree.com melis.atalay@ogletree.com omar.aniff@ogletreedeakins.com HOMEWARD MORTGAGE: Misclassifies Loan Advisors, Gonzales Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD GONZALES, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. HOMEWARD MORTGAGE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00686 (W.D. Tex., July 11, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a salaried loan advisor. According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassifies the Plaintiff and other similarly situated Loan Advisors as exempt from overtime provision of the FLSA. Although they were routinely scheduled to work more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Instead, the Defendant paid them a fixed weekly rate without overtime, says the suit. On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Loan Advisors, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief to which he and other Loan Advisors may show themselves to be justly entitled. Homeward Mortgage LLC provides home loans to consumers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM 2537 S. Gessner Road, Suite 104 Houston, TX 77063 Tel: (713) 223-8855 E-mail: trang@tranlf.com service@tranlf.com IFIT INC: Treinish Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Matthew Treinish, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. iFit Inc. dba Nordictrack, Case No. 22STCV18798 was removed from Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 8, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04687 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. iFit Inc. doing business as Nordictrack -- https://www.ifit.com/ -- is a global health and fitness subscription technology company that provides unmatched fitness experiences and solutions to its growing community of six million engaged members across 120 countries.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Jaikaran Singh, Esq. FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP 555 South Flower Street Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2411 Phone: (213) 486-0065 Fax: (213) 972-4500 Email: jsingh@foley.com INCUBOOM INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Incuboom, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Incuboom, Inc., d/b/a Baxterboo, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-04027 (E.D.N.Y., July 10, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Incuboom doing business as Baxterboo, LLC -- https://www.baxterboo.com/ -- is an online pet supply store that offers pet care products for dogs and cats in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 105-13 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com ISIS LOGISTICS: Dwyer Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS DWYER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ISIS LOGISTICS, LLC dba I-LOG, LLC, ROBERT HELBING, NANCY HELBING, and CHRISTOPHER HELBING, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00243-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla., July 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery driver from August 2018 through June 21, 2022. ISIS Logistics, LLC, doing business as I-LOG, LLC, is a logistics company, with its principal place of business in Midland, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 10368 West State Road 84, Suite 103 Davie, FL 33324 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com JACOBY & MEYERS: Review of Class of Cert. Denial in Harding Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the cases, NANCY HARDING & JEFF HARDING, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JACOBY & MEYERS, LLP, et al., Defendants. BARBARA J. SMALLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JACOBY & MEYERS, LLP, et al., Defendants, Civil Action Nos. 14-5419, 15-6559 (D.N.J.), Judge John Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denies the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's denial of the Plaintiff's second renewed motion for class certification. I. Introduction Presently before the Court is the motion of the Plaintiff for reconsideration. The Plaintiff seeks for the Court to reconsider its May 13, 2022 Opinion and Order denying the Plaintiff's second renewed motion for class certification. The Defendants filed a brief in opposition to the motion. The Court reviewed the submissions made in support of and opposition to the motion and considered the motion without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) and L. Civ. R. 78.1(b). II. Background The matter arises from a dispute between Plaintiffs the Estate of Jeffrey Harding (the "Estate") and Nancy Harding, and their former lawyers, Finkelstein & Partners, LLP ("F&P"), as well as one between Plaintiff Barbara J. Smalls and her former lawyers, Jacoby & Myers, LLP ("J&M"). The Plaintiffs allege that F&P, J&M, and Andrew Finkelstein improperly charged them for work performed by Total Trial Solutions, LLC. Total Trial is a litigation support company that is partially owned by Andrew Finkelstein, the managing partner of F&P and J&M. The Hardings previously sought class certification in the matter, which the Court denied without prejudice. The Hardings' matter was then consolidated with Smalls' case. The Plaintiffs also amended their Complaint to include allegations that Total Trial is the alter-ego of F&P and J&M. Mr. Harding and Ms. Smalls subsequently filed a renewed motion for class certification, seeking to certify Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) classes. The Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion. The Plaintiffs sought to certify the following Rule 23(b)(3) class: F&P and J&M Clients who were billed and charged for tasks, provided by Total Trial that constitute Actual Attorney Work, Law, Firm Overhead, and Surcharge Tasks during the applicable statute, of limitations. The Court concluded that Smalls' claims were not typical of the class but that Jeffrey Harding satisfied the Rule 23(a) requirements. It further determined that with respect to their request for a Rule 23(b)(3) class, the Plaintiffs failed to meet the predominance requirement because they had not established that they could use common evidence to prove each of their claims. The Plaintiffs' Rule 23(b)(2) class was based on their Rule 23(b)(3) class, so the Court also denied the Plaintiffs' request to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class. The Plaintiffs then filed a letter, requesting leave to file a second renewed motion for class certification on behalf of Jeffrey Harding. They represented that they would be "narrowing the claims for which certification is sought" and referred to the upcoming motion as "the narrowed set of claims." On Oct. 1, 2021, the Court granted leave but indicated that if "unsuccessful on the motion, the Plaintiffs will not be allowed make any further motions for class certification." In November 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their second renewed motion for class certification for a "narrowed set of claims" pertaining only to the Estate. The Estate proposed the following Rule 23(b)(3) class for certification: All clients of F&P and J&M who were charged for, and/or had deducted from their recovery, Total Trial charges on their cases. The Plaintiff also proposed the following sub-classes for certification: 1. Total Trial charges for any services which constituted a mark up over cost of said services (the Alter-Ego Overcharge sub-class). 2. Total Trial charges for services which are deemed under New York law a part of the services to be performed by a law firm for no extra charge as part of a contingent fee retainer (the Retainer-Overcharge sub-class). 3. Total Trial charges for services which New York law deem part of law office overhead which is not separately billable to retainer contingent clients (the Overhead Overcharge sub-class). The Rule 23(b)(2) class was similar, except that it pertained to Total Trial charges that had been billed but not yet paid by the clients. In opposition, the Defendants indicated that the Plaintiff was mistaken in believing that it could rely on the Court's prior Rule 23(a) findings, focusing on the typicality requirement. They reiterated that the party moving for certification bears the burden of demonstrating all relevant Rule 23 requirements by a preponderance of the evidence. On May 13, 2022, the Court denied the motion, again noting that the Estate bears the burden of showing the proposed classes satisfy the four requirements of Rule 23(a). It observed that the Plaintiff had not addressed numerosity, commonality, typicality, or adequacy requirements for "its proposed narrowed class or subclasses." It also did not agree with the Plaintiff's "law of the case" argument because, among other things, the Plaintiff was attempting to certify a different class and subclasses than the class previously ruled on by the Court. The Plaintiff then filed the instant motion for reconsideration on May 27, 2022. III. Analysis In its motion for reconsideration, the Estate asserts that its incorporation by reference of the Court's prior order and evidence established the four requirements of Rule 23(a), that the Court erred in rejecting its earlier findings as to Rule 23(a), and that the evidence and legal argument the Estate submitted with its second renewed motion nevertheless met the Rule 23(a) requirements. Before turning to the Estate's substantive arguments, Judge Vazquez first addresses one of the Plaintiff's assertions in its motion. The Plaintiff claims that the second renewed motion "did not alter the class in any substantive way" except to "break the class into sub-classes" while also dropping some categories of charges/overcharges. As to the claim that the second renewed motion did not substantively change the class, the Plaintiff said the exact opposite when requesting leave to file the motion and in its brief. As to the new proposed class, Judge Vazquez does not necessarily agree that it is narrower than that previously reviewed by the Court in the renewed class certification opinion. On its face, at least, the new class appears to be broader. In the first renewed motion, the Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of law firm clients who were charged for certain tasks by Total Trial, that is, tasks that comprised actual attorney work, law firm overhead, and surcharge work. In the second renewed motion, the Plaintiff sought to certify a class consisting of all law firm clients who were charged for Total Trial work; the type of work was not separated into certain categories or otherwise limited. In short, the Plaintiff had the burden of proving that the Rule 23(a) requirements were met for the class and each subclass. And when a class is narrowed, one of the Court's first concerns is whether the numerosity requirement is still met. When a class is broadened, the Court's concerns are amplified. As for the Plaintiff's substantive arguments, the Plaintiff first argues that incorporation by reference is permissible, and the Court erred because it failed to do so. At the outset, Judge Vazquez finds that the Plaintiff relies on Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(i), which permits parties to adopt aspects of another party's brief on appeal. Obviously, he says, this matter is not at the appellate stage, so this argument is inapposite. Putting aside this shortcoming, the Plaintiff's argument misses the mark. The Court determined that its earlier findings were not applicable because the Plaintiff had changed the class, and added new subclasses, for which it was seeking certification. In other words, the proposed class and sub-classes were not certified because the Plaintiff failed to prove the Rule 23(a) elements by a preponderance of the evidence. Judge Vazquez denies the motion on this ground. The Plaintiff next asserts that the Court incorrectly applied the law of the case doctrine4 in the May 13 Opinion. Again, the Plaintiff represented that it was seeking to certify a more narrowly defined class and subclasses. Because the Estate sought to certify different classes than it sought to certify in the renewed motion for class certification, the Court determined that the law of the case doctrine did not apply. Judge Vazquez opines that the renewed and second renewed motions for class certification are not identical. The Plaintiff sought to certify a newly defined class and subclasses through the second renewed motion. Next, no party sought to redefine or change the certified class. Judge Vazquez denies the motion on this ground. Finally, the Plaintiff argues that its evidence and legal argument in the second renewed motion were sufficient to establish that it satisfied the Rule 23(a) factors in making this argument, the Plaintiff cites to various exhibits from an affidavit that the Plaintiff filed in support of the second renewed motion. Notably, the Plaintiff did not discuss any of these exhibits in arguing that it satisfied the Rule 23(a) requirements in its brief in support of its second renewed motion. Thus, The Plaintiff is presently attempting to relitigate its second renewed motion by pointing to evidence it did not previously identify. This is not a permissible basis to grant a motion for reconsideration, Judge Vazquez says. Accordingly, he denies the motion on this ground. IV. Disposition For the reasons he stated, and for good cause shown, Judge Vazquez denies the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p84phvp from Leagle.com. JUUL LABS: Battle Creek Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign ---------------------------------------------------------------- BATTLE CREEK PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03992 (N.D. Cal., July 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Battle Creek Public Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Battle Creek Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 3 West Van Buren Street West in Battle Creek, Michigan. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Marion Public Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARION PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03993 (N.D. Cal., July 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Marion Public Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Marion Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 510 West Main Street in Marion, Michigan. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com KSF ACQUISITION: Nacarino Sues Over Mislabeled Smoothie Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELENA NACARINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KSF ACQUISITION CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-04021-KAW (N.D. Cal., July 8, 2022) is an action alleging systemic course of false, misleading, and unlawful conduct of the Defendant by falsely and deceptively misrepresented the amount of protein in its SlimFast smoothie and shake mix products (the "Products"). According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently places a representation at the front label of each of the Products which promises a specific number of grams of protein (e.g., "20g HIGH PROTEIN") (hereinafter, the "Protein Representation"). Consumers understand this message simply: each serving of the Products' smoothie/shake mix contains the number of grams of protein promised on the front label. However, unbeknownst to consumers, the shake mix contains far fewer grams of protein than what is promised in the Protein Representation. Instead, the Products require milk to be added in order to obtain the grams of protein advertised in the Protein Representation, says the suit. Nothing on the Products' front packaging discloses to consumers that they must add milk to receive the amount of protein promised in the Protein Representation, the suit added. KSF ACQUISITION CORPORATION is an American company headquartered in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida that markets an eponymous brand of shakes, bars, snacks, packaged meals, and other dietary supplement foods sold in the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Abiri, Esq. CUSTODIO & DUBEY, LLP 445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 593-9095 Facsimile: (213) 785-2899 Email: abiri@cd-lawyers.com KSF ACQUISITION: Wittman Sues Over Mislabeled Smoothie Products --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID WITTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KSF ACQUISITION CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-04023-AMD-LGD (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2022) is an action alleging systemic course of false, misleading, and unlawful conduct of the Defendant by falsely and deceptively misrepresented the amount of protein in its SlimFast smoothie and shake mix products (the "Products"). According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently places a representation at the front label of each of the Products which promises a specific number of grams of protein (e.g., "20g HIGH PROTEIN") (hereinafter, the "Protein Representation").Consumers understand this message simply: each serving of the Products' smoothie/shake mix contains the number of grams of protein promised on the front label. However, unbeknownst to consumers, the shake mix contains far fewer grams of protein than what is promised in the Protein Representation. Instead, the Products require milk to be added in order to obtain the grams of protein advertised in the Protein Representation, says the suit. Nothing on the Products' front packaging discloses to consumers that they must add milk to receive the amount of protein promised in the Protein Representation, the suit added. KSF ACQUISITION CORPORATION is an American company headquartered in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida that markets an eponymous brand of shakes, bars, snacks, packaged meals, and other dietary supplement foods sold in the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Abiri, Esq. CUSTODIO & DUBEY, LLP 445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 593-9095 Facsimile: (213) 785-2899 Email: abiri@cd-lawyers.com LAVISH LASHES INC: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lavish Lashes, Inc. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lavish Lashes, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05831 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lavish Lashes -- https://www.lavishlashes.com/ -- is an exciting new product and technique for thicker, longer, and naturally abundant looking eyelashes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com LIGHTING BY JARED: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lighting by Jared, Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Lighting by Jared, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05825-VEC (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lighting by Jared, Inc. manufactures lighting fixtures. The Company offers ceiling and wall lighting fittings, electric lamps, batteries, and other commercial lighting equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 155 East 55th St., Ste. 6a New York, NY 10022 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: brad@markslawpc.com MCLANE COMPANY: Casler Files Suit in N.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against McLane Company, Inc. The case is styled as Kyle Casler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. McLane Company, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00728-GLS-ATB (N.D.N.Y., July 8, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. McLane -- https://www.mclaneco.com/ -- is an American wholesale supply chain services company which distributes grocery and non-food to convenience stores, discount retailers, wholesale clubs, drug stores, military bases, quick service restaurants, and casual dining restaurants throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com MERCK & CO: $250-Mil. Equal-Pay Suit Affected More Women Sales Reps ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Staton at fiercepharma.com reports that the $250 million gender bias suit against Merck & Co. just picked up more steam. Conditionally certified as a class action in May, the lawsuit has picked up more than 400 women to bolster allegations that the company underpaid female sales reps. Filed under the Equal Pay Act, the complaint alleges that Merck paid female reps less than male salespeople and thwarted women's attempts to rise up the company ladder. Women who were pregnant or had children were often pushed to leave the company, and sexual harassment created a hostile work environment, the suit says. U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp said in April that four former reps had delivered a "modest factual showing" that Merck's policies affected them and other women across the company, qualifying the suit for potential class-action status. A single plaintiff, former rep Kelli Smith, filed the case back in 2013. [GN] MERRILL GARDENS: Holguin Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled RAMONA CHRISTINA HOLGUIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MERRILL GARDENS, LLC and DOES 1 to 50, Case No. 22STCV18565, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 8, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04686 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay all minimum wages, failure to pay all overtime wages, failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest period premiums, failure to pay meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums, failure to maintain accurate employment records, failure to pay wages timely during employment, failure to pay all wages earned and unpaid at separation, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, unfair competition law. Merrill Gardens, LLC is a company that owns and operates senior living communities, headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Diane Marie O'Malley, Esq. Samantha A. Botros, Esq. Alexa F. Galloway, Esq. HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-3200 Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 E-mail: domalley@hansonbridgett.com sbotros@hansonbridgett.com agalloway@hansonbridgett.com META PLATFORMS: Faces Metroplex Suit Over False Advertisements -------------------------------------------------------------- METROPLEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-01455 (S.D. Ill., July 8, 2022) seeks redress under the Lanham Act and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act for the Defendant's false and misleading statements in its advertising and promotions regarding the amount of people on the Facebook platform and its statements about potentially and actually delivering advertisements to people. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the relevant time period, Meta has made false and misleading statements regarding the metrics material to consumers considering purchasing advertisements from Meta???including, but not limited to, understating the number of duplicate accounts, understating the number of false accounts, overstating the number of monthly active users in the United States and Canada, and overstating and falsely describing the potential reach, estimated audience size, and achieved reach of advertising campaigns. Meta made these false and misleading statements for the purpose of, inter alia, influencing potential advertisers to buy, and to continue buying, the main product Meta sells: digital advertising, the suit says. META PLATFORMS, INC. operates as a social technology company. The Company builds applications and technologies that help people connect, find communities, and grow businesses. Meta Platform is also involved in advertisements, augmented, and virtual reality. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq. Kevin P. Green, Esq. Thomas C. Horscroft, Esq. GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C. 2227 South State Route 157 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-5150 Email: tom@ghalaw.com kevin@ghalaw.com thorscroft@ghalaw.com -and- Justin K. Gelfand, Esq. Ian T. Murphy, Esq. Gregory P. Bailey, Esq. MARGULIS GELFAND, LLC 7700 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 750 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 390-0234 Email: justin@margulisgelfand.com ian@margulisgelfand.com greg@margulisgelfand.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Klimovich FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MICHAEL KLIMOVICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.; JOHN DOES 1-50 and ABC CORP. 1-50, Case No. ESX-L-002637-22, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Civil Part, Essex County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 8, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04483 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt buyer and debt collection company headquartered in San Diego, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Kenny G. Oh, Esq. Han Sheng Beh, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 471-6200 MIDLAND CREDIT: Pistone FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled BARBARA PISTONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.; JOHN DOES 1-50 and ABC CORP. 1-50, Case No. ESX-L-002083-22, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Civil Part, Essex County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 8, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04477 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt buyer and debt collection company headquartered in San Diego, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Kenny G. Oh, Esq. Han Sheng Beh, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 471-6200 MONOGRAM AEROSPACE: Underpays Machine Operators, Briceno Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO BRICENO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONOGRAM AEROSPACE FASTENERS, INC.; TRIMAS CORPORATION; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV21965 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to provide meals periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide proper sick leave, failure to provide supplemental paid sick leave, failure to keep accurate and complete payroll records, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide suitable resting facilities, seating and temperature violations, failure to provide recovery periods, unlawful deductions, failure to pay for all hours worked at the proper wage rate, untimely payment of final wages, and unlawful criminal and financial background checks. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a machine operator until his termination on May 13, 2021. Monogram Aerospace Fasteners, Inc. is an aviation & aerospace company headquartered in Michigan. TriMas Corporation is a manufacturer of engineered products based in Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Crosner, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. Blake R. Jones, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 496-5818 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com blake@crosnerlegal.com MUNICIPAL CREDIT: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Thompson ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELSA THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MUNICIPAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:21-cv-07600-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order extending deadlines in the case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- Deadline for Plaintiff's motion Sept. 19, 2022 for class certification: -- Deadline for Defendant's Oct. 17, 2022 response to Plaintiff's motion for class certification: -- Deadline for Plaintiff's Oct. 31, 2022 reply in support of the motion for class certification: -- Requests to Admit shall be Nov. 30, 2022 served: -- All fact discovery to be Dec. 30, 2022 completed: -- Depositions shall be completed: Dec. 30, 2022 -- Expert Discovery shall be Feb. 14, 2023 completed: -- All discovery shall be Feb. 14, 2023 completed: -- Deadline to file any motion Feb. 28, 2023 for summary judgment: -- Deadline to submit proposed May 28, 2023 joint pretrial order: Municipal Credit Union is a state chartered credit union headquartered in New York City, regulated under the authority of the National Credit Union Administration. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3z78aP3 at no extra charge.[CC] NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS: Case Management Deadlines Extended in Hook --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL HOOK, DAVID SEMAN, BARBARA BROWN, LARRY ONDAKO, and JULIA ONDAKO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, d/b/a NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS RESORT; NEMACOLIN, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation; and NWL, CO., a Pennsylvania corporation, Case No. Case 2:21-cv-00387-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Maureen P. Kelly entered an order: 1. granting the Parties' Fourth Joint Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines With Respect to Class Certification Discovery; 2. directing the Defendants to produce Joseph A. Hardy to testify at a deposition on July 7, 2022; 3. directing the Defendants to produce Margaret Hardy Knox to testify at a deposition on July 8, 2022; The Court also modifies the case schedule as follows: Event Current New Deadline Deadline Close of Pre-Certification July 29, 2022 Aug. 30, 2022 Fact Discovery: Deadline to amend the July 29, 2022 Aug. 30, 2022 pleadings or add new parties Telephone Status Conference Aug. 3, 2022 Aug. 31, 2022 to set deadlines for next phase of litigation Nemacolin provides hospitality services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uM3pYA at no extra charge.[CC] NEW TAIWAN TRADING: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Taiwan Trading Corp. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. New Taiwan Trading Corp., Case No. 2:22-cv-04028 (E.D.N.Y., July 10, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. New Taiwan Trading Corp. is located in El Monte, California and is part of the professional and commercial equipment and supplies merchant wholesalers, merchant wholesalers, durable goods, wholesale trade, restaurant equipment and supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 105-13 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Loses Bid to Junk Anfibio Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSARIO ANFIBIO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. OPTIO SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-11146-CCC-ESK (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Claire C. Cecchi entered an order: 1. denying without prejudice the Defendant's motion to dismiss Rosario Anfibio's putative class-action First Amended Complaint; and 2. directing the parties to conduct limited expedited discovery on the issue of arbitrability. The Court said, "Both Plaintiff and Defendant merely claim that the debt was "placed" with the Defendant for debt collection purposes. Neither party provides a detailed recitation or documentary support of the circumstances by which the Defendant benefited from or succeeded to Lesssor's or Fusion's interest in the Agreement. Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendant's motion without prejudice and will order the parties to conduct limited discovery on the issue of arbitrability. Thereafter, Defendant may file a renewed motion to compel arbitration, which the Court will review under the Rule 56 standard. The Defendant may raise any additional arguments, if applicable, in its renewed motion." This dispute arises out of an alleged debt incurred by Plaintiff with respect to an automotive lease agreement dated May 21, 2016. The Plaintiff allegedly defaulted on the Lease Debt and Fusion repossessed the motor vehicle underlying the Agreement on July 14, 2019. The Plaintiff alleges that on or before February 3, 2020, Fusion referred its interest in Plaintiff's Lease Debt obligation to Defendant for debt collection purposes. The Plaintiff contends that Defendant is not a signatory to the Agreement. The Plaintiff asserts that after its appointment as debt collector, Defendant purportedly sent a letter to Plaintiff seeking to collect the Lease Debt. The Plaintiff claims that Defendant sent him additional collection letters dated March 4, March 18, and April 1, 2020. The Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by repeatedly contacting Plaintiff directly regarding a disputed debt after notice of cease and desist from Plaintiff's counsel in violation of 15 U.S.C. section 1692c(c) and 15 U.S.C section 1692c(a)(2). Optio is a national debt collection agency. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aK1dtA at no extra charge.[CC] OUTSET MEDICAL: Faces Plymouth Suit Over Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------ PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OUTSET MEDICAL, INC.; LESLIE TRIGG; NABEEL AHMED; and REBECCA CHAMBERS, Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-04016 (N.D. Cal., July 8, 2022) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Outset Medical common stock between September 15, 2020, and June 13, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period") against Outset Medical and certain of its officers (collectively "Defendants") seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class Period, Outset Medical touted that Tablo can "serve as a dialysis clinic on wheels" that had been "cleared by the [U.S.] Food and Drug Administration for use in the hospital, clinic or home setting." Indeed, Outset Medical made clear that the Company's true value proposition would be recognized through the emerging use-at-home market rather than the more traditional acute or clinical settings it targeted historically, says the suit. According to the complaint, investors began to learn the truth after the markets closed on May 4, 2022, when the Company announced disappointing results for the first quarter of 2022, which analysts attributed, inter alia, to the untested nature of Tablo in the home setting. In response to this disclosure, and as the market digested this news, the price of Outset Medical common stock declined more than 40% over the three trading days that followed, from a closing price of $39.94 per share on Wednesday, May 4, 2022, to a closing price of $23.06 per share on Monday, May 9, 2022. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common stock when the truth was disclosed, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit added. OUTSET MEDICAL, INC. provides medical technology. The Company develops a hemodialysis system for kidney patients. The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Kaplan, Esq. Wolfram T. Worms, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 12750 High Bluff Drive, Suite 475 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 997-0860 Facsimile: (858) 369-0096 Email: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com wworms@saxenawhite.com OUTSET MEDICAL: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit (the "Class Action") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Outset Medical, Inc. ("Outset Medical" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OM) and certain of its executive officers (collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Outset Medical common stock between September 15, 2020 and June 13, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). The Class Action filed by Saxena White is captioned: Plymouth County Retirement Association v. Outset Medical, Inc., No. 5:22-cv-04016 (N.D. Cal.) Outset Medical is a medical technology company focused on kidney dialysis, the primary treatment for acute and chronic kidney failure. The Company's flagship product is the Tablo Hemodialysis System ("Tablo"), a dialysis machine that purifies tap water and then artificially purifies and removes toxins from the blood of patients suffering from kidney failure. Throughout the Class Period, Outset Medical touted that Tablo can "serve as a dialysis clinic on wheels" that had been "cleared by the [U.S.] Food and Drug Administration [(the "FDA")] for use in the hospital, clinic or home setting" under Section 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the "FDCA"). Devices used by non-professionals outside of a clinical setting and that can present serious health consequences like Tablo are subject to heightened scrutiny by the FDA, including post-market surveillance studies pursuant to the FDCA. While performing further regulatory studies during the Class Period, the Company assured investors that it was conducting the studies "in accordance with the FDA approved protocol," which required an appropriate demonstration of "real-world" human testing given that the device would be used at home by non-professionals. The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants misled investors and/or failed to disclose that (1) Defendants had "continuously made improvements and updates to Tablo over time since its original clearance" that required an additional 510(k) application; (2) as a result, the Company could not conduct a human factors study on a cleared device in accordance with FDA protocols; (3) the Company's inability to conduct the human factors study subjected the Company to the likelihood of the FDA imposing a "shipment hold" and marketing suspension, leaving the Company unable to sell Tablo for home use; and (4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. The truth began to emerge on May 5, 2022, when the Company announced disappointing results for the first quarter of 2022, which analysts attributed, inter alia, to the untested nature of Tablo in the home setting. In response to this disclosure, and as the market digested this news, the price of Outset Medical common stock declined more than 40% over the three trading days that followed, from a closing price of $39.94 per share on Wednesday, May 4, 2022, to a closing price of $23.06 per share on Monday, May 9, 2022. Then, after the markets closed on June 13, 2022, Outset Medical announced that the FDA had forced the Company to hold all shipments of Tablo for use in the home until Tablo received proper regulatory clearance. During an "FDA Review Call" held that day with analysts, the Defendants acknowledged the "ship hold" had already been in place for weeks before investors were provided this material information, and that as a result of the shipment hold, the Company was "suspending our prior full-year and long-term guidance." On this news, the price of Outset Medical stock fell an additional 33%, from a closing price of $20.41 per share on June 13, 2022, to a closing price of $13.46 per share on June 14, 2022. If you purchased Outset Medical common stock during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California no later than September 6, 2022. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may contact Wolfram T. Worms (wworms@saxenawhite.com), an attorney at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action. You also may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Class Action. You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively joining the Class Action at www.saxenawhite.com. Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, California, and Delaware, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, Saxena White has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors. [GN] PARKVIEW HOUSE: Cruz Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Cooks --------------------------------------------------------------- VICENTE CRUZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARKVIEW HOUSE RESTAURANT & TAVERN INC. (DBA PARKVIEW HOUSE RESTAURANT & TAVERN), Defendant, Case No. 7:22-cv-05795 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a cook at Parkview House Restaurant & Tavern from August 2020 until June 25, 2022. Parkview House Restaurant Tavern Inc., doing business as Parkview House Restaurant Tavern, is a restaurant company with a principal place of business at 23 Main Street, Wallkill, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. Toneille Raglan, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 PENN FIVE: Fails to Reimburse Drivers' Expenses, Trimble Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN TRIMBLE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. PENN FIVE PIZZA, INC., and COURTNEY R. MILNE, individually, Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-02687 (E.D. Penn., July 11, 2022) brings this complaint as a collective action alleging the Defendants of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Domino's store located in Millersville, PA from approximately April 2022 to June 2022. The Plaintiff asserts that he and other similarly situated delivery drivers have incurred automobile expenses while delivering pizza and other food items for the primary benefits of the Defendants. However, the Defendants employed a reimbursement policy which reimburses its delivery drivers below the IRS business mileage reimbursement rate and/or much less than a reasonable approximation of its drivers' automobile expenses. As a result, the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated delivery drivers' net wages diminished beneath the federal minimum wage requirements, the Plaintiff says. Penn Five Pizza, Inc. operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores. Courtney R. Milne is the owner and operator of the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C. 120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218 Horsham, PA 19044 Tel: (215) 496-8282 Fax: (215) 754-4443 E-mail: phoward@smbb.com PHL VARIABLE: Scheduling Order Entered in Advance Trust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. PHL Variable Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:18-cv-03444-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered a scheduling order as follows: -- The Defendant's rebuttal expert disclosures are due on July 29, 2022, and Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert disclosures are due on August 26, 2022. -- All expertdiscovery must be completed by September 30, 2022. -- The contemplated motion for class certification is due on September 2, 2022. -- The opposition is due on October 6, 2022, and the reply is due on November 3, 2022. -- The the parties shall meet and confer within the next 30 days. The parties shall file a joint status letter by August 5, 2022 informing the Court whether they propose to resume private mediation or wish to be referred to the Magistrate Judge for a settlement conference. -- The Post Discovery Conference is adjourned to November 17, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. One week before the conference, the parties shall submit a joint letter and any pre-motion submissions in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules. PHL Variable is an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RJ9JKi at no extra charge.[CC] POUGHKEEPSIE GALLERIA: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Poughkeepsie Galleria, LLC. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Poughkeepsie Galleria, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05845 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Poughkeepsie Galleria -- https://www.poughkeepsiegalleriamall.com/ -- provides shopping, dining, entertainment venues, retail stores, services, entertainment and restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com R.J. REYNOLDS: Punitive Damages Award in Harris Suit Partly Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------ The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, affirms in part and reverses in part the trial court's punitive damages award in the case, R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellant v. MARGARET HARRIS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard Harris, Appellee, Case No. 1D19-1641 (Fla. App.). I. Introduction In this Engle progeny case, R.J. Reynolds challenges a final judgment awarding Margaret Harris, as personal representative of the Estate of Richard Harris (the Estate), $6 million in punitive damages. R.J. Reynolds argues that the trial court erred by affirmatively instructing the jury it could consider the Engle findings when deciding whether to award punitive damages (and how much to award). The Court of Appeal agrees the trial court erred, reverses the portion of the judgment awarding punitive damages, and remands for further proceedings limited to punitive damages. II. Background Richard and Margaret Harris originally sued in the Eleventh Circuit in 2007. Seven years later, the parties agreed to transfer this case to Gadsden County in the Second Circuit. After Richard Harris died in 2016, the trial court allowed the Estate to file a fifth amended complaint asserting a wrongful death claim and adding a claim for punitive damages. The case finally went to trial in 2019 and consisted of two phases. Phase I addressed liability, class membership, comparative fault, compensatory damages, and entitlement to punitive damages. Phase II addressed the amount of punitive damages. In Phase I, the trial court instructed the jury that the Engle findings were "binding" -- they could "not be denied or questioned, and they must carry the same weight as they would if you had determined them yourselves." The trial court then listed the Engle findings, noting that they "do not, by themselves, establish that R.J. Reynolds is liable to the Plaintiff." Later in the Phase I instructions, the trial court made several points about how the jury was to determine whether punitive damages were warranted. The trial court explained that entitlement to punitive damages is determined by clear and convincing evidence: "Clear and convincing evidence differs from the greater weight of the evidence in that it is more compelling and persuasive." The trial court then instructed the jury about the Engle findings for purposes of punitive damages: "You may consider the Engle findings when determining whether punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds are warranted. However, the Engle findings by themselves do not establish that punitive damages are warranted." Earlier, R.J. Reynolds objected to this portion of the jury instructions. Instead, it sought an instruction that the jury "may not consider the Engle findings when determining whether punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds are warranted." The trial court rejected this requested instruction. At the end of Phase I, the jury found for the Estate on all claims, apportioned 30% fault to Richard Harris, and awarded $4 million in compensatory damages. The jury also found that punitive damages were warranted. The trial went on to Phase II, where the court repeated its instruction to jurors that "you may consider the Engle findings when determining whether punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds are warranted. However, the Engle findings by themselves do not establish that punitive damages are warranted." R.J. Reynolds again objected to this portion of the instructions and maintained the position that the jury should not consider the Engle findings in connection with punitive damages. The jury awarded $6 million in punitive damages. R.J. Reynolds moved for a directed verdict, or for a new trial or remittitur, in part because the trial court permitted the jury to consider the Engle findings in determining punitive damages entitlement and amount. The trial court denied the motion and entered the final judgment. III. Discussion R.J. Reynolds argues the trial court abused its discretion when it instructed the jury that it could consider the Engle findings when determining whether punitive damages were warranted. As authority for its proposed instruction to the contrary, R.J. Reynolds relied on the Florida Supreme Court's statement that "the res judicata effect of the Phase I findings addressed in Engle has no application to claims for punitive damages sought by Engle progeny plaintiffs," citing Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 187 So.3d 1219, 1227 (Fla. 2016). The company also provided the trial court with citations to trial transcripts from thirty other Engle progeny cases in which the juries had been instructed using the same or substantially similar instruction as that requested by R.J. Reynolds. These dozens of trials occurred throughout the state in 14 circuits (including the trial court's Second Circuit). The trial court rejected R.J. Reynolds' requested instruction and instead instructed the jury that "you may consider the Engle findings when determining whether punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds are warranted. However, the Engle findings by themselves do not establish that punitive damages are warranted." In doing so, the trial court erred, the Court of Appeal opines. It says, the trial court's instructions to the jury were problematic for two reasons. First, by affirmatively instructing the jury it could consider the Engle findings for purposes of punitive damages, the trial court ignored the Florida Supreme Court's explanation in Soffer that the Engle findings have "no application" to claims of punitive damages. Second, not only did the trial court reject an accurate instruction, but it also gave a misleading one. The instructions disregard a basic principle of preclusion: A finding in one proceeding should not be afforded preclusive effect if there are "differences in the burden of proof or persuasion between the initial proceeding and the subsequent proceeding." The Court of Appeal opines that the blending of these two evidentiary standards might have reasonably misled the jury as it was deliberating punitive entitlement. There simply is no way to determine whether the jury based its punitive entitlement determination solely on independent evidence of R.J. Reynolds' conduct or whether it relied in part on the Engle findings. The trial court affirmatively instructed the jury that it could consider the findings for purposes of punitive damages. This was after the trial court had instructed that same jury that the findings were "binding" and could "not be denied or questioned." Given the elevated import of the Engle findings within these instructions, the jury may have reasonably believed it could largely rely on or defer to the Engle findings when deliberating about punitive damages. For this reason, the Court of Appeal must reverse. The trial court rejected an accurate proposed instruction in favor of an erroneous instruction. Because that erroneous instruction reasonably may have misled the jury as it was deliberating entitlement to punitive damages, the Court of Appeal reverses the judgment in part, and remands for further proceedings limited to punitive damages. In light of the foregoing, the Court of Appeal affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. The ruling is not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9h35f2 from Leagle.com. Jason T. Burnette -- jtburnette@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, in Atlanta, GA; Charles F. Beall, Jr. , and Larry Hill -- lhill@mhw-law.com -- Moore, Hill & Westmoreland, P.A., Pensacola, for the Appellant. Bard D. Rockenbach -- bdr@flappellatelaw.com -- Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach; Carlos Santisteban, Jr., Carlos Santisteban, Jr., P.A., Miami; Richard J. Diaz, Richard J. Diaz, P.A., Coral Gables; Robert D. Trammell, Robert D. Trammell, P.A., Tallahassee; and Jonathan B. Harris, J.B. Harris, P.A., Coral Gable, for the Appellee. REGIS CORPORATION: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regis Corporation. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Regis Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-05846 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Regis Corporation -- https://www.regiscorp.com/ -- is an American operator of hair salons.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com RESEARCH STRATEGIES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Response ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGARETTE DUVERGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RESEARCH STRATEGIES, INC., an Alabama corporation, Case No. 0:21-cv-62465-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and the Local Rules governing practice in and for the Southern District of Florida, files its motion for enlargement of time to respond to Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff filed its Motion for Class Certification on June 21, 2022. The Defendant's response to the Certification Motion is due on July 5, 2022. The Parties are currently engaged in discovery that may lead to the amicable resolution of this case. The Parties have been negotiating a Confidentiality Agreement to permit the disclosure of certain confidential documents or proprietary information sought by the Plaintiff. Additionally, the Plaintiff's responses to Defendant's Request for Production fail to identify any record or document in Plaintiff's possession evidencing Plaintiff's receipt of the phone call in question at issue in this case. To that end, the Defendant requested Plaintiff's assistance in obtaining Plaintiff's phone records from her carrier. The Plaintiff has refused to assist Defendant, necessitating the issuance of a subpoena to the Plaintiff's phone carrier for said phone records. The Plaintiff has no evidence on her cell phone that she received the call at issue and Defendant's records show that Plaintiff's cell phone was never called as alleged in the Complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's phone carrier's records, with respect to the phone call in question, will play a key role in the ongoing settlement discussions in this case. Research Strategies is a full-service Consumer, Public Opinion & Business-to-Business Market Research Company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PbVagz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard L. Allen, Esq. Justin M. Henning, Esq. KRINZMAN HUSS LUBETSKY FELDMAN & HOTTE Alfred I. duPont Building 169 E. Flagler Street, Suite 500 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 854-9700 Facsimile: (305) 854-0508 E-mail: rla@khllaw.com jmh@khllaw.com mlopez@khllaw.com eservicemia@khllaw.com RESTORATION HOLDINGS: Scheduling Order Entered in Krausslach ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY KRAUSSLACH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. RESTORATION HOLDINGS, INC. and TODD FRANK, Case No. 2:22-cv-00441-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William C. Griesbach entered a scheduling order: 1. Initial disclosures are to be Aug. 12, 2022 exchanged between the parties no later than: 2. Amendments to the pleadings may Aug. 12, 2022 be filed without leave of court on or before: 3. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. June 30, 2023 P. 26, Plaintiff's expert witness disclosure is due on or before: 4. The Defendant's expert witness Aug. 31, 2023 disclosure is due on or before: 5. All discovery in this case is Nov. 20, 2023 to be completed no later than: 6. Expedited non-dispositive motions must comply with Civil L.R. 7(h): 7. The Plaintiff's Motion for Dec. 22, 2022 Conditional Certification for claims under the FLSA shall be filed on or before: 8. The Plaintiff's Motion for June 23, 2023 Rule 23 Class Certification and Defendant's Motion to Decertify any conditionally certified FLSA class shall be filed on or before: 9. Motions for summary judgment Dec. 22, 2023 must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Civil L.R. 7 and shall be served and filed on or before: Global Restoration provides disaster restoration, reconstruction, and renovation services for residential, industrial, and commercial property in ... A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yE7yyS at no extra charge.[CC] SALVATION ARMY: Scheduling Order Entered in Tassinari Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mark Tassinari, et al., v. The Salvation Army National Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-10806-LTS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Leo T. Sorokin entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. Initial disclosures required by July 20, 2022 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) and by this Court's Notice of Scheduling Conference must be completed by: 2. All requests for production of March 1, 2023 documents and interrogatories must be served by: 3. All requests for admission must March 1, 2023 be served by: 4. All depositions, other than March 31, 2023 expert depositions, must be completed by: 5. All discovery, other than expert March 31, 2023 discovery, must be completed by: 6. A status conference will be held April 6, 2023: on: 7. Trial experts for the party with May 1, 2023 the burden of proof must be designated, and the information contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) must be disclosed, by: 8. Rebuttal trial experts must be May 31, 2023 designated, and the information contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) must be disclosed, by: 9. All trial experts must be deposed June 30, 2023 by: 10. Class certification motions July 31, 2023 filed by: A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O5O9MX at no extra charge.[CC] SOCLEAN INC: Lattimorre Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SoClean, Inc. The case is styled as Heather Lattimorre, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SoClean, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00510 (M.D. Tenn., July 8, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. SoClean, Inc. -- https://www.soclean.com/ -- manufactures cleaning devices. The Company produces automated continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) cleaners and sanitizers which improves health outcomes and quality of life for those suffering from obstructive sleep apnea and other sleeping disorders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Danielle L. Perryt, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP (DC) 641 S. St. NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 640-1168 Fax: (202) 429-2294 Email: dperry@masonllp.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. MASON LLP 5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 Phone: (202) 429-2290 Fax: (202) 429-2294 Email: gmason@masonllp.com - and - Lisa A. White, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 800 S Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: lwhite@masonllp.com - and - Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq. Sarah T. Bradshaw, Esq. Email: rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com sbradshaw@midwest-law.com SOLANA FOUNDATION: Faces Cryptocurrency Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Mark Young, a Solana investor, has filed a class action lawsuit against Solana Foundation, CEO Antoly Yakovenko, co-founder Kyle Samani, and others alleging that they have sold Solana (SOL) cryptocurrencies without a security statement and that they have promoted these cryptocurrencies despite they being unregistered securities, as per various media sources. "Solana Labs had its first public sale of SOL tokens in a 'Dutch Auction' held in March 2020, which was tantamount to an Initial Coin Offering (ICO). Since April 2020, funded by the proceeds they made through their ICO, Defendants have spent vast sums of money promoting SOL securities throughout the United States. These promotional efforts took SOL securities from a relatively obscure crypto-asset to one of the top crypto-assets in the world," read the suit filing document. [GN] SOLANA LABS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Unregistered Security ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rosemarie Miller at forbes.com reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Solana Labs, a for-profit company working on the development of the Solana blockchain, in a California federal court accusing the company and people within the ecosystem of making illegal profits and promoting its token, SOL, as an unregistered security. The outcome of the lawsuit could have major implications for the future of the crypto industry, which has had to function for years under a cloud of uncertainty about whether its tokens should qualify as securities. If SOL is determined to be a security, it could open up many similar tokens available on prominent crypto exchanges such as Coinbase, Kraken, Binance, and others to similar scrutiny. Ultimately these platforms could be forced to de-list SOL and other major crypto tokens. For context, Coinbase and Kraken, along with many other platforms de-listed XRP in late 2020 when the SEC sued San Francisco-based Ripple for selling $1.3 billion of the asset to purchasers in what it called an unregistered security. The lawsuit was filed by the plaintiff, Mark Young, with Roche Freedman LLP and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky on behalf of all investors who bought Solana (SOL) tokens from March 24, 2020 through the present. The defendants listed in the suit are Solana Labs and its CEO Anatoly Yakovenko, the non-profit Solana Foundation, prominent crypto venture capital firm Multicoin Capital and CEO Kyle Samani, and trading platform FalconX, which recently raised $150 million at an $8 billion valuation. "Defendants made enormous profits through the sale of SOL securities to retail investors in the United States in violation of the registration provisions of federal and state securities laws, and the investors have suffered enormous losses," according to the lawsuit. SOL had been one of the best performing crypto assets in recent years, benefiting from the stimulus-driven market surge as well as its top fanboy, billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried, who was not mentioned in the suit. The asset reached a high of almost $260 in November 2021, but it has since fallen 85%. The platform has also been plagued by repeated outages over the past few months. In the complaint, Young describes Solana as a highly centralized cryptocurrency whose insiders have benefitted at the expense of investors. "The cornerstone of the value of SOL securities is the sum of Solana Labs, Solana Foundation, and Yakovenko's management and implementation of the Solana blockchain. They created the Solana blockchain network and all of the SOL securities in circulation, and likewise determined who would receive SOL securities and under what conditions," said the lawsuit. [GN] SOLLIS HEALTH: Faces Davenport Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- LUCIFER DAVENPORT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOLLIS HEALTH, P.C., SOLLIS HEALTH LA, P.C., PRIORITY PRIVATE MEDICAL CARE, P.C., and PRESTIGE EMPLOYEE ADMINISTRATORS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05753 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours pay, failure to provide wage notices, failure to provide itemized wage statements, and failure to pay timely wages. The Plaintiff was employed as an x-ray technician at the Defendants' members-only concierge medical service known as Sollis Health, located at 170 East 77th Street, New York, New York from October 2016 through and including February 2022. Sollis Health, P.C. is a healthcare company with its principal place of business at 170 East 77th Street, New York, New York. Sollis Health LA, P.C. is a healthcare company with its principal place of business in Beverly Hills, California. Priority Private Medical Care, P.C. is a medical care company with its principal place of business at 170 East 77th Street, New York, New York. Prestige Employee Administrators LLC is a medical care provider with its principal place of business at 170 East 77th Street, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com ST. LOUIS, MO: Appeals Narrowed Class Definitions in Cody Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- City of St. Louis appeals from a court ruling granting narrower class definitions and renewing motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled James Cody, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of St. Louis, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-02707-AGF, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. James Cody, et al., brought this action, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated who were all held at City of St. Louis' Medium Security Institution (MSI) at various times in 2017, alleging various dangerous, unsanitary, and inhumane conditions inside the MSI. The Plaintiffs claim that detainees at MSI are subjected to insufficient ventilation and extreme heat; unsanitary conditions including rodent and insect infestation, overflowing sewage, and black mold; inadequate medical care; overcrowding; inadequate staffing; violence; and retaliation from staff. On August 2, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) which the court denied on December 27, 2021, through an Order entered by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig. The court found that the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b). The Plaintiffs filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(C) proposing narrower class definitions and renewing motion for class certification on January 1, 2022. On January 31, 2022, the Defendant opposed the Plaintiffs' motion. The Defendant argued that the Plaintiffs should not be permitted to renew their motion for class certification at this late stage and that, in any event, the purportedly narrowed classes still fail to satisfy Rule 23. However, Judge Audrey G. Fleissig granted on May 25, 2022, the Plaintiffs' motion proposing narrower class definitions and renewing motion for class certification because the court determined that the narrowed class definitions satisfy the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b)(3). The appellate case is captioned as James Cody, et al v. City of St. Louis, Case No. 22-2348, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on June 27, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appendix and brief of appellant are due on August 8, 2022; and -- Brief of Appellees is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN] Defendant-Appellant CITY OF ST. LOUIS is represented by: Andrew D. Wheaton, Esq. CITY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE 314 City Hall 1200 Market Street Saint Louis, MO 63103-0000 Telephone: (314) 622-3361 E-mail: wheatona@stlouis-mo.gov Plaintiffs-Appellees JAMES CODY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Nathaniel R. Carroll, Esq. Maureen Hanlon, Esq. Brandon Lamar Jackson, Esq. Jacki Janelle Langum, Esq. Blake A. Strode, Esq. John McCann Waldron, Esq. Michael Mosley, Esq. ARCH CITY DEFENDERS 440 N. Fourth Street, Suite 390 Saint Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 361-8834 - and - Dennis R. Kiker, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) Esplanade II, Suite 1000 2525 E. Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85016-4232 Telephone: (408) 606-5529 - and - Gail Rodgers, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1104 Telephone: (212) 335-4500 - and - Saher Valiani, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP 26th Floor 33 Arch Street Boston, MA 02110-1447 Telephone: (617) 406-6000 SUITE MANAGEMENT: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Suite Management Franchising, LLC. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Suite Management Franchising, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05835 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Suite Management Franchising, LLC -- http://www.suitemanagementfranchising.com- is the established franchising subsidiary of MY SALON Suite and Salon Plaza.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com SUPERIOR SCAFFOLDING: Fernandez Suit Alleges Retaliatory Discharge ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALEXANDER FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUPERIOR SCAFFOLDING & INSULATION INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00751 (M.D. Fla., July 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for retaliatory discharge pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a construction worker from approximately March 28, 2022 until his termination on April 30, 2022 following his complaint about unpaid wages. Superior Scaffolding & Insulation Inc. is a construction company in Middleburg, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. Aron Smukler, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com asmukler@saenzanderson.com TEAM HEALTH: Masiowski Can't Intervene in Forward Momentum Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FORWARD MOMENTUM, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. TEAM HEALTH, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-CV-346-WKW (M.D. Ala.), Judge W. Keith Watkins of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division, denies the motion for leave to intervene either as of right or permissively, filed by Mike Masiowski, M.D., for purposes of challenging the proposed class-action settlement agreement. In 2017, the named Plaintiffs -- who are emergency room physicians -- filed the action, alleging that the Defendants improperly compensated them and members of the putative class for supervisory "relative value units" (RVUs) under their independent contractor or other employment agreements with the Defendants. The parties engaged in extensive discovery. After two mediations and independent negotiations between the parties, the parties reached a proposed class-action settlement agreement. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement and set a fairness hearing on July 28, 2022, pending a decision on final approval of the agreement. Under the proposed agreement, the class members can opt out of the settlement agreement and from the release of their claims, and the class members who do not opt out can file objections to the agreement. Dr. Masiowski has filed a motion to intervene. He has two principal concerns, first, that there was not an independent audit to confirm the number of RVUs owed to absent class members, and second, that the release is "overly expansive." He seeks to intervene "for the specific purpose of engaging in further discovery regarding the quantity of Supervisory RVUs unpaid to emergency room physicians and narrowing the release to eliminate provisions that are unduly burdensome." He asserts, among other things, that his ability to protect his interests will be impaired if intervention is denied and that the class representatives and counsel cannot adequately protect his interests. As a member of the class, Dr. Masiowski also has filed a timely objection to the settlement agreement raising the same concerns. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants oppose Dr. Masiowski's motion to intervene. They argue that, as to the request for mandatory intervention, Dr. Masiowski has failed to demonstrate "how his interest cannot be protected by simply opting out" or "how his interest is inadequately protected" because the class representatives and their counsel "have already performed most of the work and negotiation requested." They further argue that Dr. Masiowski's permissive intervention would "unduly prejudice and delay the rights of the original parties and non-objecting class members." Based on the arguments and the record, Judge Watkins holds that the intervention is not appropriate. He says, although the proposed intervenor's motion is timely and Dr. Masiowski has an interest in the settlement of the nationwide claims, the motion does not meet the intervention standards. First, under Rule 24(a)(2), the motion fails to show that intervention is necessary to protect Dr. Masiowski's interest. By the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, Dr. Masiowski did not have to be bound by the settlement agreement. He could have opted out, thus excluding himself from the agreement and the release, and thereafter could have pursued his own lawsuit on an individual basis. Instead, he has chosen to remain in this lawsuit where he has the right to object to the settlement agreement. Dr. Masiowski has exercised that right, by obtaining counsel and by filing a timely objection voicing his concerns. He and his counsel also will be able to appear at the fairness hearing and object in person. Dr. Masiowski's objections to the proposed settlement agreement -- to the absence of an independent audit and to the scope of the release???will receive full consideration by the court. Dr. Masiowski thus also has the protections of this court. As mandated by Rule 23(e)(2) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court will not approve the proposed settlement agreement unless it is "fair, reasonable, and adequate" in view of the cited considerations. In short, what Dr. Masiowski seeks to achieve as an intervenor is achieved as an objector. Because Dr. Masiowski has the ability to protect his interest as an objecting class member, mandatory intervention is not warranted. Second, under Rule 24(b), allowing Dr. Masiowski to intervene would unduly delay the potential resolution of this five-year-old case, where years of discovery and negotiations have ensued. It also would be unduly prejudicial to the named Plaintiffs and remaining class members -- none of whom have opted out or filed an objection -- as well as to the Defendants. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Watkins denies Dr. Masiowski's motion for leave to intervene. He also denies the class representatives' motion to strike Dr. Masiowski's supplemental filing. The supplemental filing will be considered as part of Dr. Masiowski's objection to the proposed settlement agreement. A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4tkw9zk6 from Leagle.com. TEAM NOMAD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Williams Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ MATTHEW WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEAM NOMAD, LLC; and AKRAM ATALLAH, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03544 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2022) 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 Williams was employed by the Defendants as delivery driver. TEAM NOMAD, LLC owns and operates Domino's Pizza franchises in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Krista Sheets, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: krista@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com THERANOS INC: Patients Sues Over Misleading Blood Test Results -------------------------------------------------------------- Kristen Mosbrucker at phoenixnewtimes.com reports that the founder of the once high-flying, now failed Silicon Valley blood-testing startup Theranos, was convicted of fraud by a California jury this week, but that might not be the end of legal troubles for Elizabeth Holmes. A class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of Arizona patients who said they got misleading blood test results is winding its way through the legal system. Attorneys are seeking at least $5 million in damages for more than 100 potential claimants. Holmes, the Stanford dropout who created Theranos in 2003 at 19, faces 20 years in prison for misleading investors to pour money into the company which promised blood tests based on merely a prick of the finger with a proprietary machine. "There are many things I wish I did differently," Holmes told the jury in late November when asked whether she should have disclosed that blood tests were run on commercially available machines. Holmes was found guilty by jurors on four counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud against investors in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. "She chose fraud over business failure," said U.S. prosecutor Jeff Schenk. "She chose to be dishonest with investors and patients." However, she was acquitted on four counts of wire fraud in connection to several patients' laboratory blood tests and no verdict was reached on three other counts related to investor fraud. Several Arizona patients testified during Holmes' criminal trial that they had gotten false results about HIV and a potential miscarriage during pregnancy. Brittany Gould, a 31-year-old medical assistant in Mesa, took a Theranos blood test while pregnant, which suggested she was a risk for a miscarriage. But eventually, she gave birth to a healthy baby. Theranos claimed that it was a data entry error. But other patients who relied on test results from Theranos in Arizona want justice for themselves and attorneys filed a civil lawsuit filed in 2016 in U.S. District Court in Arizona. "People were diagnosed falsely with serious conditions...people took medication that they weren't supposed to take as a result," said attorney Roger Heller, who represents the patients, during a March 2018 hearing. "This is not your run-of-the-mill consumer case. The harms here went well beyond just money that these people paid out of pocket." Heller later said that the patients were "treated as human guinea pigs" by Theranos. In court filings, Theranos denies all the allegations, including that its tests were inaccurate, claiming that in many cases the company didn't use its own machines for tests or relied on a finger prick of blood. "Seven million tests were unchallenged," said Frederick Burnside, attorney for Theranos' executive Ramesh Balwani. But according to the lawsuit, one woman who purchased $59 worth of Theranos blood tests from a Walgreens in Chandler was misdiagnosed with Hashimoto's disease, an autoimmune condition. She didn't have the disease and the false result was "devastating to her and required lifestyle changes, medical appointments, and taking necessary medication," according to the lawsuit. While the woman, only identified in court documents by the initials of L.M. to protect her medical privacy, had the blood tests ordered by a doctor it wasn't required to access the Theranos tests. That's because Theranos wooed the Arizona legislature to pass a new law in 2015 which enabled patients to get blood tests and their results without a doctor's oversight. Governor Doug Duecy swooned over Theranos. He described the company's "innovative disruption of the healthcare industry" roll out in Arizona as "awesome" in 2015 on social media. Through its partnership with Walgreens, Theranos sold 1.5 million blood tests among 175,000 Arizona residents between 2013 and 2016. The tests were sold at 40 Walgreens stores during the partnership which ended several years ago. About 10 percent of the tests were either voided or corrected, according to Theranos. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich fought for a refund and the company agreed to pay $4.65 million back to patients in 2017. "Everyone who paid for a test will receive a full refund, period," said Brnovich in a statement at the time. "This is a great result and a clear message that Arizona's consumer protection laws will be vigorously enforced." But the lawsuit claims that's not enough. "In many cases, it took months (or even a year or more) to inform customers and their doctors that the test results should not be relied on," according to the lawsuit. Patients in the lawsuit claim that blood tests from Theranos came back positive for a variety of diseases they didn't have at all, from Sjogren's syndrome to HIV and diabetes. One man whose blood tests were false negatives for heart health indicators suffered a heart attack within a month of getting his results, according to the complaint. Attorneys are still in the discovery phase of the lawsuit which is expected to wrap up by September 30, 2022. [GN] THGPP LLC: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against THGPP LLC. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THGPP LLC d/b/a Christophe Robin, Case No. 1:22-cv-05833 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. THGPP LLC doing business as Christophe Robin -- https://www.christopherobin.com/ -- committed to delivering the highest quality luxurious hair products that are designed to enhance different hair types.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com TOTAL LONGTERM: Williams Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CAPRICE JUSTICE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOTAL LONGTERM CARE, INC.; INNOVAGE CALIFORNIA PACE-INLAND EMPIRE, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2206499, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 8, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-01180 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum and straight time wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay final wages at termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to indemnify employees for expenditures, and unfair business practices. Total Longterm Care, Inc. is a provider of long-term care services based in Colorado. Innovage California Pace-Inland Empire, LLC is an adult day care center in San Bernardino, California. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam Y. Siegel, Esq. Ikedi O. Onyemaobim, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: Adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com Ikedi.onyemaobim@jacksonlewis.com UNITED STATES: Settlement Reached in Lompoc Prison COVID-19 Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Minsky at santamariatimes.com reports that a settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit filed by Lompoc federal inmates against U.S. prison officials who are accused of cruel and unusual punishment for not doing enough to stop an outbreak of COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic in 2020. U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall approved the settlement on June 27, more than two years after five inmates filed the class-action against Bureau of Prisons Director Michael Carvajal, and Louis Milsunic, identified as the Lompoc Federal Correctional Complex warden at the time, Los Angeles federal court records show. Filings list the current warden as Bryan Birkholz. Five inmates - Yonnedil Torres, Vincent Reed, Felix Garcia, Andre Brown and Shawn Fears - filed the class-action lawsuit May 16, 2020 with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of the nearly 2,700 inmates at the prison complex, which includes the low security Federal Correctional Institution, the medium security U.S. Penitentiary and satellite camps. The plaintiffs sought early release and to enforce the March 26, 2020 and April 3, 2020 memoranda issued by then U.S. Attorney General William Barr, and federal legislation, authorizing home confinement for inmates vulnerable to the coronavirus. Attorneys for the plaintiffs and from the BOP did not return emails seeking comment. The outbreak at the prison was initially detected at the end of March 2020, weeks after the pandemic was declared, and infected about 1,200 inmates, and resulted in five deaths. Under the terms of the settlement, officials agree to review all inmates within the settlement class for home confinement pursuant to Barr's memos, current BOP guidance and in accordance to several court orders, including the July 14 2020 preliminary injunction ordering officials to identify and release vulnerable inmates. [GN] UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Faces ERISA Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------------ Zack Needles at benefitspro.com reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has upheld a district court decision granting class certification to a group of retirement plan participants who alleged breach of fiduciary responsibility in their suit against plan administrators. The fiduciaries of the retirement plan had argued for partial dismissal of the participants' claims, stating that they "lacked constitutional standing to pursue claims relating to funds in which they did not personally invest." Universal Health Services Inc., Universal Inc. and the UHS Retirement Plans Investment Committee, the named defendants in the suit, argued that since the named plaintiffs in this appeal did not invest in 30 of the funds available, they lacked standing to sue as typical members of the class. However, the Third Circuit panel's June 1 opinion upheld the district court decision and denied the fiduciaries' motion for dismissal, and held that the plaintiffs had standing because their injuries resulted from plan-wide misconduct. The decision stated that "the focus of the participants' claims is on [Universal's] conduct as to all plan participants rather than about the individual investment choices made by participants and putative class members." The court found that the participants who were plaintiffs were typical of the class regardless of the funds they chose within the plan. The complaint by the participants alleged Universal breached its fiduciary duty under ERISA by offering a very expensive option, the Fidelity Freedom Fund suite, which was designated as the plan's Qualified Default Investment Alternative. If a participant did not choose a fund, one of the Fidelity Freedom Funds became the automatic investment. The plaintiffs alleged that Universal failed to "monitor and reduce the excessively high recordkeeping and administrative fees" for the plan and failed to provide a "prudent investment evaluation process." The complaint further alleged Universal failed to monitor the performance of the Investment Committee, which resulted in the costly investment choices. Judge Anthony J. Scirica, in his written opinion for the court, stated that the defendants' decision to offer the suite of Fidelity Freedom Funds can be directly traced to "concrete injuries" suffered by the plaintiffs. Scirica added, "We recognize that allowing class representatives to bring claims relating to funds in which they did not invest may result in some inefficiency at the damages stage. But these concerns do not bar certification of this (b)(1) class." Universal conceded that the plaintiffs have standing on the issue of recordkeeping and administrative fees. Scirica stated that since the fees in question were flat annual fees, all plan participants were affected in the same way. "This allegedly excessive annual fee would represent a concrete and personal injury to a plaintiff regardless of the funds in which he or she invested," Scirica said. James E. Miller of Miller Shah, counsel for the class of retirement plan participants stated, "We are very pleased with the decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals." He added, "In our view, the decision will be very helpful in defeating arguments by defendants in such cases that attempt to prevent retirement plans and their participants from vindicating important legal rights." Michael E. Kenneally of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius represented Universal and could not be reached immediately for comment. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Ninivaggi, et al., Seek to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the two class action lawsuits against UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, the Plaintiffs Michael Ninivaggi, Jake Mickey, Cailin Nigrelli and Hannah Russo move the Court under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an Order certifying a class defined as: "All undergraduate students enrolled in classes at the University of Delaware during the Spring 2020 semester who paid tuition." The Plaintiffs also move for this Court to appoint them as class representatives and their counsel as class counsel. The two class action lawsuits are captioned as: "MICHAEL NINIVAGGI, JAKE MICKEY andCAILIN NIGRELLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, Case No. 20-cv-1478-SB (D. Del.)" "HANNAH RUSSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, Case No. 20- cv-1693-SB (D. Del.)." The University of Delaware is a public land-grant research university located in Newark, Delaware. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated July 1, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IHHLdw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq. Scott M. Tucker, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 201 Wilmington, DE 19808 Telephone: (302) 656-2500 - and - Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com swestcot@bursor.com - and - Christopher P. Simon, Esq. Michael L. Vild, Esq. CROSS & SIMON, LLC 1105 N. Market Street, Suite 901 P.O. Box 1380 Wilmington, DE 19801-1380 Telephone: (302) 777-4200 E-mail: csimon@crosslaw.com mvild@crosslaw.com - and - Eric M. Poulin, Esq. Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 614-8888 E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com roy@akimlawfirm.com blake@akimlawfirm.com VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settles Audi Vehicles' Transmission Defect Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- topclassactions.com reports that a new Volkswagen class action lawsuit settlement resolves claims the automotive company built certain Audi vehicles with a defective direct-shift gearbox (DSG) transmission. The settlement benefits current and former owners and lessees of model year 2010, 2011, or 2012 Audi S4 or Audi S5 vehicles. Audi is a subsidiary of Volkswagen and manufactures numerous luxury car models. The brand is known for its expensive vehicles, but Audi and Volkswagen have been subject to numerous recalls in recent years - including a new recall for fire risk. Although 2010 to 2012 Audi S4 and S5 vehicles do not have a fire risk like current recalls, the vehicles allegedly have defective transmissions that can cost drivers thousands to repair. A 2017 class action lawsuit claims the vehicles were built with defective DSG transmissions. The transmissions allegedly shudder, judder, rough shift, and unexpectedly enter "limp mode" for seemingly no reason. According to the class action lawsuit, drivers were forced to pay out of pocket to repair these transmissions despite Volkswagen being aware of the issue. Volkswagen hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to settle these transmission claims with a class action settlement. Under the terms of the Audi transmission settlement, Class Members can receive reimbursement payments and warranty extensions. Class Members who had to pay out of pocket for transmission repairs can be reimbursed for a portion of their expenses, as long as the repairs occurred within 90,000 miles and nine years of service. Reimbursement rates will vary depending on the number of miles on the vehicle and the age of the vehicle at the time of the repairs. Repairs within four years and 50,000 miles will be 100% reimbursed. From this point, reimbursement rates drop off based on vehicle age and mileage. The lowest reimbursement rate is 20% for vehicles with 80,001 to 90,000 miles and eight to nine years in service. A full table of reimbursement rates can be found on the Audi transmission settlement website. In addition to covering past repairs, the settlement extends Audi warranties to cover future repairs. Under the extended warranty, one transmission repair is covered within nine years or 90,000 miles. Repairs are covered if an authorized dealer diagnoses the vehicle with transmission shuddering, juddering, rough shifting, and/or "limp mode." The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 25, 2022. The final approval hearing for the Volkswagen and Audi DSG transmission class action lawsuit settlement is scheduled for August 18, 2022. In order to receive reimbursement from the settlement, Class Members must submit a valid claim form by July 29, 2022. Claim forms must include documentation of expenses, including receipts, invoices, and other proof. Who's Eligible The settlement benefits current and former owners and lessees of model year 2010, 2011, or 2012 Audi S4 or Audi S5 vehicles. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Documentation of expenses, including receipts, invoices, and other proof. Claim Form CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM ?? NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/29/2022 Case Name Gillard, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-07287-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Final Hearing 08/18/2022 Settlement Website DSGTransmissionSettlement.com Claims Administrator DSG Transmission Settlement 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103 info@DSGTransmissionSettlement.com 844-957-4280 Class Counsel MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC Defense Counsel HERZFELD & RUBIN PC [GN] WALMART INC: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Great Value Creamer ------------------------------------------------------------------- topclassactions.com reports that Walmart markets one of its Great Value products as a "coffee creamer" when it does not contain enough milk product to be a creamer and is instead a "whitener," a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Amer Knautz filed the class action lawsuit against Walmart Inc. on July 1 in an Illinois federal court, alleging violations of federal and state consumer laws. Knautz says Walmart Inc.'s Great Value brand Chocolate Caramel Coffee Creamer is actually a coffee whitener. According to the lawsuit, the product is marketed as a "coffee creamer," shown through its packaging and title, and as pasteurized. "Consumers are misled to expect the presence of cream from dairy ingredients," Knautz says. "By representing the Product with the statements, 'Coffee Creamer' and 'Ultra Pasteurized,' consumers are misled because it lacks cream and dairy ingredients beyond a de minimis amount of sodium caseinate, a milk derivative, shown through the ingredient list," the Walmart class action says. In place of cream, the Great Value creamer substitutes water and sunflower oil to reduce costs, the lawsuit states. Walmart class action claims Great Value creamer actually coffee whitener Knautz uses multiple dictionary definitions to delineate the difference between coffee whiteners and coffee creamers. She adds that non-dairy coffee whiteners were introduced in the 1960s and distinguished themselves from types of cream made from dairy ingredients. "First, they were sold under the generic name, 'coffee whiteners,'" the Walmart class action says. "Second, they were stocked in the frozen food sections of grocery stores. In contrast, coffee cream and other dairy products were sold in the refrigerated foods section in the dairy case." According to the class action, the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Knautz looks to represent an Illinois class of consumer who bought the product, plus a consumer fraud multistate class made up of consumers who bought the product in North Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Nebraska, South Carolina, Kansas and Wyoming. She's suing under Illinois consumer laws and for breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment. Knautz is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Meanwhile, another new class action lawsuit alleges French vanilla coffee creamer manufactured and sold by International Delight is actually a coffee whitener. What do you think of the allegations over Great Value creamer? Let us know in the comments! The plaintiff is represented by Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates P.C. The Walmart Great Value creamer class action is Amber Knautz v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-50236, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. [GN] WALMART INC: Order on Class Cert Briefing, Hearing Dates Entered ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEARL POWELL, CHRISTINA GAST, and ELIJHA GONZALEZ, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WALMART, INC.; WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.; WAL-MART STORES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-02412-JLS-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jannis L. Sammartino entered an order granting the joint motion for amendment of briefing and hearing dates on motion for class certification and motion for judgment on the pleadings: -- Defendants shall file a response Sept. 22, 2022 to the Motion on or before: -- The Plaintiffs May file a reply Sept. 29, 2022 in support of the Motion, on or before: -- The Court continues the hearing Oct. 13, 2022 on this matter to 1:30 p.m. on: -- The Court amends the briefing schedule on Defendants' motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as follows: The Plaintiffs shall file a Sept. 22, 2022 response to the Motion on or before: The Defendants may file a reply Sept. 29, 2022 in support of the Motion, on or before: The Court continues the hearing Oct. 13, 2022. on this matter to 12 1:30 p.m. on: Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P970Im at no extra charge.[CC] WILD THING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Medina Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- ILEANA MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILD THING, LLC; and CARLA D. YOUNG, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03546 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2022) seeks to recover all tips kept by the Defendants, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs and to recover the return of all kickbacks that caused their payments to go below the minimum wage. Plaintiff Medina was employed by the Defendants as server. WILD THING, LLC owns and operates a restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Krista Sheets, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: krista@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2022. 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 ***