/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220802.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, August 2, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 147 Headlines 3M COMPANY: AFFF Products "Defective," Payton Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Jobes Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: Barnes Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Reinhart Suit Claims 3M COMPANY: Faces Houser Suit Over AFFF Products' PFAS Content 3M COMPANY: Faces Marshman Suit Over AFFF Products' Side Effects 3M COMPANY: Fortunato Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Garner Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Leeds Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Leflore Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Perez Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Schaffer Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products AETHON ENERGY: Faces Fay Suit Over Company Men's Unpaid Wages ALLIED INTERSTATE: Steinmetz Sues Over False Debt Collection Letter ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Cert. Bid Referred to Judge Carlson ALLY FINANCIAL: Faces Grossinger Suit Over Unlawful Mortgage Fees ANASTASIA BEVERLY: Dorton Sues Over Unwanted Telephonic Sales Calls ANDOLINI'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Delivery Drivers' Sufficient Wages ANDREW CUOMO: Order on Class Cert. Deadlines Entered in M.G. Suit ARMOS 8 RESTORATION: Lema Sues Over Failure to Pay Carpenters' OT BAMIA 2: Remand of Johnson Suit to Sacramento Super. Court Denied BEEKMAN ARMS-DELAMATER: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BIOGEN INC: Elaine Wang Sues Over Dropped of Common Stock Price BOSTIK INC: Curry FLSA Suit Moved From E.D. Pa. to W.D. Ken. BROOKSTONE COMPANY: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CALIFORNIA: Dismissal of Fernandez Suit With Prejudice Recommended CALVIN BROADUS: Faces Class Suit Over Sexual Assault, Retaliation CANADA: Millennium Scoop, Jordan's Principle Class Suits Settled CAPITAL VISION: Clark Wins Bid to Conditionally Certify Class CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Nunley FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California CBS CORP: $14.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on November 3 CELSIUS NETWORK: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 13 Deadline CENTERRA GROUP: 2nd Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Williams CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Hicks Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio CHENMED LLC: Golden Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls CHICAGO, IL: Williams Files Suit in N.D. Illinois CHICK-FIL-A INC: Ortega's Breach & Unjust Enrichment Claims Tossed CHICO'S FAS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Velazquez Says CHILO AND CHELA: Vasquez et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CIRCLE MEDICAL: Arevalo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CIRTON INC: Macal Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Cooks CITIBANK NA: Bjorklund Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COINBASE GLOBAL: N.D. California Allows Arbitration in Alfia Suit CONAGRA BRANDS: Securities Suit Dismissed with Prejudice CONAGRA BRANDS: Securities Suit Over Merger Deal Dismissed CONAGRA BRANDS: Securities Suit Over Merger Tossed CONSUMER DIRECT: Miranda Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to W.D. Wash. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Kertzner Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York DAVE INC: Faces Lopez Suit Over Improper Business Practices DECKERS OUTDOOR: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DIGITAL TURBINE: Faces Kirshner Class Suit Over Share Price Drop DIRECT RECOVERY: Bogle Sues Over Unauthorized Debt Collection DUNCAN BURCH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hernandez Suit Alleges EMEREST HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anderson Suit Says EPOCH TIMES ASSOCIATION: Roberts Files Suit in S.D. Ohio EQUIFAX INC: Data Breach Suit Settled EXCELL COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Martinez Claims FEDERAL SAVINGS: Clotz Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls FLAGSTAR BANK: Faces Cousino Suit Over Cybersecurity Breach FORD MOTOR: Barnes Consumer Suit Moved From D. Del. to C.D. Cal. FORUM INVESTORS: Bannerman Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statement FOX REHABILITATION: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Conner Suit GAMECHANGER305 LLC: Underpays Nightclub Employees, Branda Claims GENERAL STORE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GIFT CRATES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GRACE PHARMACY: Faces Etminan Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages HOLADOCTOR INC: Faces Nichols Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls HYUNDAI MOTOR: Bendorfs Sue Over Unsafe, Defective Vehicles IMPAX LAB: Ct. Approves $33M Settlement in Fleming Class Suit INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Antitrust Suit in California INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in CA Court INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Kaleida Health Dismissed as Party in Class Suit IT'S A NEW 10: Faces Class Action Over "Miracle" Hair Shampoo J. CREW GROUP: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York JAMES PERSE ENTERPRISES: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York JELD-WEN INC: Faulk Consumer Suit Removed to D. Alaska JENNY YOO COLLECTION: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York JERRY INSURANCE: Faces Hopper Suit Over Telemarketing Campaigns JILCO INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JPMORGAN CHASE: Santander Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. KENNETH COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Juarez Suit Alleges KIWIKO INC: Raslavich Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls LA MER TECHNOLOGY: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LEMON TREE: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Johnson Suit Moved From M.D. to S.D. Fla. LIME ROCK: Colton Sues Over Unpaid Statutory Interest to Oil Owners LIME ROCK: Fails to Properly Pay Mineral Owners, Colton Alleges LING LTD: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York LOTTE HOTEL: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York LOWE'S HOME: Bartholomew Can't Compel All Privilege Log Documents MADISON AVENUE: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MARS INC: Faces Class Action Over Toxins in Skittles Candy MDL 3030: Six Anti-Trust Suits Consolidated in N.D. Ill. MDL 3031: Three Direct Purchaser Actions Transferred to D. Minn. MDL 3032: 7 Rodent Infestation Cases Consolidated in W.D. Tenn. MDL 3033: Panel Denies Centralization of 3 Cases to E.D. Pa. MDL 3034: 7 Neo Wireless Suits Consolidated in E.D. Mich. MDL 3035: Five Case Consolidated in W.D. Tenn. MEDICAL REVIEW: Co-Lead & Liaison Counsel Named in White and Purvis METRO MAILING SERVICE: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MICHAEL STOCKBRIDGE: Stockbridge Suit Removed to C.D. California MICHIGAN: Court Dismisses Simpson-Vlach v. MDE Without Prejudice MICHIGAN: Court Junks Cardello-Smith Class Suit MIDLAND CREDIT: Bianco Files FDCPA Suit in D. Massachusetts MILKBREAD LLC: Conner Files ADA Suit in W.D. North Carolina MISSFRESH LIMITED: Kessler Topaz Announces Securities Fraud Suit MMS GROUP: Torres Files Suit in S.D. New York MRS BPO: Sussman Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey MULBERRY AND GRAND: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York MVP EVENT PRODUCTIONS: Youngblood Suit Removed to N.D. Oklahoma NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY: Xiong Files Suit in D. Minnesota NEW SOUTH WALES: Hundreds of People Join Class Action v. NSW Police NEW YORK: Sughrim, et al., File Bid for Class Certification NISSAN MOTOR: Class Action Suit Over Exploding Sunroofs Certified NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Pascal, et al., Seek to Certify Classes NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Putative Classes NORDIC ENERGY: Perrong Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls NORTH ATLANTIC: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Kucharczyk Suit Says NUTS 'N MORE: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York OMNI HOTELS: Fails to Pay Wages for All Time Worked, Aquino Alleges OSCAR HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over IPO Financial Disclosures OUTSET MEDICAL: Robbins LLP Reminds Investors of Class Action OUTSET MEDICAL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 6 Deadline PACIFIC DECORATIVE: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PEABODY ENERGY: Oregon Public Employees Seek to Certify Class PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Felipe Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to D. Nev. PORTSMOUTH REDEVELOPMENT: Fails to Pay Security Officers' Wages PRINCE GEORGE'S: Frazier Sues Over Unlawful Pretrial Detention PROFESSIONAL FINANCE: Schroeder Files Suit in D. Colorado PRYOR INVESTMENTS: Fails to Pay Drivers Legally Mandated Wages QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Aids Facebook to Collect Personal Info QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Pensioners' Suit in New Jersey Court RADIUS GLOBAL: Fonseca FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey RAUSCH STURM: Stenner Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin RECON OILFIELD: Seeks Extension to File Conditional Cert. Response REX SIGNATURE: Taylor Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RHONDA LINDQUIST: Redd's Bid to Proceed in Forma Pauperis OK'd RICH DOSS: Haynes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Network Outage SACRAMENTO, CA: Garza Bid for Class Certification Tossed SCHUETTE INC: Faces Alcione Suit Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation SEALED AIR: UA LOCAL 13, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action SECURITY PAVING: Uffelman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SEKO WORLDWIDE: Faces Paisley Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Villanueva Seeks to Certify Class Action SHAUM'S CASABLANCA: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Jones et al. Say SMILEDIRECTCLUB: Court Won't Review Discovery Denial in Ciccio Suit SOCLEAN INC: CPAP Cleaning Device Emits Ozone, Clark Suit Alleges SOUTHCOAST HEALTH: Souza Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. SPA'AH LLC: Wells Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Arkansas STEMILT AG: Garcia Class Certification Bid Partly OK'd STEPHEN NG: Ng Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. STUPP BROS: Class Status Deadlines Extended in Stoklosa Suit SUNFLOW INC: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SWEETIE BOY: Munn Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages for Auto Pilots T-MOBILE: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $350 Million TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Cert Briefing Extended to August 9 TAMPA FLORIDA: Faces Timber Suit Over Failure to Secure Trailers TAPPED 1010: Reyes Files Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages TAX AFFAIR: Fails to Pay Premium Overtime Wages, Bopp Suit Alleges TAX DEFENSE NETWORK: Reimer Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida TERRAFORM LABS: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action TESLA INC: Securities Suit in Delaware Court Ongoing TESLA INC: Securities Suits in California Court Ongoing TG THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of Sept. 16 Deadline TJB GEARYS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TRANSDEV SERVICES: Ganther Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Cal. TRANSPORTATION MARKETING: Nordstedt Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TREK RETAIL: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Green Suit TRI-COUNTY CONSTRUCTION: Bailey Class Suit Junked UKG INC: Arpie Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Compromised Employees' Info UNITED STATES: Gov't. Issues Formal Apology for Anti-Black Racism UNITED STATES: Murphey Files Suit in D. Arizona UNITY SOFTWARE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 6 Deadline UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Students Seek to Certify Classes UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: More Student-Athletes File Abuse Suit UPTOWN TAVERN: Fails to Pay Mandated Wages for Restaurant Servers UTILITY TRAILER: Class Certification Filing Extended to August 26 VALLE DEL SOL: Pineda Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California VELEX INC: Jordan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VIAERO WIRELESS: Fails to Pay Briseno Lawful OT Wages Under FLSA VIESTE SPE: Crossfirst Bank, et al., File Class Certification Bid VISION SOLAR: Sego Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: S&C Eliminates 2019 Lawsuit Over Used Cars WALMART INC: Vazquez Files Suit in S.D. New York WELLS FARGO: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 29 Deadline WORLD RUGBY: Former Rugby Players File Brain Injury Class Action WYNDHAM VACATION: Bennett Suit Removed to S.D. California YEXT INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 16 Deadline YONISKI AMSTERDAM: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Victoriano Claims YUGA LABS: Scott+Scott Mulls Class Suit Over Inflated Crypto Assets YUMA REGIONAL MEDICAL: Ashby Files Suit in D. Arizona YUMA REGIONAL MEDICAL: Ogrady Suit Removed to D. Arizona ZRS & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Paramedics' OT Wages, Corbell Says ZYNGA INC: Court Okays Rider to Protective Order in Ferrando Suit [*] Companies Hit with Class Action Over "Sustainability" Claims ********* 3M COMPANY: AFFF Products "Defective," Payton Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN PAYTON, 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-02334-RMG (D.S.C., July 20, 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: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Jobes Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- DARRELL JOBES, 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-02314-RMG (D.S.C., July 19, 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, the suit alleges. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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: Barnes Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS BARNES, 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-02331-RMG (D.S.C., July 20, 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 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 PFAS, Reinhart Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS REINHART, 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-02333-RMG (D.S.C., July 20, 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, the suit alleges. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 Houser Suit Over AFFF Products' PFAS Content -------------------------------------------------------------- JACK HOUSER, JR., 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-02362-RMG (D.S.C., July 21, 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 Marshman Suit Over AFFF Products' Side Effects ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAN MARSHMAN, 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-02329-RMG (D.S.C., July 20, 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, the suit alleges. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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: Fortunato Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY FORTUNATO, 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-02363-RMG (D.S.C., July 21, 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 leukemia, the suit alleges. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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: Garner Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------- BOBBY GARNER, 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-02364-RMG (D.S.C., July 21, 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, the suit says. 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: Leeds Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------ DOUG LEEDS, 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-02328-RMG (D.S.C., July 20, 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 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: Leflore Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN LEFLORE, 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-02315-RMG (D.S.C., July 19, 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: Perez Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID PEREZ, 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-02330-RMG (D.S.C., July 20, 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, the suit alleges. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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: Schaffer Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID SCHAFFER, 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.; AGC, INC., f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; individually and as successor-in-interest to Atofina S.A.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation; CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC, f/k/a Dowdupont Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, individually and as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02313-RMG (D.S.C., July 18, 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, wantonness, and actual and constructive fraudulent transfer. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam 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 kidney cancer, the suit alleges. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma Management, LLC is a specialty chemicals company headquartered near Basel, Switzerland. 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. BASF Corporation is a multinational chemical company, headquartered in Ludwigshafen, Germany. 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. 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. 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. 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: James L. Ferraro, Esq. James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A. 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 375-0111 E-mail: jferraro@ferrarolaw.com james@ferrarolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products --------------------------------------------------------------- HOLLY SMITH, as Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of ROBERT WILLIAM VISSAGE, deceased, 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-02305-RMG (D.S.C., July 19, 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 personal injury and death of Robert William Vissage, Decedent, 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 Decedent, 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. The Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his death, says the suit. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 AETHON ENERGY: Faces Fay Suit Over Company Men's Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES FAY, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. AETHON ENERGY OPERATING, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00959-UNA (D. Del., July 21, 2022) alleges that Aethon does not pay its Company Men as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Aethon pays its Company Men a flat daily rate for all hours worked in a workweek, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek. Aethon's day rate pay plan violates the FLSA because the Company Men are owed overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week at the rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rates, says the suit. Plaintiff James Fay brings this action to recover the unpaid overtime and other damages owed to Aethon's Company Men. Aethon is an oil & gas management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Taylor S. Montgomery, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com tmontgomery@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail :rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Sue L. Robinson, Esq. Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 North Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: srobinson@farnanlaw.com bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com ALLIED INTERSTATE: Steinmetz Sues Over False Debt Collection Letter ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOEL STEINMETZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC and LVNV FUNDING LLC, Defendants, Case No. 520463/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., July 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants sent a debt collection letter to the Plaintiff with false information. Defendant Allied stated in its first collection letter that Defendant LVNV Funding LLC is willing to accept payment in the amount of $0.00 in resolution of this debt. However, this statement is false because Defendant LVNV was not willing to accept a zero-dollar payment. In the second collection letter, Defendant Allied changed the payment amount and stated LVNV Funding LLC is willing to accept payment in the amount of $575.73 in resolution of this debt. The Plaintiff relied on the zero-dollar amount in the first letter to his detriment. Had the Defendant provided the correct amount in the first letter, or clearly stated that the first amount was a mistake in the second letter, the Plaintiff could have paid off his debt in part or full, says the suit. Allied Interstate LLC is a debt collector based in New York, New York. LVNV Funding LLC is a debt collector based in Albany, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tamir Saland, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Cert. Bid Referred to Judge Carlson ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHA SAYLES Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:16-cv-01534-MEM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Malachy E. Mannion entered an order that the motion to certify class is referred to Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson for the preparation of a report and recommendation. The Allstate Corporation is an American insurance company, headquartered in Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook since 1967. A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JisvnP at no extra charge.[CC] ALLY FINANCIAL: Faces Grossinger Suit Over Unlawful Mortgage Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- KARL GROSSINGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLY FINANCIAL INC., ALLY BANK, and BETTER MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-22228 (S.D. Fla., July 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged practice of charging mortgage borrowers unwarranted fees to complete the loan process. The Defendants charged the Plaintiff and similarly situated home loan and refinance borrowers fees to extend their mortgage interest rate lock periods when the closing process was delayed even though the borrowers did not cause the delay. The Plaintiff and Class members seek repayment of all unlawfully charged fees, says the suit. Ally Financial Inc. is a financial services company, with its principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan. Ally Bank is an online financial services company, headquartered in Sandy, Utah. Better Mortgage Corporation is an online mortgage services firm, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marguerite C. Snyder, Esq. Ronald P. Weil, Esq. WEIL LAW FIRM, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 720 Miami, FL 33131 E-mail: msnyder@weillawfirm.net RWeil@weillawfirm.net - and – Hirlye R. "Ryan" Lutz, III, Esq. F. Jerome Tapley, Esq. CORY WATSON, P.C. 2131 Magnolia Avenue Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-2200 Facsimile: (205) 324-7896 E-mail: rlutz@corywatson.com jtapley@corywatson.com ANASTASIA BEVERLY: Dorton Sues Over Unwanted Telephonic Sales Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------- Hope Dorton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anastasia Beverly Hills, LLC, Case No. 153791641 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., July 21, 2022) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The Defendant is a consumer goods retailer. To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior express written consent as required by the FTSA, says the suit. The Plaintiff and the Class members have been aggrieved by the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, which adversely affected and infringed upon their legal rights not to be subjected to the illegal acts at issue. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons as a class action pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(b)(2) and (b)(3). The "Class" that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as: "All persons in the State of Florida who, (1) were sent a telephonic sales call regarding Defendant’s goods and/or services, (2) using the same equipment or type of equipment utilized to call Plaintiff, (3) without "prior express consent" as defined by Fla. Stat. section 501.059(1)(g), (4) on or after July 1, 2021." ABH is an American cosmetics company best known for its eyebrow products. The company was founded by Romanian-born Anastasia Soare in 1997 in Beverly Hills, California. Soare's daughter Claudia Soare, also known as Norvina, is the president of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq. KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A. 2110 West Platt Street Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 422-7782 Facsimile: (813) 422-7783 E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com ANDOLINI'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Delivery Drivers' Sufficient Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER KEELER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ANDOLINI'S PIZZA & SUBS CORP., Case No. 1:22-cv-00822 (E.D. Va., July 21, 2022) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable attorneys' fee, as a result of Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff sufficient wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Virginia Minimum Wage Act. The Defendant employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid Delivery Driver from September of 2021 until January of 2022. The Defendant also employed other hourly-paid Delivery Drivers within the three years preceding the filing of this lawsuit. The Defendant directly hired the Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers to work on its behalf, paid them wages and benefits, controlled their work schedules, duties, protocols, applications, assignments and employment conditions, and kept at least some records regarding their employment, says the suit. The Defendant owns and operates a restaurant in Ashburn.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Krista Sheets, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: krista@sanfordlawfirm.com ANDREW CUOMO: Order on Class Cert. Deadlines Entered in M.G. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.G., et al., v. ANDREW CUOMO, et al., Case No. 7:19-cv-00639-CS-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew E. Krause entered an order class certification deadlines as follows: 1. Completion of document production Oct. 13, 2022 for prioritized ESI search strings for class certification and updated noncustodial census documents: 2. The Plaintiffs' motion for class Nov. 17, 2022 certification: 3. The Defendants' opposition to Dec. 22, 2022 Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: 4. The Plaintiffs' reply in further Jan. 12, 2023 support of their motion for class certification: 5. Completion of document productions March 13, 2023 and interrogatory responses to all previously served discovery requests: 6. Fact depositions completed: June 23, 2023 7. Any further interrogatories June 23, 2023 and requests for production must be served: 8. Requests to admit must June 23, 2023 be served: 9. Plaintiffs' expert disclosures: July 14, 2023 10. All fact discovery must July 24, 2023 be completed: 11. Defendants' expert Aug. 11, 2023 disclosures: 12. All expert discovery, including expert depositions: Sept. 29, 2023 13. All discovery must be Sept. 29, 2023 completed: A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cxVesq at no extra charge.[CC] ARMOS 8 RESTORATION: Lema Sues Over Failure to Pay Carpenters' OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- OLMEDO POMAQUIZA LEMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARMOS 8 RESTORATION INC. and ANGELOS BRISNOVALIS, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04195 (E.D.N.Y., July 18, 2022) alleges the Defendants of egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a carpenter while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants from in or around July 2017 until in or around September 2021. The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the Defendants, he regularly worked more than 40 hours per week as required by the Defendants. However, the Defendants did not pay him overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Instead, he was only paid a flat daily rate without any overtime compensation. The Defendants also willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment. In addition, the Defendants willfully failed to keep payroll records, and willfully failed to provide the Plaintiff with any wage statements and with a written notice in accordance with NYLL, says the Plaintiff. On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated carpenters, the Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action seeking compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000.00, as well as statutory interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies that the Court deems appropriate. Armos 8 Restoration Inc. provides restoration services. Angelos Brisnovalis is the owner of the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Tel: (718) 263-9591 BAMIA 2: Remand of Johnson Suit to Sacramento Super. Court Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denies the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case, Paris Johnson, Plaintiff v. Bamia 2 LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00548-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento. Ms. Johnson brought the putative wage-and-hour class action against her employer, Defendants Reef Global, Inc., Reef Technologies, Inc., and Bamia 2, in Sacramento County Superior Court. The Defendants timely removed to the Court, invoking its jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The Plaintiff worked as a kitchen line cook for the Defendants. She sued them in February 2022, alleging unfair business practices and seven violations of the California Labor Code: (1) failure to pay minimum wage in violation of section 1197 and 1182.12; (2) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of sections 510 and 1198; (3) failure to provide meal period premiums in violation of sections 226.7 and 512(a); (4) failure to provide rest break premiums in violation of section 226.7; (5) failure to provide complete itemized wage statements in violation of section 226(a); (6) failure to timely pay wages upon termination in violation of sections 201 to 203; and (7) failure to reimburse business expenses in violation of sections 2800 and 2802. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class comprising current and former non-exempt California employees who worked for defendants during the four years preceding the filing of the complaint through the date of the trial. The Plaintiff has moved to remand, arguing the Defendants failed to establish the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. The core dispute is whether the Defendants have sufficiently supported the assumptions undergirding their amount-in-controversy calculation. The Defendants calculate the amount in controversy in three steps. First, Defendant Bamia 2's Senior Human Resources Manager - West, Amy Johnson, attests to the size of the putative class and each class member's actual hourly wage, among other relevant metrics. To generate these numbers, Ms. Johnson reviewed Bamia 2's records. Second, the Defendants assume a violation rate of at least two violations per week for both the meal and rest break claims, totaling four violations per week. They argue the Plaintiff's allegations could support a violation rate of up to 100%. Third, combining Ms. Johnson's data and their inferred violation rates, the Defendants calculate the amount in controversy for each of the Plaintiff's claims. The Defendants' lowest calculation is $5,037,165.70 and their highest is $5,985,913.56. The Plaintiff does not offer alternative calculations. The Defendants initially determined that missed meal and rest breaks put a total of $1,897,495.70 in controversy. First, because the Plaintiff does not propose a better or more reasonable alternative, and the Defendant's approach is reasonable, Judge Mueller accepts the Defendant's original assumption that all 860 putative class members missed two meal breaks and two rest breaks per week. Using this estimate, the Defendants calculate that the Plaintiff's claims for missed meal and rest breaks put $1,897,495.70 in controversy. They arrive at this figure by multiplying three numbers together: 25,310 workweeks completed by class members, four meal and rest violations per week, and the actual hourly rate of each of those 860 class members. In connection with the Plaintiff's claims for waiting time and wage statement penalties, the Defendants assume no terminated employee was paid in full by the thirty-first day after termination, and all pay stubs issued during the limitations period contained at least one error. The Plaintiff does not propose an alternative violation rate for either claim. The Defendants generate their estimate for waiting time penalties -- $2,202,120 -- by multiplying together three numbers: The number of class members terminated during the limitations period (474), 30 days of penalties for each terminated class member, and the average daily pay rate of each employee, which is based on each eligible employee's regular hourly pay rate. They value the Plaintiff's claim for wage statement penalties at $937,550 by applying the initial penalty amount ($50) and subsequent penalty amount ($100) to each eligible putative class member's number of pay period wage statements (9,730), up to an aggregate penalty of $4,000. Judge Mueller adopts both figures. Without needing to reach the Plaintiff's remaining claims for attorneys' fees, unreimbursed business expenses, and failure to timely pay minimum wage or overtime, she finds that the Defendants have shown it is more likely than not that more than $5 million is in controversy. Her Order resolves ECF No. 7. A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/hmvxyw6j from Leagle.com. BEEKMAN ARMS-DELAMATER: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beekman Arms-Delamater Inn, Inc. The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Beekman Arms-Delamater Inn, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06209 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Beekman Arms -- https://www.beekmandelamaterinn.com/ -- is America's oldest continuously operated hotel located in the center of the Village of Rhinebeck in the historic Hudson Valley.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal BIOGEN INC: Elaine Wang Sues Over Dropped of Common Stock Price --------------------------------------------------------------- ELAINE WANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MICHEL VOUNATSOS, STELIOS PAPADOPOULOS, ALEXANDER J. DENNER, CAROLINE D. DORSA, MARIA C. FREIRE, WILLIAM A. HAWKINS, WILLIAM D. JONES, JESUS B. MANTAS, RICHARD C. MULLIGAN, ERICK K. ROWINSKY, STEPHEN A. SHERWIN, NANCY L. LEAMING, and BRIAN S. POSNER, Defendants, and BIOGEN INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-11180 (D. Mass., July 21, 2022) is a shareholder derivative action against the Defendants for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets. According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding Aduhelm, Biogen's developed treatment for Alzheimer's disease, in order to trade Biogen securities at artificially inflated prices between June 7, 2021 and January 11, 2022. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements, or omitted material facts, concerning: (i) the number of sites ready to administer Aduhelm in the near-term; (ii) the significance of logistical constraints on diagnosing potential patients; (iii) the degree to which Medicare's coverage of the treatment was independent of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) approval of the treatment, and not "automatically presumed" following approval; (iv) the willingness of third-party payors to cover Aduhelm absent peer-reviewed data supporting the treatment's clinical effectiveness; and (v) the Veterans Health Administration's willingness and capacity to cover and administer Aduhelm for its beneficiaries. When the truth emerged, the company's common stock price fell $16.18 per share to a price of $225 per share at market close on January 12, 2022. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, the company has suffered significant damages, alleges the suit. Biogen Inc. is a global biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq. MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC 18 Grove Street, Suite 5 Wellesley, MA 02482 Telephone: (781) 453-0100 E-mail: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com - and – Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Timothy J. MacFall, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Vincent A. Licata, Esq. RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A. 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 683-3516 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com tjm@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com vl@rl-legal.com - and – Gloria Kui Melwani, Esq. MELWANI & CHAN LLP 1180 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 382-4620 E-mail: gloria@melwanichan.com BOSTIK INC: Curry FLSA Suit Moved From E.D. Pa. to W.D. Ken. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled JOSHUA CURRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOSTIK, INC. and ARKEMA INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-02417, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on July 19, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Kentucky assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00370-DJH to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act. Bostik, Inc. is a specialty chemicals and advanced materials company, with a principal place of business at 900 First Avenue, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Arkema Inc. is a specialty chemicals and advanced materials company, with a principal place of business at 900 First Avenue, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. Shoshana Savett, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com ssavett@edelson-law.com BROOKSTONE COMPANY: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brookstone Company, Inc. The case is styled as Victoria Dicks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Brookstone Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06188-JGK (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Brookstone -- https://www.brookstone.com/ -- is a chain of retail stores in the United States and China.[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 CALIFORNIA: Dismissal of Fernandez Suit With Prejudice Recommended ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, BRANDON ALEXANDER FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff v. GAMBOA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01748-JLT-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California recommends that the Plaintiff's first amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. Plaintiff Fernandez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in the civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. He is currently housed at California State Prison, Corcoran in Corcoran, California. The events in the first amended complaint are alleged to have occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Avenal State Prison in Avenal, California, and continued after his transfer to the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility ("SATF") in Corcoran, California. The Plaintiff purports to bring suit on behalf of himself and Doe Plaintiffs, who are inmates who may be incapacitated at this time by COVID-19, inmates who cannot legally defend themselves due to current isolation, inmates who have died from COVID-19, any and all inmates who have contracted COVID-19 while in custody, all inmates who are currently at risk of COVID-19, inmates who may be under duress at this time and afraid to participate due to fears of retaliation by defendants, and inmates who Plaintiff cannot physically contact because of the prison lockdown status and physical separation issues. The Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Gavin Newsom, Governor; (2) Kathleen Allison, Secretary CDCR; (3) Ralph Diaz, Former Secretary CDCR; (4) Martin Gamboa, Warden Avenal State Prison; (5) Theresa Cisneros, Warden SATF Corcoran; and (6) Rosemary Ndoh, Former Warden Avenal State Prison. All defendants are sued in their official and individual capacities. He alleges that all the Defendants acted in concert and every defendant in the suit personally knew of the risks and individually chose to violate his rights, and he is not bringing a claim of supervisory liability as to each defendant. On April 21, 2020, the Plaintiffs, along with other inmates, filed an emergency administrative 602 appeal regarding the Defendants' illegal actions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 602 appeal requested immediate release of the Plaintiff(s) to reduce the population below 100% of capacity and cease the response of mandatory "8 man cohorting" that CDCR had implemented as a procedure on the Plaintiff, against Center of Disease Control recommendations to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in dorms. At the time of the 602 appeal, zero cases of COVID-19 were present at the facility where the Plaintiff was housed. All the Defendants acted in concert to bypass the CDC recommendations of a 50% reduction of dorms to "4 man or less cohorts" and instead increased the population density, thus overcrowding the dorms and increasing the fuel to spread, and they knew the risks of doing this. The Plaintiff alleges that overcrowding is the proximate cause of the state and constitutional law violations, and combined with "8 man cohorts" increasing population density within dorms, caused the spread of the virus and made the virus unmanageable within the prison system. CDCR has also experienced massive staff shortages, further compounding the inability to safely care for the overcrowded inmate population. If the inmate population was at 50% of its current population, they would have enough staff to manage the yards safely. The Plaintiff contends that CDCR intentionally overcrowded the dorms of not only Avenal, but other CDCR dorm facilities as well, knowing that the risks of doing so would accelerate the spread of COVID-19 and would place him in the path of harm. He was in fact later harmed by these conditions, that were not part of normal prison hardships, and these "8 man cohorts" were intentionally created and implemented by Defendants, completely outside the recommendations of the CDC, science, doctors, and scientists. Combined with the Plaintiff's right to be free from infectious diseases, the Defendants deprived him of his constitutional right and ability to defend himself from the COVID-19 virus because he was unable to socially distance from sick inmates. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to act responsibly, and each Defendant had the opportunity and the legal authority to release and reduce inmates under emergency legal provisions defined in California Law (Cal. Gov. Code Section 8658) to reduce the population either by transfers or a prison release order pursuant to the CDC recommended levels of inmates per dorm/cell/housing configurations, and they intentionally did not do so. Each Defendant is and was fully aware of the devastation that would be caused by this highly contagious and aggressive virus. They were warned by CDC experts, medical professionals, and scientists, and other litigation efforts, of what would happen if Defendants did not take preventative measures to reduce and release the inmate population. They have consistently lied and claimed they are doing everything in their power to protect inmates, except the one thing they should have done from the start of the global pandemic, which is to reduce the prison population to avoid the exact catastrophe that continues to unfold. The Plaintiff was infected by COVID-19 due to the Defendants' actions and inactions, which caused him to be placed in "8 man double bunk cohorts" that increased the population density at institutions and increased the spread of disease. He is now highly concerned about being reinfected with a new variant of COVID-19 due to the continued living conditions that caused him to be harmed in the first place. He is still suffering from CDCR lockdowns, which are affecting his mental and physical health and subjecting Plaintiff to dangerous living conditions. The Plaintiff was transferred to SATF, where the exact same conditions have happened, resulting in a second outbreak of the omicron variant of COVID-19. He was never tested during the mass outbreak at SATF. Many inmates have already suffered COVID-19 infection or reinfection, and these plaintiffs deserve priority remedies asked for in this suit. This should also apply to any inmates who are injured after as well. Some plaintiffs have not yet contracted COVID-19, and almost all inmates are still in dangerous 8 man cohort living conditions forced by Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants used COVID-19 as an excuse to shuffle bodies and compact more people per housing unit than was recommended by the CDC. CDCR staff is a virus vector for bringing the disease into the prison. Defendants ignored scientific evidence and recommendations by the CDC and chose their own methods to control the virus. Defendants ordered Plaintiff to double bunk, living in 8 man cohorts per dorm, giving Plaintiff zero chance to social distance from any single person and forced Plaintiff to breathe the same air as contaminated persons. They were told to make them "4 man or less cohorts" and instead made them "8 man cohorts," increasing population density, and they knew beyond all doubt it would accelerate the spread of the virus. The Plaintiff requests the following relief: (1) appointment of counsel; (2) a jury trial; (3) costs of suit or attorneys fees; (4) further damages; (5) a Court order for a 50% population cap to address the issue of overcrowding; (6) priority early release or release of inmates past their MEPD; (7) priority release for Plaintiff; and (8) compensatory damages. Judge McAuliffe holds that the Plaintiff's first amended complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. Despite being provided with the relevant pleading and legal standards, the Plaintiff has been unable to cure the identified deficiencies. Appointment of Counsel As the Plaintiff was previously informed, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in the action, and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent him. However, in certain exceptional circumstances, the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. Judge McAuliffe has considered the Plaintiff's request, but does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed that he is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with similar cases filed by prisoners with limited access to a law library almost daily. These prisoners also must conduct legal research and prosecute claims without the assistance of counsel. Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, Judge McAuliffe cannot make a determination that the Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. The Plaintiff's first amended complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. Finally, based on a review of the record in the case, Judge McAuliffe does not find that the Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his purported claims. Plaintiff Cannot Represent Other Inmates Insofar as the Plaintiff is attempting to assert claims on behalf of other inmates, he may not do so, Judge McAuliffe finds. She says, the Plaintiff may only represent his own legal interests; he may not represent the legal interests of other inmates or other individuals. A litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself in a civil rights action. For these reasons, the Court construes the action as an individual civil rights suit brought by the Plaintiff alone. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 Judge McAuliffe finds that the Plaintiff's complaint is neither short nor a plain statement of his claims. She finds that most of his allegations are vague and conclusory statements that do not contain enough factual details to permit the Court to draw the reasonable inference that any named Defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. He may not simply recite the elements of various causes of action without supporting factual allegations, or state in a conclusory fashion that his rights were violated. The Plaintiff fails to include factual allegations identifying what happened, which the Defendant was involved, and how the actions or inactions of each Defendant violated his rights. Linkage The Plaintiff's first amended complaint again lumps all Defendants into all of the allegations. While the Plaintiff attempts to allege that each and every Defendant knew certain information or acted intentionally with respect to the allegations in the first amended complaint, Judge McAuliffe says these conclusory allegations are insufficient to link any named Defendant to any actions or omissions that may have violated the Plaintiff's rights. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20 The Plaintiff raises new claims that allegedly occurred after his transfer from Avenal to SATF, and adds Theresa Cisneros, Warden of SATF as a named defendant. However, Judge McAullife holds that the Plaintiff may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single action. He may not raise different claims against different defendants from different institutions in a single action. Even if all of the Plaintiff's allegations are based on the same type of constitutional violation, this does not necessarily make the claims related for purposes of Rule 18(a). Although the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants all acted in concert, his allegations span a period of time where he was housed at two different institutions, under the purview of at least two different Wardens. Judge McAuliffe therefore concludes that the Plaintiff has provided only conclusory allegations that the conditions he faced at each institution were a result of a coordinated or related effort by some or all of the Defendants. Supervisory Liability To the extent the Plaintiff seeks to hold any Defendant liable based solely upon their supervisory role, Judge McAuliffe rules he may not do so as liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel for the actions or omissions of their subordinates under the theory of respondeat superior. It remains unclear what conduct he alleges that any Defendant engaged in that violated his constitutional rights. The Plaintiff has failed to allege direct participation in the alleged violations. He has failed to allege facts demonstrating that any policy is itself a repudiation of his constitutional rights. Thus, the Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled a cognizable claim of supervisory liability based on a constitutionally deficient policy. Habeas Corpus - Early Release The Plaintiff seeks, among other relief, his early release. To the extent that the Plaintiff is attempting to challenge the validity of his conviction and his incarceration, the exclusive method for asserting that challenge is by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, Judge McAuliffe explains. She says, it has long been established that state prisoners cannot challenge the fact or duration of their confinement in a section 1983 action, and that their sole remedy lies in habeas corpus relief. Eighth Amendment - Deliberate Indifference to Conditions of Confinement The Plaintiff is attempting to bring a conditions of confinement claim regarding the spread of COVID-19 due to overcrowded conditions and movement of inmates. He does not allege that he is challenging any medical care provided. Judge McAuliffe holds that supervisor liability is insufficient to state a cognizable claim against the Defendants. She is not discounting the Plaintiff's concerns about contracting COVID-19. His concerns are valid and significant. However, the allegations in the complaint do not suggest that Defendants disregarded the risk Plaintiff faced. Accordingly, he fails to state a claim against them. Injunctive Relief The Plaintiff requests the Court orders a population cap of 50% of capacity at every yard and institution at which he (and other similarly situated inmates) is housed within CDCR, early release for certain categories of inmates, and his priority release. Insofar as the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against officials at Avenal, Judge McAuliffe states that any such request is now moot because the Plaintiff is no longer housed at that facility. The injunctive relief sought in the action is not narrowly drawn, and appears to extend much further than necessary to correct the harm identified, particularly as it applies to institutions where the Plaintiff is not housed and to inmates who are not parties to the action. Findings & Recommendations Judge McAuliffe finds that the Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. Despite being provided with the relevant legal standards, the Plaintiff has been unable to cure the deficiencies in his complaint. Further leave to amend is not warranted. Accordingly, she recommends that the action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case. Within 14 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, the Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation." The Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the "right to challenge the magistrate's factual findings" on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Findings & Recommendations is available at https://tinyurl.com/3a3483j5 from Leagle.com. CALVIN BROADUS: Faces Class Suit Over Sexual Assault, Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALVIN BROADUS a/k/a SNOOP DOGG and DONALD CAMPBELL a/k/a BISHOP DON MAGIC JUAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04952 (C.D. Cal., July 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of Trafficking Victims Protection Act; conspiracy; sexual battery; sexual assault; violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act; defamation; false light; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; unlawful retaliation in violation of the California Labor Code; and harassment, aiding, and abetting in violation of California Government Code. According to the complaint, Defendant Snoop Dogg has been engaged in a pattern and practice of sexually assaulting women, threatening women, and retaliating against those who oppose unlawful behavior. Defendant Snoop Dogg allegedly sexually harassed, sexually assaulted, and sexually battered the Plaintiff. As a result of the Defendants' discriminatory and intolerable treatment of the Plaintiff, she has suffered anxiety, stress, depression, nightmares, sleep disturbances, post-traumatic stress, headaches, severe emotional distress and physical ailments, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matt E.O. Finkelberg, Esq. DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 3250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (310) 602-6050 Facsimile: (310) 602-6350 E-mail: matt@dereksmithlaw.com CANADA: Millennium Scoop, Jordan's Principle Class Suits Settled ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consumer Law Group is representing Victims in the claims process who form a part of the class of First Nations Youth Millennium Scoop and Jordan's Principle class action settlement. Two class actions have been settled with the Government of Canada alleging systemic discrimination in the government's funding and provision of child and family, and other services dating back to 1991. By signing up with CLG you're assured that someone from our team will be assigned to your file. They will reach out and guide you through the claims process every step of the way, filling out the proper documentation and ensuring that your claim is valid and complete. CLG will make every effort to guarantee that you are properly compensated and are being treated fairly by the claims administrator. The Agreement in principle provides for 20 billion dollars to hundreds of thousands of First Nations children and family members, comprised of the following groups who may be entitled to compensation: -- Children living on reserves or in the Yukon who were removed from their homes and placed in out-of-home care at any time from April 1, 1991 to the present. -- Children who suffered discrimination by being deprived of timely essential public services and products due to the Government's failure to respect a child-first principle now known as "Jordan's Principle". These children suffered denials, delays or gaps in obtaining essential public services or products from April 1, 1991 to November 2, 2017. Jordan's Principle is named after Jordan River Anderson, who passed away in hospital in 2005 while the federal and provincial governments disputed over who should pay for his care in home. -- Certain primary caregivers of the children described above. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found Canada's widespread underfunding, resulting in the removal of First Nations children living on reserves from their homes, to be willful discrimination that warrants substantial compensation to each child and their primary caregivers from 2006 until the present. The Tribunal also found Canada's breach of its duties under Jordan's Principle to be willful discrimination warranting compensation to each affected child and their families from 2007 until 2017. Canada's application to the Federal Court earlier this year in which it sought to challenge the compensation component of those findings was unsuccessful. If you or any First Nations individual that you know are a part of any of the above-mentioned groups, please register on our website here to receive further information. If you have already registered on our website and wish to contact us for further information, please send an email to firstnationsyouth@clg.org or call 1-888-909-7863. [GN] CAPITAL VISION: Clark Wins Bid to Conditionally Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARY ALICE CLARK, CHRISTOPHER COULTER, AARON PEREZ and KEVIN NELSON, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAPITAL VISION SERVICES, LLC d/b/a MyEyeDr, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-10236-DJC (D. Mass.), Judge Denise J. Carper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts allows the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. The Named Plaintiffs, along with the 17 opt-in Plaintiffs, bring the putative collective action against Defendant MyEyeDr alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., Massachusetts wage laws, Mass. Gen. L. c. 151, Sections 1A and 1B, and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, 43 Pa. Stat. Section 333.101 et seq. MyEyeDr owns and operates over 500 optical stores across the United States. The Plaintiffs formerly worked as General Managers at 49 MyEyeDr locations across nine states. Seven of them also worked as General Managers in Training across five states. During the relevant period, MyEyeDr uniformly classified all GMITs and GMs as exempt, paid all GMITs and GMs a purported salary, and did not pay GMITs and GMs overtime compensation for working more than forty hours per week. The Plaintiffs commenced the action on Feb. 11, 2022, and later filed an amended complaint. They have moved to certify a collective action conditionally pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Judge Casper heard the parties on the pending motion and took the matter under advisement. The Plaintiffs request the Court conditionally certifies the following collectives: a. Putative FLSA GM Collective: All current and former employees with the title General Manager (GMs) employed by Capital Vision Services, LLC d/b/a MyEyeDr (MyEyeDr or Defendant) at any of Defendant's retail locations in the United States at any time on or after Feb. 11, 2019. b. Putative FLSA GMIT Collective: All current and former GMs who were hired from outside of MyEyeDr, and spent a week or more in-store training (hereafter referred to as General Managers In Training or GMITs), employed by MyEyeDr at any of MyEyeDr's retail locations in the United States at any time on or after Feb. 11, 2019. MyEyeDr argues that an alleged blanket misclassification of employees with certain job titles is insufficient as a matter of law to establish a common unlawful policy to support that such employees were "similarly situated." It also argues that conditional certification should be denied because the Court will need to make individualized determinations as to whether and which FLSA exemptions or exceptions will apply to each Plaintiff. Judge Casper holds that even assuming that uniform misclassification of a discrete class were insufficient to satisfy the showing that the purported class is "similarly situated," the Plaintiffs have made a greater showing here regarding same, specifically by demonstrating similarity in their duties, responsibilities and experiences as GMs. Their showing meets the low standard to provide "some factual support" that the proposed collectives are similarly situated. MyEyeDr also argues that, even if the Court allows the Plaintiffs' conditional certification motion, it should limit who may join the collectives. First, it asserts that "the collectives should not include any employees who never worked more than 40 hours during the relevant period." Second, it contends that the Court should at most allow the Plaintiffs to send notices to employees who worked within three years of the date of the conditional certification order or else individuals with no timely claims may join, only to be immediately dismissed. Judge Casper finds that there is no reliable way to determine from MyEyeDr's records which GMs worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. Accordingly, she does not limit the collectives based upon hours worked per week as proposed by MyEyeDr. She also finds that courts commonly use the date of the filing of the complaint to calculate the relevant period. Accordingly, Judge Casper conditionally certifies the collectives as requested by the Plaintiffs. In addition to seeking conditional certification, the Plaintiffs seek approval of their proposed procedures for notifying the collective, and consenting to join the collective action. They also request that notice be sent to each potential collective member by first-class mail, email and text message. They, further, ask that the Court allows the consent to join form to be signed through a website maintained by their counsel or a third-party notice administrator. Finally, they ask that the Court orders MyEyeDr to disclose "the names, job titles, employee-identification numbers, dates of employment, last known mailing addresses, last known personal e-mail addresses, last known phone numbers, and work locations for the conditionally certified collective-action members" to their counsel within 10 business days of the Court's Order. MyEyeDr challenges the content of proposed notice. First, it contends that the notice should include the following language: "Individuals who join this action will assume the role of parties to the litigation, which comes with obligations and risks. If you join the case, you may be asked to provide relevant documents, respond to written questions, and provide testimony under oath at a deposition, which may take place in Boston, Massachusetts. You may also be required to attend and testify at the trial of this matter in Boston. In addition, you will be required to preserve and produce evidence including, but not limited to, your social media accounts for the relevant time period, potentially at your own expense." Second, it proposes to include language about potential claim preclusion of state law claims, citing a recent case from the Supreme Judicial Court. Judge Casper authorizes the content of the notice as proposed by the Plaintiffs, with the addition of the following language regarding potential discovery and trial obligations. "If you opt into this suit, there is some possibility that you may be required to provide sworn written answers to questions, documents in support, and/or sworn testimony in person or by remote (videoconferencing) means." Judge Casper also grants the Plaintiffs' proposed method of notice by first-class mail, email and text message and authorizes one reminder notice to be sent by the same methods half-way through the notice period to those potential opt-in Plaintiffs who have not yet returned signed consent to join forms. And, because MyEyeDr does not oppose the Plaintiffs' proposed consent to join form, she allows the consent to join form to be signed through a website maintained by the Plaintiffs' counsel or a third-party notice administrator, or the Plaintiffs' request for disclosure of information regarding the potential opt-in Plaintiffs within 10 business days of the Court's order. A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yytnc8yx from Leagle.com. CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Nunley FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled TONY NUNLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARDINAL LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and ROBERT SHEERIN, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2210430, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 19, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-01255 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act by allegedly not providing legally compliant disclosure and authorization forms to the Plaintiff as part of the employment application process. Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation is a logistics provider, with its principal place of business in Concord, North Carolina. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Drew R. Hansen, Esq. Pavneet Singh Mac, Esq. J. Randall Boyer, Esq. NOSSAMAN LLP 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 833-7800 Facsimile: (949) 833-7878 E-mail: dhansen@nossaman.com pmac@nossaman.com rboyer@nossaman.com CBS CORP: $14.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on November 3 ------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP regarding the CBS Securities Settlement: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, GENE SAMIT and JOHN LANTZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. CBS CORPORATION and LESLIE MOONVES, Defendants. Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-07796-VEC (Consolidated) CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED CBS CORPORATION N/K/A PARAMOUNT GLOBAL ("CBS") CLASS B COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 29, 2017 AND JULY 27, 2018, INCLUSIVE ("SETTLEMENT CLASS" OR "SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS") THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on November 3, 2022, at 2:30 p.m., before the Honorable Valerie E. Caproni at the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 443, New York, NY 10007 to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned Action as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement ("Stipulation")^1 for $14,750,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice; (3) to award Lead Plaintiff's Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below) and, if so, in what amount; (4) to pay Lead Plaintiff for its costs and expenses in representing the Settlement Class out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in what amount; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate. The outbreak of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) is a fluid situation that creates the possibility that the Court may decide to conduct the Final Approval Hearing by video or telephonic conference, or otherwise allow Settlement Class Members to appear at the hearing by phone, without further written notice to the Settlement Class. In order to determine whether the date and time of the Final Approval Hearing have changed, or whether Settlement Class Members must or may participate by phone or video, it is important that you monitor the Court's docket and the Settlement website, www.CBSSecuritiesSettlement.com, before making any plans to attend the Final Approval Hearing. Any updates regarding the Final Approval Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or telephonic appearances at the hearing, will also be posted to the Settlement website, www.CBSSecuritiesSettlement.com. Also, if the Court requires or allows Settlement Class Members to participate in the Final Approval Hearing by telephone, the phone number for accessing the telephonic conference will be posted to the Settlement website, www.CBSSecuritiesSettlement.com. IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED CBS CLASS B COMMON STOCK FROM NOVEMBER 29, 2017 THROUGH JULY 27, 2018, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than September 19, 2022) or electronically (no later than September 19, 2022). Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by September 19, 2022, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action. If you purchased or acquired CBS Class B common stock from November 29, 2017 through July 27, 2018, inclusive, and do not request exclusion from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Action, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement documents, online at www.CBSSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing to: CBS Securities Settlement Claims Administrator c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC P.O. Box 8040 San Rafael, CA 94912-8040 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Shareholder Relations Department 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 1-800-449-4900 settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY SEPTEMBER 19, 2022, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM. IF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY LEAD PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED 25% OF THE $14,750,000 SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $500,000, PLUS INTEREST, AND/OR THE PAYMENT TO LEAD PLAINTIFF FOR ITS COSTS AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $22,500. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY SEPTEMBER 19, 2022, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. Dated: May 13, 2022 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Contact: Media: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Shareholder Relations Department Greg Wood (619) 231-1058 CELSIUS NETWORK: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 13 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, on July 24 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Celsius Network LLC, Celsius Lending LLC, Celsius KeyFi LLC, Alexander Mashinsky, Shlomi Leon, David Base, and Alan Jeffrey Carr in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Celsius securities between February 9, 2018 and July 13, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until September 13, 2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Celsius is a financial services company that generates revenue through cryptocurrency trading, lending, and borrowing, the sale of its unregistered securities, as well as engaging in proprietary trading. The price of CEL Tokens went from a high of $7.73 on June 3, 2021, to a low of $0.28 just over a year later on June 12, 2021, in the wake of the June Crisis and Celsius freezing its investors accounts. The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the Exchange Act by carrying out a plan, scheme, and course of conduct that Celsius intended to and did deceive retail investors and thereby caused them to purchase Celsius Financial Products at artificially inflated prices; endorsed false statements they knew or recklessly should have known were materially misleading, and made untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading. The complaint further alleges that Celsius and its affiliates, along with the Individual Defendants, also violated provisions of the Securities Act by selling non-exempt securities without registering it. The complaint alleges that Celsius and Individual Defendants violated provisions of the Securities Act by also participating in Celsius' failure to register the Celsius Financial Products. The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated provisions of the New Jersey Common Law by possessing the monetary value of Celsius Financial Products of inflated value which rightfully belongs to the Plaintiff and members of the Class. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Celsius shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] CENTERRA GROUP: 2nd Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Williams ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN WILLIAMS, et al., v. CENTERRA GROUP, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-04220-SAL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Sherri A. Lydon entered a second amended scheduling order as follows: -- Initial expert disclosures: February 28, 2023 -- Responsive expert disclosures: April 14, 2023 -- Fact discovery shall be January 18, 2023 completed no later than: -- Expert discovery shall be June 1, 2023 completed no later than: -- The Plaintiffs shall file January 25, 2023 their motion for class certification no later than: -- The Defendants shall file March 23, 2023 their response in opposition to class certification no later than: -- All dispositive motions shall July 17, 2023 be filed on or before: -- Mediation shall be completed February 6, 2023 in this case on or before: Centerra is the world's leading international Government solutions group, specializing in business processes in sectors where security and safety risks are considered a strategic threat. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Biinti at no extra charge.[CC] CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Hicks Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charter Communications, Inc., et al. The case is styled as David K. Hicks, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Charter Communications, Inc. doing business as: Spectrum, John Does 1-10, Case No. 3:22-cv-00195-MJN-PBS (S.D. Ohio, July 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Charter Communications, Inc. -- http://corporate.charter.com/-- is an American telecommunications and mass media company with services branded as Spectrum.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Lawrence Hilton, Esq. HILTON PARKER LLC 7544 Slate Ridge Blvd. Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 Phone: (513) 519-1031 Email: jhilton@hiltonparker.com CHENMED LLC: Golden Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANN GOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHENMED, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 153647225 (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir. Ct., July 19, 2022) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has been engaging in telephonic sales calls to consumer in an attempt to promote its goods and services. The Plaintiff claims that she received a telephonic sales call from the Defendant to her telephone number ending in 7634 on or after July 1, 2021 without her prior express written consent. The Defendant allegedly used an automated system in sending its telephonic sales calls for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers or the playing of a recorded message when a connection is completed. In addition, the Defendant has caused similar telephonic sales calls to be sent to other individuals without obtaining their prior express written consent to receive such calls, says the suit. Consequently, the Defendant's unsolicited telephonic sales calls have caused harm to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks to recover statutory damages from the Defendant for herself and all other similarly situated individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all telephonic sales calls made without express written consent, as well as an award of reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, and other relief as the Court deems necessary. ChenMed, LLC provides healthcare. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq. KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A. 2110 West Platt Street Tampa, FL 33606 Tel: (813) 422-7782 Fax: (813) 422-7783 E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com CHICAGO, IL: Williams Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against City Of Chicago, et al. The case is styled as Michael Williams, Lucy Parsons Labs, Daniel Ortiz, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly-situated people v. City Of Chicago, David O'Neal Brown, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department, Nicholas Evangelides, Dale Potter, Jr., Michael Kociolek, Scott Reiff, Brian Roney, Juan Perez, Mark LaPadula, Scott Brownley, Joseph Merkel, Carol Maresso, Nestor De Jesus, Salvatore Aloisio, Robert Costello, Michael Dougherty, David Magana, Eduardo Almanza, Harsimran Powar, Michael Matias, Arthur Harb, Mark Flechsig, in their individual capacities, Case No. 1:22-cv-03773 (N.D. Ill., July 21, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights Act. Chicago -- https://www.chicago.gov/ -- on Lake Michigan in Illinois, is among the largest cities in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Matthew Manes, Esq. RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER 160 E. Grand Ave., 6th Floor Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (312) 503-0012 Email: jonathan.manes@law.northwestern.edu CHICK-FIL-A INC: Ortega's Breach & Unjust Enrichment Claims Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Ronald Ortega, Plaintiff, v. Chick-fil-A, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00845-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an order: a. granting Chick-fil-A's motion to dismiss the claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment; and b. denying as moot its motion to strike the allegations in support of a nationwide class. Mr. Ortega alleges Chick-fil-A breached its agreement to charge a flat delivery fee for online orders. On Chick-fil-A's mobile app and website, customers can order food for delivery or pick-up. Mr. Ortega used the app, but before he was able to place his order, the checkout screen broke down the cost of his order. He claims the price of his meal would have been 25 to 30 % cheaper, or about $5 less, if he had ordered in store or for pick-up. Accordingly, he alleges Chick-fil-A's representation of "$3.99 delivery fee" was false and misleading because the actual "delivery fee" -- the extra charge for having food delivered as opposed to picking it up -- was the $3.99 delivery fee plus the markup for delivery orders. Mr. Ortega commenced the putative class action in state court, alleging Chick-fil-A violated the California Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and False Advertising Law. Chick-fil-A removed the case, invoking the Court's diversity jurisdiction. Mr. Ortega sought and the Court granted leave to amend. His complaint now includes claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment and pursues relief on behalf of a proposed nationwide class. Chick-fil-A now moves to dismiss Mr. Ortega's contract and unjust enrichment claims and moves to strike the nationwide class allegations. The Court submitted both motions without oral argument. Breach of Contract Chick-fil-A first moves to dismiss Mr. Ortega's contract claim. The elements of that claim are: (1) a valid contract, (2) the Plaintiff's performance, (3) the Defendant's breach; and (4) damages. It argues his allegations fall short of the first and third elements. Judge Mueller need not decide whether Mr. Ortega's allegations show he had a contract with Chick-fil-A, because he does not sufficiently allege Chick-fil-A breached any contract terms. He also cites no contractual provision forbidding Chick-fil-A from charging higher prices for food ordered in an app or online. For similar reasons, he cannot rely on cases against the Defendants who allegedly deceived them to pay more than the agreed-upon prices. For the reasons above, Judge Mueller dismisses Mr. Ortega's claim for breach of contract with leave to amend, if an amendment is possible within the confines of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Unjust Enrichment Chick-fil-A next moves to dismiss Mr. Ortega's unjust enrichment claim. In California, unjust enrichment is not a separate cause of action. A plaintiff may plead a claim for unjust enrichment alleging a contract is void or rescinded as an alternative to a breach of contract claim asserting the existence of an enforceable agreement. But "there is no equitable reason for invoking restitution when the plaintiff gets the exchange he expected." There is also "no occasion for resort to unjust enrichment" if a plaintiff can obtain relief under California's consumer protection laws, including the UCL and CLRA, because restitution is available under those statutes. Thus, Judge Mueller dismisses Mr. Ortega's unjust enrichment claim, but with leave to amend if possible. Nationwide Class Allegations Chick-fil-A next moves to strike Mr. Ortega's nationwide class allegations under Rule 12(f). The complaint appears to propose a nationwide class for all of Mr. Ortega's five claims, including his consumer protection claims. In his response to the motion to strike, however, Mr. Ortega clarifies he is seeking to represent a nationwide class only for his breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. Judge Mueller thus limits Mr. Ortega's nationwide class allegation to these enrichment claims. Because those claims are dismissed, the motion to strike his nationwide class allegations is moot. Any amendments to the complaint must be filed within 21 days of the Order. In light of the Order, Judge Mueller vacates the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference set for July 28, 2022, and resets it for Oct. 6, 2022 at 2:30 p.m. The parties will file a joint status report 14 days prior to the conference. A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3nae6w4m from Leagle.com. CHICO'S FAS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Velazquez Says ------------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN VELAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHICO'S FAS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-06048-PAE (S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2022) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.chicos.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. CHICO'S FAS, INC. is an American women's clothing and accessories retailer founded in 1983 on Sanibel Island, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com CHILO AND CHELA: Vasquez et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- FELICITAS VASQUEZ, OLGA VILLEGAS, and SABINA GARCIA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHILO AND CHELA, INC., and MONICA SANCHEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03715 (N.D. Ill., July 18, 2022) bring this complaint against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiffs, who have worked for the Defendants preparing and selling tamales, assert that the Defendants did not properly compensate them for all hours they have worked. Although they routinely worked more than 40 hours per week, they were not paid overtime premiums at the applicable overtime rate in accordance with the law. Instead of keeping track of hours they worked, the Defendants paid them a flat rate based on the days they worked, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek all unpaid wages, liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid wages, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief as the Court deems appropriate and just. Chilo and Chela, Inc. sells tamales. Monica Sanchez is an officer and principal shareholder of the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jorge Sanchez, Esq. Baldemar Lopez, Esq. LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 420-6784 CIRCLE MEDICAL: Arevalo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Circle Medical Technologies, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Martin Arevalo, an an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Circle Medical Technologies, Inc., Does 1-100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22600873 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., July 21, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Circle Medical -- https://www.circlemedical.com/ -- is a modern clinic that offers quality, delightful primary care without a membership fee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (310) 496-5818 Fax: (310) 510-6429 Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com CIRTON INC: Macal Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Cooks -------------------------------------------------------------- HENRY MACAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CIRTON INC. d/b/a CONTE'S PIZZA and CIRO BALDINO, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-04684 (D.N.J., July 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to timely pay wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law and for fraudulent filing of information returns. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook from January 2008 until May 22, 2021. Cirton Inc., doing business as Conte's Pizza, is a restaurant owner and operator, with its principal place of business located at 339 Witherspoon St., Princeton, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicole Grunfeld, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 460-0047 Facsimile: (212) 428-6811 E-mail: ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com CITIBANK NA: Bjorklund Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citibank, N.A., et al. The case is styled as Emily Bjorklund, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Rich Doss, Inc., Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22600868 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., July 21, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Citibank -- https://www.citi.com/ -- is the consumer division of financial services multinational Citigroup.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa A. Huether, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: mhuether@lelawfirm.com COINBASE GLOBAL: N.D. California Allows Arbitration in Alfia Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ADAM ALFIA, Plaintiff v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-08689-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants Coinbase's motion to compel arbitration. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure his Coinbase account. He alleges that an unauthorized purchase of $50,000 in cryptocurrency was made from his Coinbase account and an equivalent amount of money was deducted from his personal banking account without his knowledge or approval. He asserts that because of the Defendant's conduct, he has suffered significant economic loss, worry, and stress. He alleges multiple causes of action, including claims for breach of contract for violating Coinbase's Privacy Policy, negligently securing his private information and accounts, and misrepresenting the security and confidentiality of his information. The Defendant explains that to create his Coinbase account, the Plaintiff had to click a "check box" next to the language "I certify that I am 18 years of age or older, and I agree to the User Agreement and Privacy Policy," with both agreements accessible via hyperlink. It asserts that he assented to the hyperlinked User Agreement in creating a Coinbase account on Dece. 18, 2017. The 2017 User Agreement included the arbitration provision. The Plaintiff's assent was similar to a "clickwrap" agreement -- he clicked a box stating that he agreed to the User Agreement, which was hyperlinked for easy accessibility. He had clear notice of the terms of the 2017 User Agreement and took physical action to manifest his assent. The Plaintiff does not contest that he agreed to the 2017 User Agreement at the time he created a Coinbase account, and Judge Gilliam finds that there was a mutual manifestation of assent to the 2017 User Agreement. Therefore, he concludes that the parties entered into a binding arbitration agreement. The second question for the Court is whether the arbitration agreement encompasses the dispute at issue. The scope of the arbitration provision is broad -- it includes any disputes arising under the 2017 User Agreement. The Plaintiff argues that the arbitration provision does not apply to privacy-related claims because the 2017 User Agreement and the Privacy Policy are separate agreements. He contends that since the Privacy Policy does not have an arbitration provision of its own, he cannot be forced to arbitrate. However, Judge Gilliam finds that the 2017 User Agreement incorporates the Privacy Policy by reference. The Plaintiff admits his claims relate to the Privacy Policy, which is part of the "entire agreement" formed by the parties, further reinforcing the conclusion that the arbitration agreement encompasses the dispute at issue. The arbitration provision is not unconscionable and is therefore enforceable. Under California law, an agreement is enforceable unless it is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Procedural and substantive unconscionability need not be present in equal amounts. Judge Gilliam finds a minimal degree of procedural unconscionability arising from the adhesive nature of the 2017 User Agreement. While the relative bargaining power between the parties favors the Defendant and the 2017 User Agreement was presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, he says nothing in the record suggests that Coinbase was the Plaintiff's only option for cryptocurrency services. And while the Plaintiff argues that Coinbase never called the arbitration clause to his attention, the arbitration provision in the 2017 User Agreement is clearly labeled "Arbitration; Waiver of Class Action" in bold print. The terms of the arbitration provision, unlike the majority of the contract, are also in bold font. And the provision binds both parties to arbitrate designated claims. Judge Gilliam finds that the arbitration provision is not substantively unconscionable and is therefore enforceable. The action is stayed pending resolution of the arbitration. The parties are directed to file a joint status report regarding the status of the arbitration proceeding 120 days from the date of the Order and every 120 days thereafter unless otherwise ordered. They are also directed to jointly notify the Court within 48 hours of the conclusion of the arbitration proceeding. A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yezhpj33 from Leagle.com. CONAGRA BRANDS: Securities Suit Dismissed with Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------- Conagra Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2022, that a securities class action against its directors, and several of its executive officers was dismissed on June 9, 2022. On July 22, 2019, a stockholder derivative lawsuits captioned "Opperman v. Connolly, et al." was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and mismanagement in connection with acquisition of Pinnacle Foods Inc. In October 21, 2019, the company received an additional demand from a stockholder under Delaware law to appoint a special committee to investigate the conduct of certain officers and directors in connection with the Pinnacle acquisition and the company's public statements. In March 9, 2020, the stockholder derivative lawsuit was consolidated in a single Consolidated Derivative Action. On June 9, 2022, it was dismissed without prejudice by stipulation of the parties. Conagra Brands, Inc. is one of North America's leading branded food companies. CONAGRA BRANDS: Securities Suit Over Merger Deal Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- Conagra Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2022, that a securities class action against its directors, and several of its executive officers was dismissed on June 9, 2022. On May 9, 2019, a stockholder filed a derivative action captioned "Klein v. Arora, et al." in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and mismanagement in connection with the acquisition of Pinnacle Foods Inc. On March 9, 2020, the lawsuit was consolidated in a single Consolidated Derivative Action. On June 9, 2022, it was dismissed without prejudice by stipulation of the parties. Conagra Brands, Inc. is one of North America's leading branded food companies. CONAGRA BRANDS: Securities Suit Over Merger Tossed -------------------------------------------------- Conagra Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2022, that a securities class action against its directors, and several of its executive officers was dismissed on May 9, 2022. The lawsuit asserts that the company's officers made material misstatements and omissions that caused the market to have an unrealistically positive assessment of the company's financial prospects in light of the acquisition of Pinnacle Foods Inc., thus causing the company's securities to be overvalued prior to the release of the company's consolidated financial results on December 20, 2018 for the second quarter of fiscal year 2019. The first of these lawsuits, captioned "West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Conagra Brands, Inc., et al.," with which subsequent lawsuits alleging similar facts have been consolidated, was filed on February 22, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. That consolidated lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on December 23, 2020 for failure to state a claim. On January 22, 2021, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On May 9, 2022, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, and the matter is now closed. Conagra Brands, Inc. is one of North America's leading branded food companies. CONSUMER DIRECT: Miranda Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to W.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled DEBORAH JOHNSON MIRANDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONSUMER DIRECT CARE NETWORK WASHINGTON, LLC, Case No. 22-2-09950-0 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 21, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01014 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay wages owed and willful withholding of wages in violation of Washington law. Consumer Direct Care Network Washington, LLC is a provider of in-home care assistance and customer service firm based in Missoula, Montana. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Aaron D. Goldstein, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6100 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 903-8800 E-mail: goldstein.aaron@dorsey.com CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Kertzner Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Michal Kertzner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Case No. 7:22-cv-06186 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Convergent -- https://www.convergentusa.com/outsourcing/ -- is one of America's leading collections agencies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Thomas Yusko, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com DAVE INC: Faces Lopez Suit Over Improper Business Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- KRYSTAL LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVE INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-04160-SVK (N.D. Cal. July 1 5, 2022) seeks to correct the Defendant's illegal conduct, to recover the fees the Defendant extracted from the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons, to hold the Defendant accountable for misleading and unfair business practices, and to prevent the Defendant from misleading the general public about the cost of using its services. According to the complaint, the Defendant operates the Dave app, which claims to give consumers the opportunity to "Get paid up to 2 days early, build your credit history, and get up to $250 advances without paying a fee." In reality, Defendant seeks to skirt applicable financial, banking, and payday lending regulations through a linguistic trick: calling the payments to use its service "tips," "express fees," and a "subscription fee," instead of the cost of borrowing. Semantics aside, Defendant is in the business of loaning money for profit, says the suit. DAVE INC. develops mobile software. The Company offers application that helps users predict their expenses and avoid overdrafting their checking accounts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie McCrary, Esq. Hayley Reynolds, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 DECKERS OUTDOOR: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deckers Outdoor Corporation. The case is styled as Alexandra Hobbs, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Deckers Outdoor Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-06207 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Deckers Outdoor Corporation, doing business as Deckers Brands -- https://www.deckers.com/ -- is a global leader in designing, marketing and distributing innovative footwear, apparel and accessories developed for both everyday casual lifestyle use and high performance activities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal DIGITAL TURBINE: Faces Kirshner Class Suit Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA KIRSHNER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DIGITAL TURBINE, INC., WILLIAM STONE, and BARRETT GARRISON, Case No. 1:22-cv-00731 (W.D. Tex., July 21, 2022) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Digital Turbine securities between February 26, 2021 and May 31, 2022, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made materially false and/or misleading, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that the Company's recent acquisitions, AdColony and Fyber, act as agents in certain of their respective product lines, says the suit. On May 17, 2022, Digital Turbine issued a press release revealing that it will "restate its financial statements for the interim periods ended June 30, 2021, September 30, 2021, and December 31, 2021, following a review of the presentation of revenue net of license fees and revenue share for the Company's recently acquired businesses." In a SEC filing on Form 8-K made that same day, Digital Turbine specified that the "recently acquired businesses" at issue were AdColony and Fyber. On this news, the Company's shares fell $1.93, or 7.1%, to close at $25.28 per share on May 18, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on May 31, 2022, Digital Turbine issued a press release announcing the Company's Q4 and fiscal year 2022 financial results, in which the Company provided an earnings per share figure that missed consensus estimates and a weak revenue forecast. On this news, the Company's shares fell $5.75, or 22.61%, to close at $19.68 per share on June 1, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit added. Digital Turbine is a software company that delivers products to assist third parties in monetizing through the utilization of mobile advertising. The Company completed its acquisitions of AdColony Holdings AS and Fyber N.V. on April 29 and May 25, 2021, respectively.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Willie C. Briscoe, Esq. THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC 12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 520 Dallas, TX 75251 Telephone: (972) 521-6868 Facsimile: (346) 214-7463 E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.co - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. PORTNOY LAW FIRM 1800 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA Telephone: (310) 692-8883 E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com DIRECT RECOVERY: Bogle Sues Over Unauthorized Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT BOGLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECT RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-01272 (C.D. Cal., July 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant used false representations or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt from the Plaintiff. The Defendant is neither licensed to do business in California, nor has the Defendant filed an application to conduct business in California. Thus, the Defendant did not have legal standing to collect an alleged debt from the Plaintiff. As a result of the Defendant's unfair, deceptive, false, misleading, and oppressive conduct in connection with its debt collection activities, the Plaintiff suffered invasion of privacy, mental anguish, anxiousness, stress, fear, lost sleep and felt feelings of despair, says the suit. Direct Recovery Services, LLC is a national collection agency, with a principal place of business located at 115 Waterfront Dr., Two Harbors, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com david@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com DUNCAN BURCH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hernandez Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- YOANIA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DUNCAN BURCH, INC. d/b/a CHICAS LOCAS; STEVEN W. CRAFT; and EUGENE G. LECLAIRE, Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-02375 (S.D. Tex., July 15, 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 Hernandez was employed by the Defendants as waitress. DUNCAN BURCH, INC. was founded in 1986. The Company's line of business includes operating of bars, night clubs, and other locations that sell alcoholic drinks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Dore, Esq. JUSTICIA LABORAL LLC 6232 N. Pulaski Road, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (773) 415-4898 Facsimile: jdore@justicialaboral.com EMEREST HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anderson Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MONIKA ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMEREST HEALTH OF MISSOURI, LLC; EMEREST HEALTH CDS OF MISSOURI, LLC; EMEREST HOME CARE OF CONNECTICUT LLC; EMEREST HEALTH, LLC; EMEREST HEALTH OF MINNESOTA LLC; EMEREST HEALTH POPULATION MANAGEMENT LLC; EMEREST HEALTH IPA, LLC; EMEREST CERTIFIED HOME HEALTH CARE OF NEW YORK, LLC; EMEREST CAREGIVER RESOURCES OF NY, LLC; and EMEREST HEALTH, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00452-BP (W.D. Mo., July 15, 2022) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid wages, overtime pay, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiff Anderson was employed by the Defendants as personal care assistant/aide. EMEREST HEALTH OF MISSOURI, LLC provide home care and specialized health care services with the highest quality care in mind. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip M. Murphy II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP M. MURPHY, II 4717 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (913) 661-2900 Facsimile: (913) 312-5841 Email: phillip@phillipmurphylaw.com - and - Michael Hodgson, Esq. THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC 3609 SW Pryor Rd. Lee's Summit, Missouri 64082 Telephone: (816) 600-0117 Facsimile: mike@elgkc.com EPOCH TIMES ASSOCIATION: Roberts Files Suit in S.D. Ohio -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Epoch Times Association, Inc. The case is styled as Amy Roberts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Epoch Times Association, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02862-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, July 19, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. The Epoch Times is a far-right international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movemen.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com EQUIFAX INC: Data Breach Suit Settled ------------------------------------- Equifax Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2022, that a consumer settlement became effective on January 11, 2022 with regards to a 2017 cybersecurity incident following a criminal attack on its systems that involved the theft of certain personally identifiable information of U.S., Canadian and U.K. consumers. Following the 2017 cybersecurity incident, hundreds of class actions and other lawsuits were filed typically alleging harm from the incident and seeking various remedies, including monetary and injunctive relief. In July 19, 2019 and July 22, 2019, Equifax entered into multiple agreements that resolve case captioned "In re: Equifax, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 2800 and the investigations of the FTC, the CFPB, the Attorneys General of 48 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico and the NYDFS. The Consumer Settlement became effective on January 11, 2022. Equifax collects, organizes and manages various types of financial, demographic, employment, criminal history and marketing information. Its products and services enable businesses to make credit and service decisions, manage their portfolio risk, automate or outsource certain payroll-related, tax and human resources business processes, and develop marketing strategies concerning consumers and commercial enterprises. EXCELL COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Martinez Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXCELL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-04206 (E.D.N.Y., July 18, 2022) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a fiber optic installation technician since in or about March 2022. According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly failed to properly pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former manual workers their wages within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which these wages were earned. Instead, they were paid on a bi-weekly basis. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered an underpayment of wages each pay period because the Defendant failed to timely pay their wages on a weekly basis, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages from the Defendant for himself and all other similarly situated manual workers, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Excell Communications, Inc. is a project management firm engaged in the installation of network infrastructure for the wireless, fiber and utility industries in the State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Tel: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com FEDERAL SAVINGS: Clotz Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY CLOTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03755 (N.D. Ill., July 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of making unsolicited telemarketing calls to promote its goods and services. The Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers did not provide prior express written consent to receive calls from the Defendant. The Plaintiff's and Class members' telephone numbers are listed on the National Do Not Call Registry, says the suit. The Federal Savings Bank is a federally chartered bank, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com FLAGSTAR BANK: Faces Cousino Suit Over Cybersecurity Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- ALEXIS COUSINO; and GEORGE COUSINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-11619-VAR-KGA (E.D. Mich., July 15, 2022) is a class action on behalf of the over 1.5 million individuals whose sensitive personal identifying information was compromised in a cybersecurity breach of Flagstar, which was announced on or about June 17, 2022 (the "Flagstar Breach"). According to the complaint, on December 2021, the Defendant, a technology company that collects and stores patient data from hospitals across the country, discovered that cybercriminals had stolen the highly sensitive personal and medical information belonging to over 1.1 million patients ("Data Breach"), and then misrepresented how the Data Breach happened when it notified patients about the breach six months later. Cybercriminals could bypass and breach the Defendant's security systems because it does not adhere to industry-standard cybersecurity policies, state and federal law, or its own data security policies, which promise to use "reasonable efforts" to protect sensitive information. As a result, the Defendant left millions of patients' highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information an unguarded target for theft and misuse, the suit says. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB operates as a full-service bank. The Bank accepts deposits, makes loans and provides other services for the public which includes personal banking, online transaction, and debit and credit card services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 Email: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Melissa L. Troutner, Esq. Ethan J. Barlieb, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com mtroutner@ktmc.com ebarlieb@ktmc.com - and - Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Ryan P. McDevitt, Esq. Sydney Read, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 Email: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com sread@kellerrohrback.com FORD MOTOR: Barnes Consumer Suit Moved From D. Del. to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case MARGARET BARNES, ERIC SENKYRIK, MICHAEL HOGAN, and SHARON JACKON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-00823, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 21, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-05070-AB-PVC to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of express warranty, breach of written and implied warranties under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and Nebraska Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant failed to disclose to consumers, including the Plaintiffs, about the transmission defect of its 2017-2019 Ford Fiesta and 2017-2018 Ford Focus vehicles, says the suit. Ford Motor Company is an automobile manufacturer, headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Russell D. Paul, Esq. Abigail Gertner, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: rpaul@bm.net agertner@bm.net apark@bm.net - and – Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Laura E. Goolsby, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com Laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com FORUM INVESTORS: Bannerman Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statement --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT BANNERMAN and RANDOLPH SLIPHER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARSHALL KIEV, RICHARD KATZMAN, STEVEN BERNS, JEFFREY NACHBOR, JASON LUO, JAMES TAYLOR, BENJAMIN WU, HAILIANG HU, KEV ADJEMIAN, JUSTIN PRANN, FORUM INVESTORS III LLC, and FORUM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT III LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2022-0630-KSJM (Del. Ch., July 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty. According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Plaintiffs and the Class by prioritizing their own personal, financial, and/or reputational interests and approving the merger between Electric Last Mile Solutions Inc. and Electric Last Mile, Inc., which was unfair to public Forum III stockholders. Moreover, the Defendants breached their duty of candor by issuing a false and misleading proxy statement to persuade stockholders to approve the merger. As a result of the Defendants' misrepresentations, the Plaintiffs and the Class were harmed by not exercising their redemption rights prior to the merger, says the suit. Forum Investors III LLC is a limited liability company in Delaware. Forum Capital Management III LLC is a limited liability company in Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen E. Jenkins, Esq. Richard D. Heins, Esq. Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esq. ASHBY & GEDDES 500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor P.O. Box 1150 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 654-1888 - and – Donald J. Enright, Esq. Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. Brian D. Stewart, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 FOX REHABILITATION: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Conner Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN A. CONNER DPM, P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FOX REHABILITATION SERVICES, P.C., Case No. 2:21-cv-01580-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the Defendant moves the Court, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 and Rule C.2 of this Court's Pretrial and Trial Procedures, for leave to file sur-reply in further opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Fox Rehabilitation Services PC provides rehabilitation services. The Company offers physical, occupational, and speech therapy services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zxZz8e at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew A. Lipman, Esq. McELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP 1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1500 Philadelphia, PA 19103-1815 Telephone: (215) 557-2900 Facsimile: (215) 557-2990 E-mail: mlipman@mdmc-law.com - and - Ryan D. Watstein, Esq. Alex D. Terepka, Esq. KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 171 17th Street NW, Suite 1550 Atlanta, Georgia 30363 Telephone: (404) 400-7300 Facsimile: (404) 400-7333 E-mail: rwatstein@kcozlaw.com aterepka@kcozlaw.com - and - Kristapor Vartanian, Esq. KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2225 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 493-3980 E-mail: kvartanian@kcozlaw.com GAMECHANGER305 LLC: Underpays Nightclub Employees, Branda Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIANNA BRANDA, BRITANY LOYA, DARRELL FLETCHER, ERIN RIVERA, MABER ENCARNACION, ANABELLE GARCIA, MICHAEL HAWKINS, and OLUWATOBI ADEDEJI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GAMECHANGER305, LLC and GARY OLMSTEAD, Defendants, Case No. 153669981 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 11th Jud. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., July 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum wages and overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for retaliation and breach of agreement. The Plaintiffs worked at the Defendants' nightclub called GC Sobe. Gamechanger305, LLC is an owner and operator of a nightclub in Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence McGuinness, Esq. MG LEGAL GROUP 3126 Center St. Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 448-9557 Facsimile: (305) 448-9559 E-mail: ljm@ljmpalaw.com scheduling_ljmpa@comcast.net GENERAL STORE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Store, LLC. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. General Store, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06130-MKV (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. General Store -- https://shop-generalstore.com/ -- features a carefully curated mix of clothing, household items, books, jewelry and other small treasures from local California artisans.[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 GIFT CRATES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gift Crates, LLC. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Gift Crates, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06131 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gift Crates -- https://www.giftcrates.com/ -- sells awesome gifts for men packed in wooden crates that you open with the included crowbar.[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 GRACE PHARMACY: Faces Etminan Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, FARNAZ ETMINAN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRACE PHARMACY SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-01266 (M.D. Fla., July 19, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff as a collective action against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt and an hourly paid pharmacy clerk working as COVID-19 Test Specialist for its pharmacy, Grace Community Pharmacy in Orlando, Florida, from on or about June 2, 2022 until her separation from employment on June 30, 2022. The Plaintiff claims that throughout her employment with the Defendant, she worked more than 40 hours per week. However, the Defendant paid only straight time and was not paid for all hours she has worked. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to pay her overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff further alleges that there are at least 30 other current and former employees of the Defendant who were paid only straight time despite working more than 40 hours, and who were not paid for their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the applicable overtime rate in accordance with the law. Grace Pharmacy Solutions, LLC operates a pharmacy which provides a wide range of medical and healthcare essentials. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Norell, Esq. ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A. 300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305 Plantation, FL 33317 Tel: (954) 617-6017 Fax: (954) 617-6018 E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com HOLADOCTOR INC: Faces Nichols Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- TERRI LEE NICHOLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOLADOCTOR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-22204-KMW (S.D. Fla., July 18, 2022) brings this complaint as a class action to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant of violations of the TCPA by making unsolicited telemarketing calls to her and other similarly situated individuals in an attempt to promote its services. Accordingly, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff to her phone number 757-xxx-3765, which she has registered on the Do Not Call Registry on March 30, 2022. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has used automated systems in making telemarketing calls from Florida. During the first three calls, the Defendant identified itself as calling about Medicare coverage and inquired if the Plaintiff was interested. The Plaintiff terminated the calls because she was not interested, the Plaintiff says. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's unsolicited telephonic sales calls have harmed her and other similarly situated individuals in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy. Thus, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks redress for these injuries. Holadoctor, Inc. offers health insurance services for GoHealth, an insurance marketplace company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S. Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Tel: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Bendorfs Sue Over Unsafe, Defective Vehicles ----------------------------------------------------------- Brian and Sara Bendorf, on behalf of themselves and and all others similarly situated v. KIA America, Inc.; Hyundai Motor America; and Hyundai Kia America, Case No. 4:22-cv-00465-RK (W.D. Mo., July 21, 2022) is a class action claim arising from a defect in the Defendants' vehicles which make them easy to steal, unsafe, and worth less than they should be, if they did not have the defect. According to the complaint, the Defendants did not disclose this defect, which is a material fact, and a fact that a reasonable person would rely on when purchasing a vehicle. During the relevant class period, the Defendants sold these Defective Vehicles at multiple locations throughout the state of Missouri and the United States, says the suit. Plaintiffs Brian and Sara Bendorf are residents and citizens of the state of Missouri. They bring this action on their own behalf and as a representative of a class of persons who purchased a Defective Vehicle that was manufactured, produced, distributed, and/or sold by the Defendants, seeking to recover damages for violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, among other claims, for economic and injunctive relief against Defendants which manufactured, tested, distributed, promoted and sold the Defective Vehicles. Hyundai Motor America manufactures and retails automobiles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan M. Soper, Esq. Kenneth B. McClain, Esq. Paul D. Anderson, Esq. Chelsea M. Pierce, Esq. Jonathan M. Soper, Esq. HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & McCLAIN, P.C. 221 W. Lexington, Suite 400 Independence, MO 64050 Telephone: (816) 836-5050 Facsimile: (816) 836-8966 E-mail: kbm@hfmlegal.com pda@hfmlegal.com cmp@hfmlegal.com jms@hfmlegal.com IMPAX LAB: Ct. Approves $33M Settlement in Fleming Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREG FLEMING, et al., v. IMPAX LABORATORIES INC., et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-06557-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement and allocation and for enhancement awards and attorneys' fees and expenses. The Court approves the Settlement Amount of $33,000,000. The Court also approves (1) Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $9,900,000, plus interest; (2) Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for payment of costs incurred in the amount of $176,501.78, plus interest; and (3) Lead Plaintiff's $9,462,50 enhancement award and Class Representative's $1,176.10 enhancement award. The parties and Claims Administrator are directed to implement this Final Order and the SASS in accordance with the terms of the SASS. The parties are further directed to file a short 24 stipulated final judgment of two pages or less within 7 days from the date of this Order. The judgment need not, and should not, repeat the analysis in this Order. Lead Plaintiff New York Hotel Trades Council asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. section 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 against Impax Laboratories Inc., George Wilkinson, Larry Hsu, Bryan Reasons, and Carole Ben-Maimon. The Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint with leave to amend, after which Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint asserting the same claims. On August 12, 2019, the Court dismissed the SAC with prejudice, and Lead Plaintiff appealed. The Court held a hearing on the motion on March 31, 2022, and, at the Court's request, the Plaintiffs' counsel submitted supplemental declarations on April 1, 2022. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OBRUtG at no extra charge.[CC] INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Antitrust Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------ Intuitive Surgical, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2022, that a class action complaint was filed against the company in the Northern District of California Court alleging anti-trust allegations relating to the service and repair of certain instruments manufactured by the Company. A complaint by Larkin Community Hospital was filed on May 20, 2021. It has been consolidated and now captioned on the Larkin docket as "In Re: da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation." A consolidated amended class action complaint has been filed on behalf of each plaintiff named in said case. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets the "da Vinci" Surgical System and the "Ion" endoluminal system. The company's products and related services enable physicians and healthcare providers to improve the quality of and access to minimally invasive care. The systems consist of a surgeon console or consoles, a patient-side cart, a high-performance vision system, and proprietary instruments and accessories. INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in CA Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Intuitive Surgical, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2022, that a class action complaint was filed against the company in the Northern District of California Court alleging anti-trust allegations relating to the service and repair of certain instruments manufactured by the Company. A complaint by Franciscan Alliance, Inc. was filed in July 6, 2021. The Court has consolidated said cases, which is now captioned as "In Re: da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation." Intuitive Surgical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets the "da Vinci" Surgical System and the "Ion" endoluminal system. The company's products and related services enable physicians and healthcare providers to improve the quality of and access to minimally invasive care. The systems consist of a surgeon console or consoles, a patient-side cart, a high-performance vision system, and proprietary instruments and accessories. INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Kaleida Health Dismissed as Party in Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Intuitive Surgical, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2022, that a class action complaint was filed against the company in the Northern District of California Court alleging anti-trust allegations relating to the service and repair of certain instruments manufactured by the company. The Court has consolidated the Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public Hospital District No. 1 and Kaleida Health cases with the Larkin Community Hospital case, which is now captioned on the Larkin docket as "In Re: da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation." A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint has been filed on behalf of each plaintiff named in the earlier-filed cases. On January 14, 2022, Kaleida Health voluntarily dismissed itself as a party to this case. IT'S A NEW 10: Faces Class Action Over "Miracle" Hair Shampoo ------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that in Thomas v. It's A New 10, LLC and It's A 10 Haircare, LLC, a proposed class action alleges the It's A 10 Potion 10 "miracle" hair repair shampoo and conditioner products are incapable of repairing hair as advertised. According to the 36-page lawsuit, the It's A 10 Potion 10 miracle hair repair products do not repair hair at all, "instantly or otherwise," and reasonable consumers have been misled by defendant It's A 10 Haircare's marketing into believing that the products can strengthen or rebuild hair. Be sure to scroll down to see which It's A 10 haircare products are mentioned in the lawsuit. "Defendant's uniform advertising and marketing of the Hair Repair Products is designed with the goal of enticing consumers to purchase the Hair Repair Products over other competing haircare products based on Defendant's bold promise to repair broken and/or damaged hair," the complaint alleges. More specifically, the case claims It's A 10 Haircare has targeted its advertising and marketing to a particular segment of women nationwide who are concerned about hair breakage. "Unfortunately for the millions of consumers who want to repair their damaged hair, the Hair Repair Products cannot deliver the promised result," the suit says. According to the filing, the It's A 10 Potion 10 shampoo and conditioner products contain no ingredients that are capable of repairing damaged hair. The suit stresses that because hair is already a collection of "the remnants of dead cells," it is beyond repair once damaged and certainly cannot be remedied with in-home treatments. To truly mend hair, the lawsuit relays, the "linkages" between the keratin proteins must be altered chemically, which cannot be achieved through over-the-counter shampoos and conditioners. "These treatments are expensive and must be done in professional settings under controlled conditions to receive a satisfactory result," the suit reads. "Even under these strict conditions, repair to an original state is still not possible." Even worse, the case says, the It's A 10 haircare products require frequent use, essentially "trap[ping] the consumer into an endless cycle of repeated purchase of the same deceptively marketed product." At most, according to the complaint, the product can create only the "temporary illusion" that a user's hair has been repaired. Although the products can and often do add material to the hair fiber, often as a coating on the outside of the hair, this only alters the look and feel of a user's hair temporarily and requires frequent re-treatment to "obtain the same illusion." "Defendant's promises, like its customers' hair, remain broken," the case reads. The specific It's A 10 products mentioned in the lawsuit include the following: * It's A 10 Potion 10 Miracle Instant Repair Leave-In Conditioner; * It's A 10 Potion 10 Miracle Instant Repair Daily Conditioner; * It's A 10 Potion 10 Miracle Repair Daily Shampoo; * It's A 10 Potion 10 Miracle Repair Hair Mask Deep Conditioner; and * It's A 10 Potion 10 Miracle Instant Repair Leave-In Conditioner. The lawsuit looks to cover all United States residents who bought any of the affected products within the fullest period allowed by law. [GN] J. CREW GROUP: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against J. Crew Group, LLC. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. J. Crew Group, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04217 (E.D.N.Y., July 18, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. J.Crew Group, Inc. -- https://www.jcrew.com/ -- is an American multi-brand, multi-channel, specialty retailer offering an assortment of women's, men's, and children's apparel and accessories, including swimwear, outerwear, lounge-wear, bags, sweaters, denim, dresses, suiting, jewelry, and shoes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com JAMES PERSE ENTERPRISES: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against James Perse Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. James Perse Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04220-EK-RML (E.D.N.Y., July 18, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. James Perse -- https://www.jamesperse.com/ -- is an apparel & fashion company offering apparel for men, women, and home fashion products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com JELD-WEN INC: Faulk Consumer Suit Removed to D. Alaska ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled DAVID G. FAULK and BONNIE J. FAULK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JELD-WEN, INC. d/b/a POZZI WINDOW COMPANY; SPENARD BUILDERS SUPPLY, LLC; and RODERICK C. WENDT, Case No. 3AN-22-06536CI, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at Anchorage, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska on July 21, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the District of Alaska assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00171-JMK to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract and express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, violation of Alaska Unlawful Trade Practices Act, unjust enrichment, breach of the implied covenant to act in good faith and fair dealing, and premised on fraud and misrepresentation. Jeld-Wen, Inc., doing business as Pozzi Window Company, is a manufacturing company, with its headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina. Spenard Builders Supply, LLC is a provider of building products, headquartered in Anchorage, Alaska. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer M. Coughlin, Esq. LANDYE BENNETT BLUMSTEIN LLP 701 West 8th Avenue, Suite 1100 Anchorage, AK 99501 Telephone: (907) 276-5152 Facsimile: (907) 276-8433 E-mail: jenniferc@lbblawyers.com JENNY YOO COLLECTION: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jenny Yoo Collection, Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Jenny Yoo Collection, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04221 (E.D.N.Y., July 18, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Jenny Yoo Collection -- https://www.jennyyoo.com/ -- offers modern dresses for the chic bride, bridesmaid, wedding guest, and flower girl.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com JERRY INSURANCE: Faces Hopper Suit Over Telemarketing Campaigns --------------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON HOOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JERRY INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-04232-NC (N.D. Cal., July 21, 2022) alleges that Defendant utilizes its website to harvest consumer telephone numbers that it then utilizes for telemarketing campaigns advertising its insurance services. The Defendant promises that "Jerry won't spam you with unwanted calls[,]" and that it requires consumers' telephone numbers to "confirm your identify and provide you custom quotes." See www.getjerry.com/signup/phone. This claim is false, and after acquiring Plaintiff's contact information -- and after being notified by the Plaintiff that she was not interested in Defendant's services -- the Defendant spammed Plaintiff's cellular telephone with daily text messages over the course of two weeks, says the suit. The Plaintiff therefore brings this putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A 1925 Century Park E., No. 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 438-5355 E-mail: Scott@Edelsberglaw.com JILCO INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jilco, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Jilco, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06110 (S.D.N.Y., July 18, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Jilco, Inc. -- https://jilcoinc.com/ -- is a PennDOT Prequalified DBE Subcontractor providing protective and aesthetic concrete coatings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Santander Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled FERNEY PINTO SANTANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV18737, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 21, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-05065 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 overtime, failure to pay all wages and minimum wages, failure to provide compliant meal periods, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failure to provide sick pay at the regular rate, failure to provide vacation pay at the regular rate, failure to provide COVID-19 supplemental paid leave at the regular rate, failure to timely pay wages during employment, waiting time penalties, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unfair business practices. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. Alexander L. Grodan, Esq. Joseph A. Govea, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Telephone: (714) 830-0600 Facsimile: (714) 830-0700 E-mail: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com alexander.grodan@morganlewis.com joseph.govea@morganlewis.com KENNETH COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Juarez Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ISIDRO FLORES JUAREZ, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. THE KENNETH COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation and KENNETH MALONEY, individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-03779 (N.D. Ill., July 21, 2022) is an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal-to-Portal Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff performed work on state public works projects that involved construction work in parks, public schools and in other public areas that were subject to Illinois prevailing wages. The prevailing wage in 2017 for laborers working in DuPage, Cook, Lake and Will Counties was $68.17, meanwhile Plaintiff was paid $15.00 per hour. The prevailing wage in 2018 for laborers working in DuPage, Cook, Lake and Will Counties was $70.19, meanwhile Plaintiff was paid $16.00 per hour. The prevailing wage in 2019 for laborers working in DuPage, Cook, Lake and Will Counties was $72.32, meanwhile Plaintiff was paid $16.00 per hour. The prevailing wage in 2020 for laborers working in DuPage, Cook, Lake and Will Counties was $72.32, meanwhile Plaintiff was paid $16.00 per hour. The prevailing wage in 2021 for laborers working in DuPage, Cook, Lake and Will Counties was $75.61, meanwhile Plaintiff was paid $16.00 per hour, the suit asserts. The Defendant owns and operates a landscaping business located at 16W064 Jeans Rd, Lemont, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Billhorn, Esq. Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 KIWIKO INC: Raslavich Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, ANNA RASLAVICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIWICO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 153487495 (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir. Ct., July 18, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action alleging that the Defendant engages in telephonic sales calls to consumers, without obtaining prior express written consent from them. On or after July 1, 2021, the Plaintiff has received the Defendant's telephonic sales call to her telephone number in an attempt to promote its goods and services. The Defendant allegedly made the calls by utilizing an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers, says the Plaintiff. The complaint further asserts that the Defendant's unsolicited telephonic sales calls have aggrieved the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals and thus, each are entitled to recover damages, costs, and attorney's fees from the Defendant as well as an injunction against future calls. KiwiCo, Inc. develops engaging hands-on STEAM projects and activities to spark curiosity and creativity in kids.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq. KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A. 2110 West Platt Street Tampa, FL 33606 Tel: (813) 422-7782 Fax: (813) 422-7783 E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com LA MER TECHNOLOGY: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against La Mer Technology Inc. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. La Mer Technology Inc. doing business as: Creme De La Mer, Case No. 1:22-cv-06136-JPC (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. La Mer Technology Inc. doing business as: Creme De La Mer -- https://www.cremedelamer.com/ -- provides skin care and cosmetic products. The Company produces face treatment, body treatment, and skin color treatment 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: mars@khaimovlaw.com LEMON TREE: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lemon Tree Development, LLC. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lemon Tree Development, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04214-RPK-RLM (E.D.N.Y., July 18, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lemon Tree -- https://lemontree.com/ -- offers a full range of professional salon services - including cutting and styling, blowouts, smoothing and color services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Johnson Suit Moved From M.D. to S.D. Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled THOMAS JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00420, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 21, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 9:22-cv-81066-AMC to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated field technicians their earned wages and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Level 3 Communications, LLC is a telecommunications company, with its principal place of business in Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com gnichols@wfclaw.com LIME ROCK: Colton Sues Over Unpaid Statutory Interest to Oil Owners ------------------------------------------------------------------- GREGG B. COLTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-00208-JAR (E.D. Okla., July 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to pay mineral owners, including the Plaintiff, statutory interest on untimely, or late, payments derived from the sale of oil or gas produced from wells located in Oklahoma. At various times since May 24, 2017, Continental has made royalty payments to the Plaintiff and Class members more than six months after the date of the first sale, and later than the last day of the second succeeding month after the end of the month within which such production is sold. The Plaintiff and Class members seek to recover damages who have received late payments from Continental which have not included the statutory interest as required by the law, says the suit. Continental Resources, Inc. is an operator of oil and gas wells, with its principal place of business located at 20 N. Broadway, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hicks, Esq. Trevor R. Henson, Esq. BARROW AND GRIMM, PC 110 W. Seventh St., Ste. 900 Tulsa, OK 74119 Telephone: (918) 584-1600 E-mail: jhicks@barrowgrimm.com - and – George A. Barton, Esq. Seth K. Jones, Esq. BARTON AND BURROWS, LLC 5201 Johnson Drive, Ste. 110 Mission, KS 66205 Telephone: (913) 563-6250 E-mail: George@bartonburrows.com Seth@bartonburrows.com LIME ROCK: Fails to Properly Pay Mineral Owners, Colton Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- GREGG B. COLTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIME ROCK RESOURCES GP V, L.P., LIME ROCK RESOURCES III-A GP, LLC, LIME ROCK RESOURCES III-A, L.P., LIME ROCK RESOURCES IV-A GP, LLC, LIME ROCK RESOURCES IV-A, L.P., LIME ROCK RESOURCES OPERATING COMPANY, INC., and LIME ROCK RESOURCES V-A, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00123-CRH (D.N.D., July 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of North Dakota Century Code. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to pay mineral owners, including the Plaintiff, statutory interest on untimely, or late, payments derived from the sale of oil or gas produced from wells located in North Dakota. At various times since July 15, 2016, Lime Rock has made royalty payments to the Plaintiff and Class members more than 150 days after oil or gas subject to the Class members' mineral interests has been marketed by Lime Rock, without paying the 18 percent per annum interest on such late payments, as required under NDCC. The Plaintiff and Class members seek to recover damages who have received late payments from Lime Rock, says the suit. Lime Rock Resources GP V, L.P. is an operator of oil and gas wells, with its principal place of business located at 274 Riverside Avenue, FL 3, Westport, Connecticut. Lime Rock Resources III-A GP, LLC is an operator of oil and gas wells, with its principal place of business located at 274 Riverside Avenue, FL 3, Westport, Connecticut. Lime Rock Resources III-A, L.P. is an operator of oil and gas wells, with its principal place of business located at 1111 Bagby St., Ste. 4600, Houston, Texas. Lime Rock Resources IV-A GP, LLC is an operator of oil and gas wells, with its principal place of business located at 274 Riverside Avenue, FL 3, Westport, Connecticut. Lime Rock Resources IV-A, L.P. is an operator of oil and gas wells, with its principal place of business located at 1111 Bagby St., Ste. 4600, Houston, Texas. Lime Rock Resources Operating Company, Inc. is an operator of oil and gas wells, with its principal place of business located at 1111 Bagby St., Ste. 4600, Houston, Texas. Lime Rock Resources V-A, L.P. is an operator of oil and gas wells, with its principal place of business located at 1111 Bagby St., Ste. 4600, Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George A. Barton, Esq. Stacy A. Burrows, Esq. BARTON AND BURROWS, LLC 5201 Johnson Drive, Ste. 110 Mission, KS 66205 Telephone: (913) 563-6250 E-mail: George@bartonburrows.com Stacy@bartonburrows.com LING LTD: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ling, Ltd. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Ling, Ltd., Case No. 1:22-cv-04215 (E.D.N.Y., July 18, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ling, Ltd. -- https://www.lingskincare.com/ -- offers and skin care tips from the skin care guru, Ling Chan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com LOTTE HOTEL: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lotte Hotel New York Palace, LLC. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lotte Hotel New York Palace, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04216 (E.D.N.Y., July 18, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Lotte New York Palace -- https://www.lottenypalace.com/ -- is the first five-star hotel in NYC's history offering ultra-luxurious amenities, distinctive events spaces, and opulent suites.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com LOWE'S HOME: Bartholomew Can't Compel All Privilege Log Documents ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DIANE BARTHOLOMEW, MICHAEL SHERRY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-695-JLB-KCD (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel All Lowe's Privilege Log Documents or For In Camera Review. The lawsuit is an employment dispute traveling as a class action. Plaintiffs Bartholomew and Sherry are sales associates at Lowes. When they started, their compensation included commissions. In 2012, Lowes ceased paying commissions and created a hybrid pay structure where associates received an "allowance" based on prior sales. Fast forward another several years and Lowes ended the allowance program too. That left Plaintiffs receiving a straight hourly wage. They then brought the class action suit, claiming cessation of the allowance program is age discrimination and unjust enrichment. The case has been contentious from the beginning. The parties have fought about the sufficiency of the complaint, whether to stay discovery, Lowes' affirmative defenses, class certification, and whether Lowes has properly designated documents under the parties' confidentiality agreement. That all leads to the present discovery dispute about Lowes' privilege log. The discovery started in April 2020 when Lowes disclosed its first batch of documents. This production was apparently not complete -- Lowes withheld several categories of documents awaiting a confidentiality agreement. Once the Plaintiffs agreed to a protective order, Lowes resumed discovery production. Over several months, Lowes disclosed thousands of documents and emails about its decision to change the associate pay structure. In October 2020 Lowes served its first privilege log. It contained about 200 entries marked "Attorney-Client Privilege." The Plaintiffs objected to the log, claiming it was not specific enough to vet the privilege assertion. The discovery process worked as it should, and after some back-and-forth, Lowes agreed to prepare a new privilege log. The resulting document, with 181 entries, added new fields to help the Plaintiffs identify how the documents were privileged. The Plaintiffs again objected. And again the discovery process envisioned by the Federal Rules worked. After several phone calls, Lowes produced a third privilege log -- the document now in dispute. A few additional details are important. The third privilege log contains only 103 documents. Doing some quick lawyer math, that means Lowes agreed to disclose around 80 documents (or at least parts of them) previously withheld as privileged. The Plaintiffs have attached several of those documents to their motion to compel. They mainly consist of internal emails among Lowes' management. The Plaintiffs received Lowes' third privilege log in April 2022 -- for those keeping track, that's two years after the first production. Things speed up from there. The parties conferred throughout April, but Lowes declined to keep revising the privilege log. The instant motion followed a month later. The Plaintiffs seek "to compel production of all entries on Lowes' third privilege log, or, alternatively, request the Court's in camera review." Lowes is withholding documents under the attorney-client privilege. The ultimate touchstone for application of the privilege is whether the communication reveals advice from an attorney. If one of the primary purposes of the communication is to convey legal advice, then the attorney-client privilege generally attaches. The party seeking shelter under the attorney-client privilege must prove it applies. To accomplish this task without revealing the protected information, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for a privilege log. To look behind a privilege log, or strike it altogether as the Plaintiffs seek, there must be some showing that an issue with the privilege claim exists. The Plaintiffs press several arguments. Judge Dudek starts with their broadest: "Lowes has not met its burden." The only question to decide is whether the Plaintiffs shown enough to doubt the privilege log. There must be a factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person that in camera review of the materials may reveal that the privilege was improperly asserted. To meet their burden, the Plaintiffs insist that Lowes concealed discoverable documents "in its privilege log." Their argument stems from Lowes identifying several emails on its second privilege log that were removed from the third version and produced. According to them, "this belated disclosure, by itself, is an independently sufficient reason for the Court to grant the instant motion." Judge Dudek disagrees, saying Lowes' revision of its privilege log is evidence of its good faith efforts to ensure that its privilege log is accurate and correct. Moving on, the Plaintiffs emphasize that many documents on the privilege log are communications between non-attorneys. And where an attorney is included, the communications often lack a "confidential" designation. These discrepancies, according to the Plaintiffs, also undermine the privilege. Yet again, Judge Dudek is unconvinced. He says, the attorney-client privilege covers communications between non-lawyers. And it is not unusual to see non-attorney communications on a corporate privilege log. Since the decision-making power of a corporation is often shared, the circulation of privileged communications among several employees (including non-lawyers) is unavoidable. The Plaintiffs' argument about the lack of confidentiality markings likewise falls flat. Judge Dudek holds that documents need not be marked "confidential" for the attorney-client privilege to attach. What matters is how the documents were shared. The attorney-client privilege applies to legal "communications between corporate employees who have a need to know in the scope of their corporate responsibilities." The Plaintiffs offer nothing beyond speculation to suggest that the materials on Lowes' privilege log were disclosed to anyone outside those with a need to know. And speculation is not enough. The Plaintiffs' final effort to upend the privilege log is based on waiver. They claim that Lowes waived any privilege by "asserting the reasonable-factor-other-than-age defense." Judge Dudek holds that the Plaintiffs ask too much of the implied waiver doctrine. Lowes' RFOA defense does not put its attorney-client communications "at issue" in the sense required. The Plaintiffs can discover "who knew what and when" through other means such as deposition testimony. Judge Dudek concludes that the relief the Plaintiffs seeks -- in camera review or full disclosure of the privilege log -- is strong medicine. Either path ends with the Court invading the confidentiality of communications that Lowes has certified are privileged under the penalty of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Thee confidentiality of attorney-client communications is an interest traditionally deemed worthy of maximum legal protection. The facts are not enough for the Court to strip Lowes of this legal protection. A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/54zpcn25 from Leagle.com. MADISON AVENUE: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Madison Avenue Advisors. The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Madison Avenue Advisors, Case No. 1:22-cv-06123 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Madison Avenue Advisors, LLC -- https://www.madisonavenueadvisors.com/ -- is a financial organization in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (917) 796-7437 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com MARS INC: Faces Class Action Over Toxins in Skittles Candy ---------------------------------------------------------- Denise Craig, writing for Nexstar, writing for reports a California lawsuit recently put Mars, Inc. in the hot seat, claiming one of its candies contained toxins that are unsafe to eat. The class action suit filed earlier this month accuses the candy manufacturer of including "heightened levels" of titanium dioxide, or TiO2, in its Skittles candy. The petitioner pointed to the European Union phasing out the use of titanium dioxide with a full ban going into place next month; however, Skittles aren't the only popular American food containing ingredients banned or limited in other countries. Here are just a few American snacks you won't find in other countries: Mountain Dew & Fresca Americans who "do the Dew" might be surprised to learn the product contains brominated vegetable oil. BVO is banned in Japan and the European Union because it contains bromine, the element found in brominated flame retardants, which can build up in the body and potentially lead to memory loss as well as skin and nerve problems. The grapefruit-flavored soda, Fresca, also contains the ingredient. Little Debbie Swiss Rolls Products in the European Union containing Yellow 5 and Red 40 carry warnings that they cause adverse effects in children, but you won't find that warning on a box of Little Debbie Swiss Rolls in the US. Norway and Austria have banned the snack cakes outright. Several Breakfast Cereals Popular breakfast cereals including Frosted Flakes, Honey Bunches of Oats, and Rice Krispies contain BHT. Used as a flavor enhancer, BHT has long been studied for its potential carcinogenic properties. While the evidence is inconclusive, BHT is banned in Japan and the European Union. Other cereals, such as Lucky Charms, use Yellow 5, Yellow 6 and Red 40, despite being known to cause itching and hives for some. Stove Top stuffing Kraft Stove Top stuffing might make weeknight dinners easier, but it also contains the same BHT found in American breakfast cereals, as well as BHA, which at high doses, causes cancer in rats, mice and hamsters. Both preservatives are banned in the United Kingdom, Japan and several European countries. Ritz Crackers & Coffee-mate Trans fats were officially banned in the U.S. in 2018; however, some trans fats such as partially hydrogenated soybean and cottonseed oils can still be found in popular products such as Ritz Crackers and Coffee-mate creamers. These ingredients are also banned in Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Iceland, Norway and Denmark. Drumstick frozen desserts Drumstick uses carrageenan, derived from seaweed, for texture in its ice cream. Carrageenan can affect the human digestive system which has led to its limited use in the European Union. [GN] MDL 3030: Six Anti-Trust Suits Consolidated in N.D. Ill. -------------------------------------------------------- In IN RE: DEERE & COMPANY REPAIR SERVICES ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 3030, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order consolidating three cases from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and one each from Northern District of Alabama, Western District of Oklahoma and the Eastern District of Tennessee, all to the Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Iain D. Johnston for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Defendant Deere & Company moved to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois or, alternatively, the Central District of Illinois. All responding plaintiffs, including plaintiffs in four potential tag-along actions, support centralization, but the parties disagree as to the appropriate transferee forum. On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, the panel said that these actions share factual issues arising from allegations that, through various anticompetitive practices, Deere has monopolized the market for repair and maintenance services for Deere agricultural equipment equipped with engine control units by restricting access to necessary repair-related software and diagnostic tools. The actions assert substantially identical claims under the Sherman Act, along with claims of unjust enrichment or promissory estoppel, and seek identical relief. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to class certification, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. The panel concluded that the Northern District of Illinois is the appropriate transferee district for pretrial proceedings in this litigation since majority of the parties support centralization in this district, and it offers a geographically central and readily accessible forum for this nationwide litigation. Deere has also represented that relevant witnesses and documents will be found at its headquarters in Moline, Illinois, which is reasonably nearby, note the panel. A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2022 Transfer Order is available at https://bit.ly/3Q2dkBp MDL 3031: Three Direct Purchaser Actions Transferred to D. Minn. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In IN RE: DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFF BEEF ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 3031, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order transferring one case each from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Southern District of Florida and Northern District of New York, all to the District of Minnesota and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge John R. Tunheim for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs in the three actions moved to centralize this litigation in the District of Minnesota. The three actions on the motion are individual direct purchaser actions alleging a price fixing conspiracy among leading American beef producers. Movants seek an MDL consisting of only individual direct purchaser actions. The panel agrees that this is the appropriate transferee district for this litigation as this is a readily accessible district. A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Transfer Order is available at https://bit.ly/3S6jkLr MDL 3032: 7 Rodent Infestation Cases Consolidated in W.D. Tenn. --------------------------------------------------------------- In the rodent infestation case at the Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis, Arkansas captioned IN RE: FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., PEST INFESTATION LITIGATION, MDL No. 3032, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order consolidating one case each from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western District of Louisiana, Southern District of Mississippi, Western District of Missouri, Western District of Tennessee and the Eastern District of Virginia, all to the Western District of Tennessee and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Sheryl H. Lipman for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The panel concluded that the Western District of Tennessee is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation as Tennessee is one of the six states affected by the infestation, and the Western District is near the West Memphis, Arkansas Distribution Center at the center of this litigation, where witnesses and other relevant evidence likely are located. Plaintiffs in the majority of actions support centralization in this district, and it is the second choice of the Family Dollar defendants. A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2022 Transfer Order is available at https://bit.ly/3JmCSaf MDL 3033: Panel Denies Centralization of 3 Cases to E.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned "In re: Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania Rehabilitation Plan Litigation," MDL No. 3033, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order denying the transfer of three actions pending in the Southern District of Iowa, the District of New Jersey and the District of North Dakota to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Defendants Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania (SHIP), Michael Humphreys, Acting Insurance Commissioner for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Statutory Rehabilitator of SHIP and Patrick Cantilo, Special Deputy Rehabilitator of SHIP requested the centralization move. The panel concluded that centralization is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. These actions involve the enforcement of a rehabilitation plan for SHIP that was approved by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in 2021. Plaintiffs, who are state insurance commissioners and regulatory agencies, seek to enjoin defendants from implementing the rehabilitation plan as to policyholders in their respective states without first obtaining approval from the state insurance regulator of any rate or benefit changes. The actions undoubtedly are similar and share some factual questions. But where, as here, "only a minimal number of actions are involved, the proponent of centralization bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that centralization is appropriate." Defendants have not satisfied their burden to show that the benefits of centralization outweigh the disruption to the pending actions and inconvenience that would be imposed on the parties and witnesses. The panel contends that centralization appears premature. Plaintiffs in each action have moved to remand those actions to state court. One of the actions initially listed on the motion already has been remanded. The panel said that a reasonable prospect exists that this litigation could, in relatively short order, lose its multidistrict character or be remanded in its entirety. Setting aside the pending remand motions, resolution of these actions likely will hinge on legal questions and that there is no factual dispute as to the conduct of the proceedings in the Commonwealth Court or the terms of the rehabilitation plan. These actions thus primarily present a legal question--whether defendants must obtain approval for rate and benefit changes from the insurance regulators of the states where they seek to implement the rehabilitation plan. Defendants contend that these actions will entail dueling actuarial experts with respect to how implementation of the rehabilitation plan versus partial implementation will affect policyholders and the viability of SHIP. Whether the rehabilitation plan is reasonable, though, does not appear central to the dispute regarding which state regulators have the final say as to implementation of the rehabilitation plan. And, to the extent these actions present common factual questions, alternatives to centralization are available to minimize any duplication in pretrial proceedings. The small number of involved courts and counsel here should facilitate informal coordination of any overlapping discovery, notes the Panel. A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2022 Order is available at https://bit.ly/3vreoad MDL 3034: 7 Neo Wireless Suits Consolidated in E.D. Mich. --------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district litigation captioned IN RE: NEO WIRELESS, LLC, PATENT LITIGATION, MDL No. 3035, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order transferring three cases from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and one each from the Western District of Missouri, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern District of Tennessee and the Middle District of Tennessee to the Eastern District of Michigan and assigned to Terrence G. Berg for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Neo Wireless LLC moved to centralize this litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. The actions in this litigation involve six patents owned by Neo in the field of wireless communication systems. Neo alleges in all actions that the patents share common inventors and a common assignment history from Neocific, Inc. The patents are alleged to stem from a set of patent families describing improvements in wireless systems that have become relevant to the operation of 4G/LTE and 5G/New Radio cellular networks and compatible devices in the U.S. All accused infringers in these seven actions are automaker groups who are alleged to implement cellular communications technology into their vehicles, such as remote lock and unlock, remote start and remote start scheduling, parked vehicle location, remote fuel level checks, automatic collision notification, roadside assistance, and Wi-Fi hotspot. Neo alleges that because the patents all relate to fundamental aspects of LTE/4G and 5G/NR networks, the patents read directly onto LTE or 4G/5G technical standards. As a result, by complying with these standards, each defendant allegedly infringes the asserted patents. All actions thus can be expected to share factual questions concerning such matters as the technology underlying the patents, prior art, claim construction, and/or issues of infringement involving the patents. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Opposing defendants principally argued that centralization in the Eastern District of Texas would be inconvenient. They also argued that the litigation is not advanced enough to determine whether there are sufficient common factual questions to warrant centralization, cooperation among the parties is a preferable alternative to centralization, and plaintiffs are engaging in forum shopping. Though it is true that these cases are in their earliest stages, the panel has observed already that the patents and claims asserted in these actions overlap completely. While there may be variations in the specific wireless features used in defendants' vehicles, all defendants are in the same industry with similar allegedly infringing products, and all are alleged to have infringed the same patents merely by implementing LTE or 4G/5G standards. The panel held that infringement allegations concerning the implementation of certain industry standards weigh in favor of centralization. Moreover, the common early procedural posture among the actions will facilitate their efficient coordination. A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2022 Transfer Order is available at https://bit.ly/3Q1k02G MDL 3035: Five Case Consolidated in W.D. Tenn. ---------------------------------------------- In case captioned "In Re: AME Church Employee Retirement Fund Litigation," MDL No. 3035, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order centralizing two cases from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and one each from the Middle District of Florida, District of Maryland and the Eastern District of Virginia to the Western District of Tennessee and assigned to S. Thomas Anderson for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. All responding parties support centralization, but disagree on the transferee district. Plaintiffs in the District of Maryland action request centralization in the District of Maryland, plaintiffs in the other three actions on the motion and one potential tag-along action support the motion to centralize these actions in the Western District of Tennessee. Responding defendants African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME Church), Reverend Dr. Jerome V. Harris, Newport Group, Inc. and Symetra Financial Corporation also support centralization in the Western District of Tennessee. The panel concluded that the Western District of Tennessee is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. The AME Church Department of Retirement Services has its principal place of business in this district, and its former director during the relevant time period allegedly resides there. Thus, common evidence likely will be located there. Two actions on the motion are pending in the Western District of Tennessee, and nearly all responding parties support centralization in this district. AME Church is located in the adjacent district, in Nashville, Tennessee and is expected to be the subject of common discovery. A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2022 Transfer Order is available at https://bit.ly/3Q8JCe9 MEDICAL REVIEW: Co-Lead & Liaison Counsel Named in White and Purvis ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, SHANE WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDICAL REVIEW INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, LLC, Defendant. KAREN PURVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDICAL REVIEW INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, LLC, Defendant. AHMED AMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDICAL REVIEW INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, LLC, Defendant. JOEL THORNTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDICAL REVIEW INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, LLC, Defendant. PATRICIA A. DEAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDICAL REVIEW INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Consolidated Case No. 2:22cv00082-DAK-DAO, Case Nos. 2:22cv0099, 2:22cv0132, 2:22cv0181, 2:22cv0226 (D. Utah), Judge Dale A. Kimball of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah issued an order: (1) granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Consolidate Cases and Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Counsel filed by Plaintiffs Karen Purvis and Patricia A. Dean; and (2) denying the Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel and Liaison Counsel Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3) filed by Plaintiffs Shane White, Ahmed Amer, and Joel Thornton. The Purvis Plaintiffs and the White Plaintiffs agree that the five related actions should be consolidated into the first-filed action, White v. Medical Review Institute of America, LLC, 2:22cv00082 DAK-DAO. Judge Kimball finds that the parties have established good cause for the consolidation of the related cases pending in this district. He says, these cases arise from the same nucleus of common facts, are brought against a common Defendant -- Medical Review Institute of America -- and raise many of the same questions of law. Consolidation will provide for complete resolution in one proceeding and avoid unnecessary duplication of work and the risk of inconsistent adjudications, thereby promoting the interests of judicial economy and convenience with no prejudice to the parties and the putative class. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) and Local Rule DUCivR 42-1(a), the Motion to Consolidate is granted, and the following cases are consolidated into the instant case: Karen Purvis v. Medical Review Institute of America, LLC, 2:22cv00009; Ahmed Amer v. v. Medical Review Institute of America, LLC, 2:22cv00132; Joel Thornton v. Medical Review Institute of America, LLC, 2:22cv00181; and Patricia A. Dean v. Medical Review Institute of America, LLC, 2:22cv00226. All filings made in the Related Action are deemed to have been made in the case without needing to refile the documents. All future papers filed in the Consolidated Action will be filed under Case No. 2:22cv00082 DAK-DAO and will bear the following caption: THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH IN RE MEDICAL REVIEW INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, LLC, DATA BREACH LITIGATION Lead Case No. 2:22cv0082-DAK-DAO Judge Dale A. Kimball Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg This Document Relates to: _____ The White Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint (i) Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC; and (ii) William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood as Interim Co-Lead Counsel; along with (iii) Charles H. Thronson of Parsons Behle & Latimer as Interim Liaison Counsel. On the other hand, the Purvis Plaintiffs seek appointment of (i) Ben Barnow of Barnow and Associates, P.C.; (ii) Timothy G. Blood of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP; and (iii) Gary E. Mason of Mason LLP as Interim Co-Lead Counsel; along with (iv) Jennifer Fraser Parrish of Magleby Cataxinos & Greenwood, PC as Interim Liaison Counsel. Based on the briefing of these motions, along with the attached exhibits, it appears that both sets of proposed interim co-lead counsel and liaison counsel satisfy the four factors that Judge Kimball must consider. The White Attorneys were the first to file in this District. Additionally, another factor weighing in favor of appointing the White Attorneys is that they have filed the majority of the pending Related Cases. Accordingly, having considered the relevant factors, Judge Kimball finds that appointing the White Attorneys to manage this litigation would best serve the interests of the proposed class. Accordingly, he appoints Gary Klinger (Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC) and William B. Federman (Federman & Sherwood), as the Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Charles H. Thronson (Parsons Behle & Latimer) as the Liaison Counsel for all Plaintiffs. The nterim Co-Lead Counsel must assume responsibility for the duties during all phases of the litigation, including but not limited to: a) Coordinating the work of preparing and presenting all of the Plaintiffs' claims and otherwise coordinating all proceedings, including organizing and supervising the efforts of their counsel in a manner to ensure that their pretrial preparation is conducted effectively, efficiently, expeditiously, and economically; b) Delegating work responsibilities and monitoring the activities of all the Plaintiffs' counsel in a manner to promote the orderly and efficient conduct of the litigation and to avoid unnecessary duplication and expense; and c) Calling meetings of the Plaintiffs' counsel for any appropriate purpose, including coordinating responses to questions of other parties or of the court, and initiating proposals, suggestions, schedules, and any other appropriate matters. Judge Kimball appoints Charles H. Thronson (Parsons Behle & Latimer) as the Interim Liaison Counsel for all Plaintiffs. The Interim Liaison Counsel is responsible for performing the duties and responsibilities described in the Manual for Complex Litigation (4th) Section 21.221 (2004), including facilitating and expediting communications with and among Plaintiffs' counsel and fulfilling such other duties as requested by the Court or the Interim Lead Counsel. Judge Kimball also orders the following: a) Interim Liaison Counsel is designated as the counsel for all Plaintiffs in all cases upon whom others must serve all notices, orders, pleadings, motions, discovery, and memoranda. b) Interim Liaison Counsel is authorized to: (a) receive orders, notices, correspondence, and telephone calls from the court and the clerk of the court on Plaintiffs' behalf; (b) prepare and transmit copies of such orders and notices on Plaintiffs' behalf; and (c) receive orders and notices from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, if any. c) Interim Liaison Counsel will maintain complete files with copies of all documents served and make such files available to all Plaintiffs' counsel on request. d) Interim Liaison Counsel must maintain and make available to all counsel and the court an up-to-date service list. e) Interim Liaison Counsel will assume other responsibilities as may be deemed appropriate by the Interim Lead Counsel or as ordered by the Court. Any discussions of a settlement of the litigation will be conducted by the Interim Co-Lead Counsel and any counsel designated by former. In advance of each status conference, the Interim Co-Lead Counsel and the Defendant's counsel will meet and confer regarding the agenda for the conference. Unless otherwise ordered, their counsel will file a joint notice setting out the proposed agenda and the parties' joint and/or respective positions no later than five calendar days prior to each status conference. Judge Kimball's Order applies to all actions included in the consolidated matters and all subsequently consolidated actions. The Interim Co-Lead Counsel must serve a copy of the Order and all future orders promptly on the counsel for the Plaintiffs in each related action not yet consolidated in the proceeding to the extent that it is aware of any such action(s) and on all attorneys for the Plaintiffs whose cases have been so consolidated but who have not yet registered for ECF. The initial deadlines for the Consolidated Action are as follows: a) The Plaintiffs will file a Consolidated Complaint no later than 30 days following entry of the Order; b) The Defendant will file an answer or otherwise respond to the Consolidated Complaint within 30 days of the filing of the Consolidated Complaint; c) The Plaintiffs will file an opposition memorandum to any motion to dismiss or similar motion filed in response to the Consolidated Complaint within 30 days of any such motion; d) The Defendant will file a reply in support of any motion to dismiss or similar motion within 14 days of the Plaintiffs' opposition memorandum; and e) The Defendant need not file a response to the Complaints in Purvis, Amer, Thornton, or Dean, and any orders related to scheduling previously entered in White, Purvis, Amer, Thornton, or Dean are vacated. A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3ffa6bd3 from Leagle.com. METRO MAILING SERVICE: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metro Mailing Service Inc., et al. The case is styled as Daniel Perez, and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. Metro Mailing Service Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2022-00323567-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 18, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Metro Mailing Service -- https://www.callmms.com/ -- provides complete mailing services for all classes and types of mailings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Galen T. Shimoda, Esq. SHIMODA LAW CORP. 9401 E Stockton Blvd., Ste. 120 Elk Grove, CA 95624-5050 Phone: 916-525-0716 Fax: 916-760-3733 Email: attorney@shimodalaw.com MICHAEL STOCKBRIDGE: Stockbridge Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Michael Stockbridge, Xavier Castro, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) v. Skywest Airlines, Inc., Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV13789 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 19, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04935-DMG-JC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt. Relations. SkyWest Airlines -- https://www.skywest.com/ -- is an American regional airline headquartered in St. George, Utah, United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Roland Bainer, Esq. BAINER LAW FIRM 1999 Harrison Street Suite 1800 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 922-1802 Email: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Amanda Whitney Molinari, Esq. Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq. JONES DAY 555 South Flower Street 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 489-3939 Fax: (213) 243-2539 Email: amolinari@jonesday.com asommerfeld@jonesday.com - and - Patricia T. Stambelos STAMBELOS LAW OFFICE 543 Country Club Drive Suite B209 Simi Valley, CA 93065 Phone: (805) 578-3474 Fax: (895) 994-0199 MICHIGAN: Court Dismisses Simpson-Vlach v. MDE Without Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Judith E. Levy of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, dismisses the case, Rita C. Simpson-Vlach, et al., Plaintiffs v. Michigan Department of Education, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-11532 (E.D. Mich.), without prejudice. The Defendants include a state educational agency, local educational agencies ("LEA"), and individuals affiliated with these agencies who are being sued in their official capacities. Plaintiffs Rita C. Simpson-Vlach, Alan Simpson-Vlach, Kathy Bishop, and Christopher Place, who are residents of Ann Arbor, Michigan, are parents of children with disabilities, who bring the action "individually and on behalf of their children," with disabilities: A.S., M.S., C.P., and H.P. They filed the complaint on June 30, 2021. On Jan. 27, 2022, the Court held a hearing by video conference and heard oral argument. The Defendants are the Michigan Department of Education ("MDE"), the Ann Arbor Public Schools ("AAPS" or "District"), the Washtenaw Intermediate School District ("WISD"), Jeanice Swift (the Superintendent of the AAPS), Marianne Fidishin (the Executive Director of Student Intervention and Support Services for the AAPS), Scott Menzel (the former Interim Superintendent of the WISD), Naomi Norman (the current Interim Superintendent of the WISD), and Michael F. Rice (the State Superintendent for the MDE). They divide themselves into three groups: (1) the State Defendants, which consist of the MDE and Rice; (2) the AAPS Defendants, which consist of the AAPS, Swift, and Fidishin; and (3) the WISD Defendants, which consist of the WISD, Menzel, and Norman. Each group of Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated their rights when the AAPS closed in March 20202 due to the COVID-19 public health crisis and improperly switched from providing in-person instruction and services to providing virtual instruction and services. Plaintiffs allege violations of various state and federal laws, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. Section 1400, et seq. With respect to the four student Plaintiffs, the complaint alleges that on March 16, 2020, AAPS ceased all in-person education due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of closure of AAPS schools, AAPS altered A.S.'s, M.S.'s, C.P.'s, and H.P.'s IEPs for the 2019-2020 school year to complete virtual instruction and services without any prior written notice and/or the proper participation of parents. The alterations and concomitant placement of A.S., M.S., C.P., and H.P. at home receiving virtual instruction and services was procedurally defective because AAPS: (i) altered their IEPs to complete virtual instruction without prior written notice or any written notice; (ii) altered their IEPs without the meaningful participation of their parents; (iii) failed to reconvene an IEP meeting at a time that was mutually agreeable with parents prior to, or even soon after, changing their placement from in-person instruction and services to home placement with virtual instruction and services; and (iv) failed to ensure that they could access a free and appropriate public education on the same level as their non-disabled peers. During the 2019-2020 school year, from March 16, 2020 through June 12, 2020, A.S., M.S., C.P., and H.P. attended school at home with virtual instruction and services. During the 2020-2021 school year, A.S., M.S., and C.P. attended school at home with virtual instruction and/or services until May of 2021 when AAPS offered a hybrid option, while H.P. attended school at home receiving virtual instruction and services until January of 2021 when her mother placed her in a private school. In other words, the Plaintiffs allege that the AAPS unilaterally changed the location and mechanism of the delivery of instruction and related services from at school/in person to at home/virtual during the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years. They believe this change altered the student Plaintiffs' IEPs and educational placements and affected their access to a FAPE. The Plaintiffs' complaint contains eight counts. In Count 1, they allege that the WISD, AAPS, and MDE committed four "systemic violations" of the IDEA. In Count 2, they allege that the "Defendants" violated Rules 300.324 and 300.518 of the Michigan Administrative Rules for Special Education ("MARSE"). In Count 3, the Plaintiffs allege that the AAPS (and possibly the MDE) violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. In Count 4, they allege that the AAPS (and possibly the MDE) violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In Count 5, the Plaintiffs allege that the AAPS (and possibly the MDE) violated the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act. In Count 6, they assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against "Defendants," alleging a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection violation. In Count 7, they allege that the individual Defendants (Swift, Fidishin, Menzel, Norman, and Rice) violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. In Count 8, they assert a RICO conspiracy claim against the individual Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' actions caused them to suffer "damages, including regressions in skills and loss of competencies regarding the goals and objectives outlined in their IEPs." The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief. They also seek fees, costs, and expenses (including attorney fees). In the complaint's "Prayer for Relief," they ask that the Court: 1. asserts jurisdiction over the matter; 2. certifies the action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2); 3. issues a declaratory judgment that the class members' pendency placement is in-person instruction and services; 4. issues a declaratory judgment that AAPS and other similarly situated LEAs' unilateral change of placement of the Plaintiffs from in-person instruction and services to virtual instruction and services violated the procedural safeguards of IDEA and discriminated against the Plaintiffs under IDEA, MARSE, Section 504, the ADA, the PWDCRA and Section 1983; 5. issues a declaratory judgment that the MDE failed to monitor and provide proper oversight and resources to AAPS and other similarly situated LEAs during the COVID-19 pandemic as required under IDEA and MARSE; 6. orders the MDE, WISD, AAPS and other similarly situated LEAs to comply with the procedural safeguards guaranteed by IDEA for the 2021-2022 school year for the class members unless the U.S. Department of Education issues IDEA waivers; 7. assigns a Special Monitor to: a) oversee the completion of Independent Education Evaluations for all the class members to determine regressions and loss of competencies due to the unilateral changes to their IEPs and placements, and reconvene IEP Team meetings within thirty days of the completion of the IEEs; b) make expert recommendations to the Court regarding compensatory education or pendency payments for the class members to address any regressions and/or loss of competencies; c) ensure the expert recommendations are included in writing in the class members' IEP documents; 8. requires the MDE and its LEAs to comply with IDEA, MARSE, the ADA, Section 504, the PWDCRA and Section 1983 in the event of any future school closures for which the U.S. DOE does not issue IDEA waivers; 9. assigns a RICO Special Monitor to: a) oversee the completion of an independent audit of the Defendants' expenditures of their IDEA Part B Funds from March of 2020 to the present; b) oversee the Defendants' expenditures of their IDEA Part B Funds for the 2021-2022 school year to ensure the Defendants spend IDEA Part B Funds for instruction and/or services for students with disabilities under IDEA; c) ensure any IDEA Part B Funds that the Defendants spent on items other than instruction and/or services for students with disabilities under IDEA from March of 2020 through the present are reimbursed to a monitored account to be spent only upon review and approval by the RICO Special Monitor; 10. declares the Plaintiffs to be the substantially prevailing party (for purposes of IDEA's fee shifting provision); 11. grants leave to the Plaintiffs to submit a statutory fee application; 12. directs the Defendants to pay for the costs and expenses for maintaining the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees; 13. awards attorneys' fees pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 and the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act; 14. retains jurisdiction over this action until such time as this Court is satisfied that the systemic violations of the laws and regulations complained of herein have been rectified; and 15. grants such other or further relief that the Court may deem just and proper. During the Jan. 27, 2022 hearing, the Plaintiffs' counsel informed the Court that the Plaintiffs are no longer pursuing Count 8. In a document filed on Feb. 17, 2022, the Plaintiffs provided the following information regarding the status of each count: 1. Count I: The IDEA cause of action remains as to the systemic violations for named Plaintiffs and both the systemic and FAPE violations for putative class members. The Plaintiffs continue to seek prospective, injunctive relief to prevent further systemic violations. 2. Count II: The Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss the MARSE Cause of Action in Count II as to State Defendants only. 3. Count III: The Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss the Section 504 claim in Count III as to all Defendants. 4. Count IV: The cause of action under the ADA remains as to the disparate impact of the COVID school closings. 5. Count V: The Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss the PWDCRA claim under Count V as to State Defendants only. 6. Count VI: The Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss the Section 1983 claim in Count VI as to all Defendants. 7. Count VII: The Plaintiffs continue to seek prospective, injunctive relief for RICO violations outlined in Count VII. 8. Count VIII: The Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss Count VIII as to all Defendants. Thus, the remaining counts are Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 (but the claims in Counts 2 and 5 are no longer asserted against the State Defendants). The complaint states that the parent Plaintiffs "filed administrative due process complaints against the Defendants but did not exhaust their administrative due process remedies under 20 U.S.C. Section 1415(i)(2), on behalf of A.S., M.S., C.P., and H.P., because their claims fall within the exceptions specified by law." The MDE received Plaintiffs' four proposed due process complaints on Aug. 6, 2021. On Jan. 11, 2022, the parties filed a joint update in the case regarding the outcome of the administrative proceedings. The parties indicate in their filing that on Aug. 9, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed four due process complaints with the State of Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules against the Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS): In the Matter of R.S.V. obo M.S.V. v. Ann Arbor Public Schools, Docket No. 21-017885; In the Matter of R.S.V. obo A.S.V. v. Ann Arbor Public Schools, Docket No. 21-017893; In the Matter of K.B. obo H.P. v. Ann Arbor Public Schools, Docket No. 21-017895; and In the Matter of K.B. obo C.P. v. Ann Arbor Public Schools, Docket No. 21-017897. In November 2021, the Plaintiffs and AAPS entered into Release and Settlement Agreements in each of these matters. Pursuant to these Release and Settlement Agreements, Administrative Law Judge Michael J. St. John entered Orders of Dismissal dismissing each matter with prejudice in November 2021. All four Agreements state: "The Parents and the District voluntarily enter into this Agreement to resolve the disputes alleged in the Due Process Complaint regarding the Student's right to a FAPE under IDEA." Three of the Agreements address the provision of compensatory services. Out of these three Agreements, two of them also provide that the AAPS will pay a certain sum to the parents "as unrestricted funds for the benefit of the Student" and "to compensate Parents for out-of-pocket costs they have incurred for the Student's tutoring during the period when the Student was participating in virtual instruction." The fourth Agreement provides that the AAPS will pay $3,500 to the parents "as unrestricted funds for the benefit of the Student" and "to compensate Parents for tuition expenses incurred by the Parents as a result of the Student's enrollment in private school." In his November 2021 orders dismissing with prejudice the four administrative matters identified, Administrative Law Judge St. John notes that the parties "requested that the hearing in each matter be dismissed." The order issued in each matter states that the dismissal is with prejudice and the file in the matter is closed. Article III Standing The AAPS Defendants argue that H.P.'s claims should be dismissed because H.P. does not have standing to bring a claim for compensatory services given that she is "no longer enrolled in the District." They indicate that since January 2021, H.P. has been "attending the Daycroft Montessori School, a private program located within the Dexter Community School District." In their response to the AAPS Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs argue that "H.P. has standing to pursue compensatory services for the AAPS Defendants' violation of IDEA procedural safeguards." They reference a United States Supreme Court case called Sch. Comm. of Town of Burlington, Mass. v. Dep't of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359, 367 (1985), and a Second Circuit case called Ventura de Paulino v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 959 F.3d 519, 531 (2d Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 1075 (2021), reh'g denied, 141 S.Ct. 1530 (2021). But the Plaintiffs do not explain how these cases apply. From what Judge Levy can tell from her own review of the cases, neither case addresses the issue of standing. The AAPS Defendants indicate that the Plaintiffs filed an amended due process complaint (at the administrative level) on Sept. 21, 2021 that "sought tuition reimbursement rather than the remedies set forth in HP's original due process complaint." They say no leave to amend has been sought. Judge Levy agrees with the AAPS Defendants. The Plaintiffs have not requested permission to amend the complaint in the case to seek tuition reimbursement. In their filings, the Plaintiffs and the AAPS Defendants do not address the requirements for standing under Article III. In Kanuszewski, 927 F.3d at 405 (citing Nikolao v. Lyon, 875 F.3d 310, 315 (6th Cir. 2017)), because standing doctrine comes from Article III's case-or-controversy requirement, it is jurisdictional and must be addressed as a threshold matter. In light of this guidance from the Sixth Circuit, Judge Levy considers whether the Plaintiffs -- not just student Plaintiff H.P. -- have standing to pursue their remaining claims and the relief they seek as to each claim. Count 1 The Plaintiffs state in Count 1 that the Defendants' actions have caused their damages, including regressions in skills and loss of competencies regarding the goals and objectives outlined in their IEPs. They seek relief under the IDEA that includes "injunctive relief declaring that the class members' pendency placement is in-person instruction and requiring the MDE and its LEAs to comply with IDEA in the event of any future school closures for which the U.S. DOE does not issue IDEA waivers." Judge Levy opines that the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue a claim for declaratory or injunctive relief in Count 1 because they do not allege ongoing or future harm. There is no indication in their complaint that the alleged IDEA violations or the regressions in skills and loss of competencies are an actual or continuing harm, and they do not allege that they face a "substantial risk" of future harm. Because the Plaintiffs allege past harm in Count 1, they do not have standing to pursue declaratory or injunctive relief with respect to their IDEA claim in this count. Count 2 In Count 2, titled "Violation of MARSE Section 300.324," the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to provide them procedural safeguards upon the termination of in-person instruction in March of 2020. They say, the Defendants' actions caused them to suffer damages, including regressions in skills and loss of competencies regarding the goals and objectives outlined in their IEPs. They indicate in Count 2 that they seek various forms of declaratory and injunctive relief. Judge Levy finds that the Plaintiffs do not have standing to pursue declaratory or injunctive relief with respect to their MARSE claim in Count 2. They have alleged an injury, however, they cannot seek prospective relief because they do not allege a real or immediate threat that the Defendants will repeat the alleged violation." The Plaintiffs also cannot seek prospective relief because they do not allege an ongoing or continuing harm. Because the injury alleged in Count 2 took place in the past (i.e., "upon the termination of in-person instruction in March of 2020", the Plaintiffs do not have standing to seek declaratory or injunctive relief as to their MARSE claim in Count 2. Count 4 In Count 4, the Plaintiffs allege that the AAPS (and possibly the MDE) violated Title II of the ADA because the MDE and its LEAs are public entities forbidden to discriminate based on disability. They allege in Count 6 (their now-voluntarily-dismissed equal protection claim brought under Section 1983) that the "Defendants' closure of schools in March of 2020 resulted in a disparate impact on them due to their disabilities in violation of the ADA." Judge Levy holds that the Plaintiffs do not specify an injury in Count 4. Nor do they specify the relief they seek in this count. To the extent their allegation of "harm as set forth above" intends to reference their prior allegation that they suffered "regressions in skills and loss of competencies regarding the goals and objectives outlined in their IEPs," this allegation of harm does not give them standing to pursue declaratory or injunctive relief for their ADA claim in Count 4 for the reasons discussed. To the extent the Plaintiffs' reference to "harm as set forth above" intends to reference their allegations of discrimination or disparate impact resulting from a violation of the ADA, those allegations do not give them standing to pursue declaratory or injunctive relief as to their claim in Count 4 either because the allegations of discrimination and disparate impact relate to the AAPS's closure in March 2020, which took place over two years ago. The Plaintiffs make no allegation of ongoing or future harm in Count 4, so they lack standing to pursue declaratory or injunctive relief as to their ADA claim in that count. Count 5 In Count 5, the Plaintiffs allege that the AAPS (and possibly the MDE) violated the PWDCRA because under the PWDCRA, "the MDE and its LEAs" are "educational institutions" that are prohibited from discriminating against people with disabilities. They state that "as a proximate cause of these violations of the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Act, they have suffered harm. Judge Levy opines that the Plaintiffs do not clearly allege an injury or the relief they seek as to their PWDCRA claim. Their injury in Count 5 is potentially them suffering unlawful discrimination under the PWDCRA, as well as the regressions in skills and loss of competencies alleged in their previous counts. These injuries (assuming the Plaintiffs intended to allege them) do not give them standing to seek the declaratory and injunctive relief they request in the complaint. The Plaintiffs state that the PWDCRA violation took place in March 2020, and the regressions in skills and loss of competencies from the prior two school years are not alleged to be an actual or future harm. Therefore, they do not have standing to pursue declaratory or injunctive relief as to their PWDCRA claim in Count 5. Count 7 In Count 7, the Plaintiffs allege a RICO violation against the Individual Defendants. They state that their RICO claim arises from a scheme by individual defendants Swift, Fidishin, Menzel, Norman and Rice, in their official capacities, to fraudulently use their enterprises -- AAPS, WISD and MDE respectively -- to defraud plaintiffs, the beneficiaries of IDEA Part B funds, of millions of dollars by making false assurances that the MDE and its LEAs complied with IDEA during the COVID-19 pandemic. Judge Levy finds that the Plaintiffs do not include factual allegations in the complaint that indicate that the individual Defendants had any involvement in the spending of IDEA Part B funds or in the alleged deprivation of their rights under the IDEA. Because they do not establish a direct or indirect connection between their injuries and the individual Defendants' predicate acts, the Plaintiffs do not show that their injuries "flow" from the individual Defendants' challenged conduct. Therefore, they have not met their burden of showing that the causation requirement for standing is met. Even if the Plaintiffs had established causation, Judge Levy holds that a favorable decision on the Plaintiffs' RICO claim in Count 7 would entitle them to relief that "affects the behavior of" the individual Defendants toward them. The Plaintiffs do not seek relief in the complaint that would alter the behavior of these Defendants and redress their injuries that are alleged in Count 7. Because the Plaintiffs do not show that their injuries in Count 7 are redressable by a favorable decision that will "remove the harm," they do not satisfy the third requirement for standing as to their RICO claim. Accordingly, they fail to properly allege Article III standing with respect to their RICO claim in Count 7. Dismissal Without Prejudice Given that the Plaintiffs do not establish that they have standing as to the remaining counts in the case (Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7), Judge Levy dismisses the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Defendants' motions to dismiss and the Plaintiffs' motion for an automatic and preliminary injunction are denied a moot. A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p98fh34 from Leagle.com. MICHIGAN: Court Junks Cardello-Smith Class Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERRICK LEE CARDELLO-SMITH v. THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, EXECUTIVE POLICY TEAM/COMMITTEE OF THE MDOC, ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT TEAM/DIVISION OF THE MDOC, OFFICE OF LEGAL AFFAIRS-MDOC, OFFICE OF PRISONER AFFAIRS-MDOC, ALL WARDENS OF THE MDOC, HEIDI WASHINGTON, DIRECTOR OF THE MDOC, OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL-MICHIGAN, DANA NESSELL, MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, MDOC'S POST-LITIGATION CRITIQUE TEAM, AND MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S POST-LITIGATION CRITIQUE TEAM/REPRESENTATIVE, Case No. 2:22-cv-10520-GAD-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Gershwin A. Drain entered an order that: -- the Plaintiff's request for class certification is denied, and his complaint is summarily dismissed; and -- the Plaintiff's request for a preliminary review of the complaint is denied as moot. The Court also certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. The Michigan Department of Corrections oversees prisons and the parole and probation population in the state of Michigan, United States. A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3z4kQVA at no extra charge.[CC] MIDLAND CREDIT: Bianco Files FDCPA Suit in D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is styled as Anthony Bianco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-11174-DJC (D. Mass, July 20, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/ -- is an American debt buyer and debt collection company headquartered in San Diego, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott H. Bernstein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT H. BERNSTEIN, LLC 103 Eisenhower Parkway, Ste. 300 Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (203) 246-2887 Email: scott@scottbernsteinlaw.com MILKBREAD LLC: Conner Files ADA Suit in W.D. North Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Angela Roi Inc. The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Milkbread, LLC, K&J Management, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00321-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C., July 20, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Milkbread, LLC -- https://www.milkbread.com/ -- is a casual all-day restaurant serving milkbread donuts, coffee, crispy chicken, natural wines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sanjay R. Gohil, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SANJAY R. GOHIL, PLLC 2435 Plantation Center Drive, Suite 200 Matthews, NC 28105 Phone: (704) 814-0729 Fax: (704) 814-0730 Email: srg@gohillaw.com MISSFRESH LIMITED: Kessler Topaz Announces Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com) informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Missfresh Limited ("Missfresh") (NASDAQ: MF). The action charges Missfresh with violations of the federal securities laws, including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations relating to the company's business, operations, and prospects. As a result of Missfresh's materially misleading statements and omissions to the public, Missfresh investors have suffered significant losses. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2022 CLASS PERIOD: PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO MISSFRESH'S JUNE 2021 IPO THROUGH JULY 12, 2022 CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Toll Free (844) 887-9500 or Email at info@ktmc.com Kessler Topaz is one of the world's foremost advocates in protecting the public against corporate fraud and other wrongdoing. Our securities fraud litigators are regularly recognized as leaders in the field individually and our firm is both feared and respected among the defense bar and the insurance bar. We are proud to have recovered billions of dollars for our clients and the classes of shareholders we represent. MISSFRESH'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT In June 2021, Missfresh conducted its initial public offering (IPO), selling 21 million American Depository Shares ("ADSs") at $13.00 per ADS. On April 29, 2022, after trading hours, Missfresh filed a Notification of Late Filing on a Form 12b-25, which announced that Missfresh "will not be able to file its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 … by the prescribed filing deadline of April 30, 2022." Missfresh explained that "[t]he independent Audit Committee of [Missfresh]'s board of directors, with the assistance of professional advisors, is in the process of conducting an internal review of certain matters, including those relating to transactions between [Missfresh] and certain third-party enterprises." Following this news, Missfresh ADSs fell 13% to close at $0.448 per ADS on May 2, 2021, the next trading day. Then, on May 24, 2022, after trading hours, Missfresh issued a press release entitled "Missfresh Announces Receipt of Nasdaq Notification Regarding Late Filing of Form 20-F" announcing "that it received a notification letter dated May 19, 2022 . . . from the Listing Qualifications Department of The Nasdaq Stock Market Inc. ("Nasdaq"), indicating that [Missfresh] is not in compliance with the requirements for continued listing." Following this news, Missfresh ADSs fell 9% over the next two trading days to close at $0.167 per ADS on May 26, 2021. Finally, on July 1, 2022, Missfresh issued a press release entitled "Missfresh Announces the Substantial Completion of the Audit Committee-Led Independent Internal Review." In the press release, Missfresh disclosed that "certain revenue associated with these reporting periods in 2021 may have been inaccurately recorded in [Missfresh]'s financial statements." As of the date the complaint was filed, Missfresh ADSs closed at $0.389 per ADS, well below Missfresh's IPO price of $13.00 per ADS. WHAT CAN I DO? Missfresh investors may, no later than September 12, 2022 seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Missfresh investors who have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more information. WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF? A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country and around the world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and fiduciaries. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. Contact: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (484) 270-1453 info@ktmc.com [GN] MMS GROUP: Torres Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MMS Group LLC. The case is styled as Elewood Torres, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MMS Group LLC doing business as: MMS Group, Housing Development Fund Corporation, TUC Management Company, Inc., New York Society For The Deaf, New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, New York City Housing Preservation and Development, NYSD Forsyth Housing Development Fund Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06142-PGG (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights: Accommodations for Housing Discrimination. MMS Group -- https://mmsgroup.com/ -- and its Family of Companies has dedicated itself to quality Property Management for more than 40 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mordy Yankovich, Esq. LIEB AT LAW, P.C. 308 West Main Street, Ste. 100 Smithtown, NY 11787 Phone: (631) 878-4455 Fax: (631) 878-4460 Email: mordy@liebatlaw.com MRS BPO: Sussman Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The case is styled as Sharon Sussman also known as: Sharon Ohayon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MRS BPO, LLC doing business as: MRS ASSOCIATES, Case No. 1:22-cv-04660-RMB-SAK (D.N.J., July 20, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. MRS -- http://www.mrsbpo.com/-- is a full service accounts receivable management (ARM) firm with a unique combination of experience, technology, and compliance management processes powering industry-leading debt recovery solutions that enhance brand and reputation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Thomas Yusko, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com MULBERRY AND GRAND: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mulberry And Grand, Inc. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Mulberry And Grand, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04185-DG-MMH (E.D.N.Y., July 18, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mulberry and Grand -- https://mureandgrand.com/ -- is a NY-based boutique offering a unique selection of jewelry, accessories, clothing, gifts & more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com MVP EVENT PRODUCTIONS: Youngblood Suit Removed to N.D. Oklahoma --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Phoenix Youngblood, Khrystal Pollard, Christopher Drake, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated v. MVP Event Productions, LLC doing business as: MVP Event Staffing, Delaware North Companies Travel Hospitality Services, Inc., Case No. CJ-22-01887 was removed from the Tulsa County Dist Ct, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on July 19, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-00315-CVE-SH to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Equal Pay Act. MVP Event Productions, LLC doing business as MVP Event Staffing -- https://mvpeventstaffing.com/ -- is the nation's premier provider of food and beverage staff for large-scale events.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven R Hickman, Esq. FRASIER FRASIER & HICKMAN 1700 Sw Blvd. #100 Tulsa, OK 74107 Phone: (918) 584-4724 Fax: (918) 583-5637 Email: frasier@tulsa.com The Defendants are represented by: Malinda S Matlock, Esq. Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, PLLC 1001 NW 63rd St, Ste 280 Oklahoma City, OK 73116 Phone: (918) 582-1173 Email: mmatlock@rhodesokla.com - and - Michael Joseph DePonte JACKSON LEWIS PC (DALLAS) 500 N AKARD STE 2500 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 520-2400 Fax: (214) 520-2008 Email: michael.deponte@jacksonlewis.com NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY: Xiong Files Suit in D. Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Netgain Technology, LLC. The case is styled as Yolanda Xiong, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Netgain Technology, LLC, Case No. 0:22-cv-01826-ECT-LIB (D. Minn., July 20, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Netgain -- https://www.netgainit.com/ -- provides managed cloud and IT services to mid-market firms in the Healthcare, Accounting, and Legal industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany N. Resch, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 Email: brittanyr@turkestrauss.com raina@turkestrauss.com NEW SOUTH WALES: Hundreds of People Join Class Action v. NSW Police ------------------------------------------------------------------- Stewart Perrie, writing for Lad Bible, reports that hundreds of people have joined a class action lawsuit against NSW Police over strip searches conducted at music festivals. It's a common sight in Australia to have cops roaming the entrance of a music festival. Sometimes they'll have drug dogs trying to sniff any illicit substances you might have and if the pooch indicates a scent, then you could have to undergo a strip search. However, a legal fight is afoot in the hopes of reprimanding the NSW Police force for their 'invasive' practices. Redfern Legal Centre and law firm Slater and Gordon have filed the motion with the NSW Supreme Court. The lawsuit argues police 'carried out unlawful acts including assault, battery and false imprisonment against festival goers' while looking for drugs. Redfern Legal Centre solicitor Samantha Lee said (via the ABC): "The legislation still allows for a child as young as 10 to be strip searched in New South Wales without a parent present. "It still provides no clarification around cavity searches and squatting and coughing. "It still allows police to strip search without a support person present. So we want to see not just internal policy changes, but some really significant changes to the law." She added: "There is a level of embarrassment and shame, some of them don't even tell their parents because they were strip searched for suspicion of drug use and so they hang on to this really deep harm and emotion for a very long time. "Every other government profession has strong child-protection policies, I see absolutely no reason why this practise (strip searching) is not removed from the NSW Police force." An investigation into the police presence at music festivals in the state found they can actually do more harm than good. The 2019 inquiry concluded that if there are loads of uniformed officers at the entrance of an event, along with drug detection dogs, it can cause festival goers to undertake 'panic ingesting' or 'dangerous preloading'. The former relates to how some people will take all their drugs before they go in to avoid detection, which can overload a person's body and cause an overdose. According to the ABC, the NSW Police Force won't be commenting on the class action lawsuit. Drug dog accuracy has been questioned in the past, with one study suggesting the margin of error with using these animals is as high as 63 per cent. [GN] NEW YORK: Sughrim, et al., File Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN SUGHRIM, et al., v. STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-07977-RA-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for such other and further relief as is just and proper. New York is a state in the northeastern U.S., known for New York City and towering Niagara Falls. NYC’s island of Manhattan is home to the Empire State Building, Times Square and Central Park. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PB8dYV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua S. Moskovitz,Esq. Ronald E. Cook, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA MOSKOVITZ, P.C. 392 Central Avenue, No. 7803 Jersey City, NJ 07307 - and - Jonathan C. Moore, Esq. Luna Droubi, Esq. Deema Azizi, Esq. Jeffrey F. Kinkle, Esq. BELDOCK LEVINE & HOFFMAN LLP 99 Park Avenue, PH/26 th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 490-0400 The Defendant is represented by: William R. Lunsford, Esq. John M. Hintz, Esq. Kenneth Steely, Esq. Melissa Kay Marler, Esq. Matthew Reeves, Esq. MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 E-mail: blunsford@maynardcooper.com jhintz@maynardcooper.com ksteely@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com NISSAN MOTOR: Class Action Suit Over Exploding Sunroofs Certified ----------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Nissan exploding sunroof lawsuit has been certified as a class action, but only for customers in specific states. The sunroof class action lawsuit alleges the panoramic sunroofs explode because of the way they are designed, which allegedly makes the glass prone to shattering under normal driving conditions. A Nissan driver and occupants report it sounds like a shotgun when the sunroofs explode, causing serious and dangerous distractions to drivers. The Nissan customers who sued allege occupants are covered with shards of glass after the sunroofs explode, placing people in even more danger from falling glass. According to the Nissan class action lawsuit, replacing a sunroof can easily cost $1,000 and Nissan typically refuses to cover the damage and replacement. The Nissan exploding sunroof class action lawsuit includes these vehicles. 2009-2014 and 2016-2020 Nissan Maxima 2014-2020 Nissan Rogue 2013-2020 Nissan Pathfinder 2009-2020 Nissan Murano 2013 Infiniti JX35 2014-2020 Infiniti QX60 The plaintiffs allege the vehicles can be covered by their warranties but Nissan still refuses to compensate owners for sunroof replacements. Nissan argues the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has set regulatory standards that dictate how strong sunroof glass must be and how small the pieces must be when they break. Additionally, the automaker also asserts its panoramic sunroofs are the just like other vehicle sunroofs in the industry. According to Nissan, there have been multiple NHTSA investigations into tempered sunroof glass and none have found that panoramic sunroofs similar to Nissan's were dangerous. Nissan also contends only about 0.15% of its sunroofs shatter in all its models. Nissan also told the judge it's typical for automakers to deny glass breakage claims because glass usually isn't covered by vehicle warranties. Nissan Exploding Sunroof Class Action Lawsuit Certified The plaintiffs brought suit against Nissan under California, New York, Colorado, Florida and Illinois law because Nissan allegedly violated consumer protection statutes by failing to disclose the alleged sunroof defect. And the plaintiffs claim Nissan violated implied warranties of merchantability because the alleged sunroof defect rendered the vehicles unfit for ordinary use. Judge William H. Orrick partly granted Nissan's motion for summary judgment to the extent the plaintiffs seek restitution or unjust enrichment for purchases of used cars from anyone other than Nissan. But according to the judge, "there are genuine disputes of material fact about the existence of this alleged defect, whether it would be material to reasonable consumers, whether they would rely on it if it had been properly disclosed, and the handful of other challenges Nissan makes." Judge Orrick ruled the motion to certify the exploding sunroof class action lawsuit is granted for California, New York, Colorado and Florida. However, certification of the Illinois class and the plaintiffs' untimely request for certification of an injunctive relief class were denied. The Nissan exploding sunroof lawsuit was filed by these customers. Sherida Johnson -- California Linda Spry -- Colorado Lisa Sullivan -- Florida April Ahrens -- Illinois Chad Loury -- California Subrina Seenarain -- New York The Nissan exploding sunroof lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California - Sherida Johnson, et al., v. Nissan North America, Inc. The plaintiff is represented by Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, and Greg Coleman Law PC. [GN] NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Pascal, et al., Seek to Certify Classes ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTIAN PASCAL; MARIA MENGONI LEISA JOHNSON; EBONY JONES; PATRICK MCMORROW; TINISHA MILLER; ELIZABETH RODRIGUEZ LEMAR TAYLOR; JUDI MOORE; BARBARA MORAS; and ROBERT CARNEVALE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-00492-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order certifying the putative classes of 1) a California Warranty Class, and 2) a Consumer Protection Class with sub-classes for i) California, ii) New Jersey, and iii) New York residents: The Court should certify under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the following groups as classes: a. All California residents who purchased or leased a 2013- 2018 Nissan Altima sedan who allege claims for breach of express and implied warranty under California law. Plaintiffs Cristian Pascal and Maria Mengoni should be appointed as class representatives for this class (the "California Warranty Class"). b. All persons who purchased or leased a 2013-2018 Nissan Altima sedan 21 in California, New York, or New Jersey, divided into the following three subclasses: i. A California UCL/CLRA subclass (the "California Consumer Protection Class") of purchasers and lessees of any 2013-2018 Nissan Altima sedan who purchased or leased the Class Vehicle in California. Plaintiffs Cristian Pascal, Maria Mengoni, Patrick McMorrow, and Tinisha Miller should be appointed as class representatives for the California Consumer Class because they meet all requirements under Rule 23(a). This subclass asserts claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and common law fraud/omission. ii. A New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act subclass (the "New Jersey Consumer Class") of purchasers and lessees of any 2013-2018 Nissan Altima sedan who purchased or leased the Class Vehicle in New Jersey. Plaintiff Barbara Moras should be appointed as the class representative for this class (the "New Jersey Class") because she meets all requirements under Rule 23(a). This subclass asserts claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. iii. A New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350 subclass (the "New York Consumer Class") of purchasers and lessees of any 2013-2018 Nissan Altima sedan who purchased or leased the Class Vehicle in New York. Plaintiff Robert Carnevale should be appointed as the class representative for this class (the "New York Class") because he meets all requirements under Rule 23(a). This subclass asserts claims under New York General Business Law sectiin 21 349 and New York General Business Law section 350. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the above-listed classes and sub-classes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and 23(b)(2). A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated July 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OCOk2r at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd A. Walburg, Esq. Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq. Eric B. Snyder, Esq. Jonathan D. Boggs, Esq. Katherine E. Charonko, Esq. Christopher D. Smith, Esq. Benjamin J. Hogan, Esq. Elizabeth L. Stryker, Esq. Isabella A. Anderson, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 272-8000 Facsimile: (510) 463-0291 E-mail: twalburg@baileyglasser.com bbailey@baileyglasser.com esnyder@baileyglasser.com jboggs@baileyglasser.com kcharonko@baileyglasser.com csmith@baileyglasser.com bhogan@baileyglasser.com estryker@baileyglasser.com ianderson@baileyglasser.om - and - C. Brooks Cutter, Esq. John R. Parker, Jr., Esq. CUTTER LAW P.C. 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, CA 95864 Telephone: (916) 290-9400 E-mail: bcutter@cutterlaw.com jparker@cutterlaw.com - and - David C. Wright, Esq. Steven A. Haskins, Esq. Mark I. Richards, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP 3281 Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 E-mail: dcw@mccunewright.com sah@mccunewright.com mir@@mccunewright.com - and - Donald H. Slavik, Esq. SLAVIK LAW FIRM, LLC 2955 Village Drive, Suite 16 Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 Telephone: (970) 457-1011 Facsimile: (267) 878-7697 E-mail: dslavik@slavik.us NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Putative Classes ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re Nissan North America, Inc. Litigation, Case No. 3:19-cv-00843 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an Order: 1. certifying the putative classes listed below pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), (b)(3) and (c)(4); 2. appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives; and 3. appointing Bailey Glasser LLP, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, aPortis & Miles, P.C., Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings PLLC, Bursor & Fisher, P.A, and Dicello Levitt & Gutzler LLC as joint class counsel. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the following state classes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3): -- California: All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the State of California. Plaintiffs move for appointment of Angelene Hoeffken as the class representative of the California Class. The California Class seeks certification of the following causes of action: (1) breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Act; (2) breach of express warranty; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (5) violations of the Unfair Competition Law; (6) fraudulent omission. -- Connecticut: All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the State of Connecticut. The Plaintiffs move for appointment of Lakeita Kemp as the class representative of the Connecticut Class. The Connecticut Class seeks certification of the following causes of action: (1) breach of implied warranty; (2) breach of express warranty; and (3) unjust enrichment; (4) fraudulent omission. -- Florida: All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the State of Florida. Plaintiffs move for appointment of Courtney Johnson and Morela Jova as class representatives of the Florida Class. The Florida Class seeks certification of the following causes of action: (1) breach of implied warranty; (2) breach of express warranty; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; (5) fraudulent omission. -- Illinois: All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the State of Illinois. Plaintiffs move for appointment of Todd Burrows as the class representative of the Illinois Class. The Illinois Class seeks certification of the following causes of action: (1) breach of implied warranty; (2) breach of express warranty; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) violations of Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act; (5) fraudulent omission. -- Massachusetts: All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the State of Massachusetts. Plaintiffs move for appointment of David Turner as the class representative of the Massachusetts Class. The Massachusetts Class seeks certification of the following causes of action: (1) breach of implied warranty; (2) breach of express warranty; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) violations of the Massachusetts Regulation of Business Practice for Consumer Protection Act; (5) fraudulent omission. -- Missouri: All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the State of Missouri. Plaintiffs move for appointment of Scott and Jane Reeves as the class representatives of the Missouri Class. The Missouri Class seeks certification of the following causes of action: (1) breach of express warranty; (2) unjust enrichment; (3) violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act; (4) fraudulent omission. -- New York: All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the State of New York. Plaintiffs move for appointment of Nancy Housell as the class representative of the New York Class. The New York Class seeks certification of the following causes of action: (1) breach of implied warranty; (2) unjust enrichment; (3) violations of New York's General Business Law, sections 349 and 350; (4) fraudulent omission. -- Ohio: All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the State of Ohio. Plaintiffs move for appointment of Michelle Bereda as the class representative of the Ohio Class. The Ohio Class seeks certification of the following causes of action: (1) breach of express warranty; (2) unjust enrichment; (3) violations of Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act; (4) fraudulent omission. -- Pennsylvania: All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the State of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs move for appointment of Jeff Olkowski as the class representative of the Pennsylvania Class. The Pennsylvania Class seeks certification of the following causes of action: (1) breach of implied warranty; (2) breach of express warranty; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) violations of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; (5) fraudulent omission. -- Texas: All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the State of Texas. The Plaintiffs move for appointment of Vaughn Kerkorian as the class representative of the Texas Class. The Texas Class seeks certification of the following causes of action: (1) unjust enrichment; and; (2) fraudulent omission. Nissan North America Inc. operates in the automotive industry. The Company designs, develops, and manufactures Nissan vehicles. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q0pzi2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com beng@bsjfirm.com - and - L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: fklorczyck@bursor.com ltfisher@bursor.com jsmith@bursor.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq. J. Mitch Williams, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. John E. Tangren, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT & GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dlcfirm.com jtangren@dlcfirm.com dferri@dlcfirm.com - and - Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq. Jonathan D. Boggs, Esq. Michael L. Murphy, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com jboggs@baileyglasser.com mmurphy@baileyglasser.com - and - Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq. SCHLANGER LAW GROUP, LLP 9 East 40th Street, Suite 1300 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 250-6114 E-mail: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net NORDIC ENERGY: Perrong Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, ANDREW PERRONG, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORDIC ENERGY SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03728 (N.D. Ill., July 19, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that in an attempt to generate of its electric services, the Defendant made unsolicited telemarketing calls to his residential telephone number that is listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. Despite the fact that the Plaintiff previously sued the Defendant for the same violations, the Defendant continued making unsolicited telemarketing calls to his telephone number without obtaining his prior express written consent to receive such calls, the Plaintiff asserts. Accordingly, telemarketing calls typically used technology that is capable of generating thousands of similar calls per day. Thus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals who received the Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing calls, the Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action to seek injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or other persons or entities acting on the Defendant's behalf from making calls, excepts for emergency purposes, to any residential number listed on the National Do Not Call Registry in the future. The Plaintiff also seeks an award of damages for himself and all other similarly situated individuals, and other relief as the Court deems necessary, just, and proper. Nordic Energy Services, LLC provides energy services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Tel: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com NORTH ATLANTIC: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Kucharczyk Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN KUCHARCZYK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH ATLANTIC TRUCKING, INC. and NICHOLAS MERCOLINO, Defendants, Case No. 22-0407 (Mass. Commw. Ct., July 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay proper wages and misclassification in violation of Massachusetts Wage Law, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a delivery driver from March 2021 to March 2022. North Atlantic Trucking, Inc. is a transportation services company based in Springfield, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James W. Simpson, Jr., Esq. 100 Concord Street, Suite 3b Framingham, MA 01702 Telephone: (508) 872-0002 E-mail: jwsimpson11@verizon.net - and – Adam J. Shafran, Esq. RUDOLPH & FRIEDMANN, LLP 92 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 723-7700 E-mail: ashafran@RFLawyers.com NUTS 'N MORE: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nuts 'N More LLC. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Nuts 'N More LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04188 (E.D.N.Y., July 18, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Nuts 'N More -- https://nuts-n-more.com/ -- is a supplier of peanut butter, almond butter, hazelnut spreads, protein snack packs, and PB powders..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com OMNI HOTELS: Fails to Pay Wages for All Time Worked, Aquino Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- CARMEN AQUINO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. OMNI HOTELS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 22STCV23672 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 21, 2022), sues over Defendants' alleged consistent policy of failing to pay wages for all time worked, including overtime wages, as a result of requiring the Plaintiff and non-exempt employees in the State of California to wait in line for COVID-19 temperature checks prior to the start of their shift and not compensating them for this time, as well as not compensating Plaintiff and non-exempt employees in the State of California for donning and doffing required work uniforms, pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code. The Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees are employed by or formerly employed by the defendant and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State of California. Omni Hotels is an American privately held, international luxury hotel company based in Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. James A. De Sario, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 553-3600 Facsimile: (310) 553-3603 OSCAR HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over IPO Financial Disclosures --------------------------------------------------------------- Paige Minemyer of Fierce Healthcare reports that an Oscar Health shareholder has hit the insurer with a proposed class-action suit, alleging it obfuscated the impact of COVID-19 on its finances ahead of its initial public offering. Oscar went public in March 2021, bringing in $1.4 billion in its stock listing. It has historically struggled to turn a profit and set a goal of reaching profitability in 2023. In the suit filed in July in New York district court, shareholder Lorin Carpenter said key information about its performance during the pandemic was omitted from Oscar's filings before the IPO. For one, the registration statement failed to disclose that the company's testing and treatment costs related to COVID-19 were growing. In addition, Oscar did not tell prospective shareholders that it was on track to feel negative impacts from the extended special enrollment period under the pandemic, according to the lawsuit. "As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, plaintiff and other class members have suffered significant losses and damages," according to the suit. Carpenter believes thousands of shareholders could join the class if the lawsuit moves forward. Oscar Health had not responded to a request for comment as of publication time. The suit names top executives at Oscar as well as financial underwriters as defendants. [GN] OUTSET MEDICAL: Robbins LLP Reminds Investors of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of investors who purchased Outset Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ: OM) common stock between September 15, 2020 and June 13, 2022, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 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. If you would like more information about Outset Medical, Inc.'s misconduct, click https://robbinsllp.com/outset-medical-inc-bw/ What is this Case About: Outset Medical, Inc. (OM) Misled Investors Regarding Tablo's Use and FDA Approval According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants touted that Tablo can "serve as a dialysis clinic on wheels" that has been "cleared by the [U.S.] Food and Drug Administration [(the "FDA)] for use in the hospital, clinic or home setting." Indeed, Outset Medical sought to differentiate itself by highlighting its focus on the "home setting" and contended it was "well-positioned" to "help accelerate th[e] shift to home-based hemodialysis therapy." While the FDA approved Tablo for sale, its use for the in-home setting was subject to additional studies and approvals. During the class period, defendants 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. Seizing on positive prospects for sales of Tablo, the Company completed two secondary stock offerings and raised more than $570 million in proceeds for the benefit of the Company and its private equity backers. However, shareholders were unaware that Outset Medical made significant changes to Tablo for use in the home setting, which made it likely that the FDA would order the Company to cease all marketing and selling of Tablo for use in the home pending additional applications and approvals and prevented the Company from conducting the requisite testing. On May 4, 2022, Outset Medical announced disappointing results for the first quarter of 2022, which analysts attributed to, among other things, the untested nature of Tablo in the home setting. In response, the price of Outset Medical common stock declined more than 40% over the next three trading days, to close at $23.06 on May 9, 2022. Then, on June 13, 2022, Outset Medical announced the FDA had forced the Company to hold all shipments of Tablo for use in the home until Tablo received proper regulatory clearance. Outset Medical made two astonishing admissions – the "ship hold" had been in place for weeks before investors were provided with this information and the Company was "suspending our prior full-year and long-term guidance." On this news, the Company's stock fell an additional 34%, to close at $13.46 per share on June 14, 2022. Next Steps: If you acquired Outset Medical, Inc. (OM) common stock between September 15, 2020 and June 13, 2022, you have until September 6, 2022, to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. Contact: Aaron Dumas (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.com Shareholder Information Form A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against Outset Medical, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. [GN] OUTSET MEDICAL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 6 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Outset Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ: OM) between September 15, 2020 and June 13, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important September 6, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Outset Medical securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Outset Medical class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6976 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 6, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements 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, Outset Medical could not conduct a human factors study on a cleared device in accordance with FDA protocols; (3) Outset Medical's inability to conduct the human factors study subjected Outset Medical 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 Outset Medical's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Outset Medical class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6976 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] PACIFIC DECORATIVE: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Decorative Concrete, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Steven Williams, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pacific Decorative Concrete, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2022-00323649-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 19, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Pacific Decorative Concrete, Inc. (PDCI) -- https://www.pacificdecorative.com/ -- is a leading polished concrete and epoxy flooring contractor licensed and registered in all Western States, including Hawaii.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com PEABODY ENERGY: Oregon Public Employees Seek to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE PEABODY ENERGY CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-08024-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), the Lead Plaintiff Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund moves the Court for entry of an order as follows: 1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), on behalf of the following class: "All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Peabody Energy Corporation during the period from September 22, 2018 through September 28, 2018, inclusive, and were damaged thereby;" Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) members of the immediate family of any Defendant who is an individual; (iii) any person who was an officer or director of Peabody during the Class Period; (iv) any firm, trust, corporation, or other entity in which any the Defendant has or had a controlling interest; (v) Peabody’s employee retirement and benefit plan(s) and their participants or beneficiaries, to the extent they made purchases through such plan(s); and (vi) the legal representatives, affiliates, heirs, successors-in- interest, or assigns of any such excluded person." 2. Appointing Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund as Class Representative; and 3. Appointing Labaton Sucharow LLP as Class Counsel. Peabody Energy is a coal mining and energy company headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. Its primary business consists of the mining, sale, and distribution of coal, which is purchased for use in electricity generation and steelmaking. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cKW9WH at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund and the Proposed Class, are: Christine M. Fox, Esq. Carol C. Villegas, Esq. Mark Willis, Esq. James M. Fee, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW, LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: cfox@labaton.com cvillegas@labaton.com mwillis@labaton.com jfee@labaton.com PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Felipe Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to D. Nev. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled CHRISTIAN A. FELIPE, individually as administrator of the CHRISTIAN A. FELIPE CONTRIBUTORY IRA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PLAYSTUDIOS, INC.; ANDREW PASCAL; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-02164, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on July 20, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the District of Nevada assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01159-RFB-NJK to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making materially false and misleading statements about Playstudios' business, financial projections, and prospects in order to trade Playstudios' securities at artificially inflated prices between June 22, 2021 and March 1, 2022. Playstudios, Inc. is a developer and publisher of free-to-play casual games for mobile and social platforms, headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com kpachman@susmangodfrey.com - and – Robert A. Curtis, Esq. Kevin D. Gamarnik, Esq. Aaron L. Arndt, Esq. Jordan A. Liebman, Esq. FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP 15 West Carrillo Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 962-9495 Facsimile: (805) 962-0722 E-mail: rcurtis@foleybezek.com kgamarnik@foleybezek.com aarndt@foleybezek.com liebman@foleybezek.com PORTSMOUTH REDEVELOPMENT: Fails to Pay Security Officers' Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- MARK CARMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PORTSMOUTH REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY, Case No. 2:22-cv-00313-MSD-RJK (E.D. Va., July 21, 2022) is a collective action alleging Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable attorneys' fee, as a result of Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff sufficient wages under the FLSA and the VOWA within the applicable statutory limitations period. The Plaintiff and other Security Officers were paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including hours worked over 40 in a week. In other words, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and other Security Officers an overtime premium for hours worked over 40 in a week, says the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Krista Sheets, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: krista@sanfordlawfirm.com PRINCE GEORGE'S: Frazier Sues Over Unlawful Pretrial Detention -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT FRAZIER; ANIBAL HERNANDEZ; D.P., a minor, by and through his next friend and guardian K.P.; CHRISTOPHER BUTLER; MIRAMBA WILLIAMS; DONNELL DAVIS; LESLIE SHARP; ELMER LAGUAN-SALINAS; and ADRIENNE WORTHINGTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND; CORENNE LABBE, in her official capacity as Director of the Prince George's County Department of Corrections; JEFFREY LOGAN, in his official capacity as Division Chief of the Prince George's County Population Management Division; KENNETH GRAY, in his official capacity as Section Chief of the Prince George's County Community Supervision Section; TANYA LAW, in her official capacity as Unit Chief of the Prince George's County Monitoring Services Unit; and LAKEECIA ALLEN, BRYON BEREANO, JOHN BIELEC, SCOTT CARRINGTON, ADA CLARK-EDWARDS, STACEY COBB SMITH, BRIAN DENTON, ROBERT HEFFRON JR., DONNAKA LEWIS, GREGORY POWELL, and CATHY SERRETTE, in their personal capacities and official capacities as District and Circuit Court Judges for the District and Circuit Courts of Maryland for Prince George's County, Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-01768-PX (D. Md., July 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Maryland Constitution and Fourteenth Amendment Right to Substantive Due Process and Right to Procedural Due Process. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs' fundamental right to pretrial liberty by subjecting them to pretrial detention without the substantive findings required by the Constitution. The Judge Defendants issue pretrial referrals knowing that the Plaintiffs will be detained at length while the Pretrial Division processes the referral, or indefinitely if the Division refuses to release. They do so having necessarily found that the Plaintiffs may be released by granting the Division authority to release without further judicial involvement. The County Defendants detain the Plaintiffs while they delay processing pretrial referrals, and refuse to release the Plaintiffs, despite no judicial finding justifying detention, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and the Class seek an injunction requiring the Defendants to adopt constitutionally sufficient policies and practices. They also seek a declaration that the Defendants policies and practices violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and they seek compensation from the County for every day of unconstitutional detention that they have suffered, the suit added. Prince George's County is a municipal corporation formed under the laws of Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward Williams, Esq. Matthew Martens, Esq. Thomas Bredar, Esq. Ellen Connell, Esq. Donna Farag, Esq. Ayana Williams, Esq. Sonika Data, Esq. Yoseph Desta, Esq. Britany Riley-Swanbeck, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202)663-6487 E-mail: ed.williams@wilmerhale.com matthew.martens@wilmerhale.com - and – Robert Boone, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERINGHALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212)230-8800 E-mail: robert.boone@wilmerhale.com - and – Timothy Perla, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERINGHALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617)526-6000 E-mail: timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com - and – Ellora Thadaney Israni, Esq. Ryan Downer, Esq. Jeremy D. Cutting, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 1601 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202)894-6132 E-mail: ellora@civilrightscorps.org - and – Seth Wayne, Esq. INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONALADVOCACY AND PROTECTION GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER 600 New Jersey Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202)662-9042 E-mail: sw1098@georgetown.edu PROFESSIONAL FINANCE: Schroeder Files Suit in D. Colorado --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Finance Company, Inc. The case is styled as Christopher Schroeder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Professional Finance Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01776-NYW (D. Colo., July 18, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Professional Finance Company (PFC USA) -- https://www.pfcusa.com/ -- is a full-service accounts receivable management company located in Greeley, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP 412 H Street NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Fax: (202) 800-2730 Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com PRYOR INVESTMENTS: Fails to Pay Drivers Legally Mandated Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Castaneda, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Pryor Investments, L.L.C., Bradley C. Pryor, Robert C. Pryor, Doe Corporations 1-10, and John Doe 1-10, Case No. 2:22-cv-04111-NKL (W.D. Mo., July 21, 2022) seeks relief based on the Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kansas Wage Payment Act. The Defendants own and operate several Papa John's stores in Kansas and at least one store in Iowa. The Plaintiff seeks to represent the delivery drivers who work, or have worked, at the the Defendants' stores during the applicable limitations periods. According to the complaint, the Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the FLSA and the KWPA by failing to adequately reimburse their delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wages for all hours worked. All delivery drivers at the Defendants' stores, including the Plaintiff, have been subject to the same or similar employment policies and practices, says the suit. Pryor Investments, L.L.C. is a franchisee of Papa John's International, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 Facsimile: (314) 997-9170 E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com - and - Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Samuel D. Elswick, Jr., Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC www.billerkimble.com 8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 452-3568 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com selswick@billerkimble.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Aids Facebook to Collect Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA COLE and BEATRICE ROCHE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-at-00550 (E.D. Cal., July 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant aided, agreed with, and conspired with Facebook to track and intercept internet communications sent and received by the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals while using the Defendant's websites www.questdiagnostics.com and www.myquest.questdiagnostics.com. They intercepted these communications through the Facebook Tracking Pixel without authorization and consent from the Plaintiffs and Class members. The Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered loss by reason of these violations, including, but not limited to, violations of their rights of privacy and loss of value in their personally identifiable information (PII). Quest Diagnostics, Inc. is a provider of diagnostic information services, with its principal place of business in Secaucus, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Quest Diagnostics Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2022, that numerous putative class action lawsuits were filed against the company related to the Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc./American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA) data security incident. The cases were consolidated. In January 2020, the company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint, and the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. On June 3, 2019, the company reported that AMCA had informed the company and Optum360 LLC that an unauthorized user had access to AMCA's system between August 1, 2018 and March 30, 2019. Optum360 provides revenue management services to the company, and AMCA provided debt collection services to Optum360. AMCA first informed the company of the AMCA Data Security Incident on May 14, 2019. AMCA's affected system included financial information (e.g., credit card numbers and bank account information), medical information and other personal information (e.g., social security numbers). Neither Optum360's nor the company's systems or databases were involved in the incident. AMCA also informed the company that information pertaining to other laboratories' customers was also affected. Following announcement of the AMCA Data Security Incident, AMCA sought protection under the U.S. bankruptcy laws. The bankruptcy proceeding has been dismissed. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the cases that were then still pending to, and consolidated them for pre-trial proceedings in, the U.S. District Court for New Jersey. In November 2019, the plaintiffs in the multidistrict proceeding filed a consolidated putative class action complaint against the Company and Optum360 that named additional individuals as plaintiffs and that asserted a variety of common law and statutory claims in connection with the AMCA Data Security Incident. In January 2020, the company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint, and the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated and its subsidiaries uses its extensive database of clinical lab results to derive diagnostic insights that reveal new avenues to identify and treat disease, inspire healthy behaviors and improve healthcare management. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Pensioners' Suit in New Jersey Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Quest Diagnostics Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2022, that in 2020, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey against the Company and other defendants with respect to the company's 401(k) plan. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the fiduciaries of the 401(k) plan breached their duties by failing to disclose the expenses and risks of plan investment options, allowing unreasonable administration expenses to be charged to plan participants, and selecting and retaining high cost and poor performing investments. In October 2020, the court consolidated the two lawsuits under the caption "In re: Quest Diagnostics ERISA Litigation" and plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. In May 2021, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated and its subsidiaries uses its extensive database of clinical lab results to derive diagnostic insights that reveal new avenues to identify and treat disease, inspire healthy behaviors and improve healthcare management. RADIUS GLOBAL: Fonseca FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Reinerio E. Fonseca, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Radius Global Solutions LLC, John Does 1 to 10, Case No. ESX-L-03436-22 was removed from the Superior Court Essex County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 18, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04632 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Radius Global Solutions -- https://www.radiusgs.com/ -- is a leading provider of accounts receivable, customer relations and revenue cycle management solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Aaron Raphael Easley, Esq. SESSIONS, ISRAEL& SHARTLE, LLC 3 Cross Creek Drive Flemington, NJ 08822 Phone: (908) 237-1660 Fax: (908) 237-1663 Email: aeasley@sessions-law.biz RAUSCH STURM: Stenner Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rausch Sturm LLP. The case is styled as Debra Stenner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rausch Sturm LLP, Case No. 2:22-cv-00828-SCD (E.D. Wis., July 20, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Rausch Sturm -- https://www.rauschsturm.com/ -- is a law firm that represents creditor issuers and creditors.[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 RECON OILFIELD: Seeks Extension to File Conditional Cert. Response ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KALEN KLEES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. RECON OILFIELD SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01895-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting a 21 day extension to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification. This is a wage and hour case. The Defendants provide blowout preventer (BOP) and hydrostatic testing, among other things, for oilfield companies in the state of Ohio. Plaintiff claims to have worked for Defendants as a non-exempt employee from July 2018 until April 2021. The Plaintiff claims the Defendants did not pay him overtime required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification asks the Court to conditionally certify, and send notice to, the following collective: "All current and former hourly non-exempt Ohio field workers of the Defendants who had a wage deduction applied to their pay in any workweek that they were paid for more than 40 hours during the three years preceding the filing of this Motion and continuing through the final disposition of this case." The Plaintiff -- and all of the putative members of his proposed FLSA collective -- are either already members, were already members, or were eligible to join, another FLSA collective action that is currently pending in this Court. On August 31, 2020, Cory McDaniel filed an FLSA lawsuit against Defendants in this Court. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 13, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PwXfUu at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Michael B. Mattingly, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 977-8200 Facsimile: (513) 977-8141 E-mail: michael.mattingly@dinsmore.com REX SIGNATURE: Taylor Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rex Signature Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Farrah Taylor, and all others similarly situated v. Rex Signature Services, LLC doing business as Rex Moore Group, Inc, Does 1-50, Construction Innovations, LLC, Case No. 34-2022-00323843-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 20, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Rex Signature Services is a shared service company in which our purpose is to be of service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com RHONDA LINDQUIST: Redd's Bid to Proceed in Forma Pauperis OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIE ANTOINE REDD v. RHONDA LINDQUIST; and J. GREGORY TOMICICH, the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Cavan entered an order: 1. granting Redd's motion to proceed in forma pauperis; 2. denying Redd's motion for counsel; 3. reserving on the motion to certify class and related motion for counsel; and 4. directing Redd to respond to the Order on or before August 5, 2022. The Court will address Redd's proposed class action in a later order. At this time, he does not state a claim against Defendant Lindquist on which relief may be granted. Under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts supporting an inference that a person acting under color of State law subjected him, or caused him to be subjected, to a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Redd does not allege facts showing that Lindquist personally played any role in causing a violation of his constitutional rights. The Office of the Public Defender was appointed to represent him at his arraignment. An omnibus hearing was set for July 26, 2021. Counsel appeared on Redd's behalf on July 2, 2021. Redd does not allege facts showing that he could not have contacted or consulted with counsel in the OPD between his arraignment and his first attorney's notice of appearance on July 2, 2021. Nor does he show that he lost anything as a result. Without such facts, he does not show he was deprived of anything, the Court says. On May 31, 2022, the Plaintiff Willie Antoine Redd submitted a complaint alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. In June, he submitted a motion for the appointment of counsel, two declarations, a proposed order to show cause, and, on June 23, 2022, a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On July 5, 2022, Redd filed a motion to certify a class, supplemented his motion for counsel in light of that motion, and filed an amended complaint. Redd's two inmate trust account statements do not cover the full six-month period prior to the filing of his complaint. They do, however, adequately show that he is not able to pay the full filing fee at this time. His motion will be granted. Because Redd is a prisoner, he must pay the $350.00 filing fee in installments taken from his inmate trust account and consisting of 20% of each month's deposits into the account, provided the balance is at least $10.00. The Court will waive the initial partial filing fee, because it is not clear Redd could pay it. The total fee and the rate of withdrawal are established by Congress and cannot be altered by the Court. A copy of the dated July 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RXRjWd at no extra charge.[CC] RICH DOSS: Haynes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rich Doss, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Damon Haynes, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rich Doss, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2022-00323987-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 21, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Rich Doss -- http://www.dosstrucking.com/-- is a logistics provider of load by road through fast flatbed service solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Network Outage ------------------------------------------------------------- Helen Hernandez, writing for Oicanadian, reports that barely two days after the restoration of the major outage of Rogers networks, the company is already the subject of a request for class action. The motion was filed first thing this morning at the Montreal courthouse by LPC Avocat. He is claiming $400 per Rogers, Fido or Chatr customer who has not received the services for which he is paying "on July 8 and/or July 9". The law firm also wants "all people in Quebec" on the same two dates who were unable to carry out transactions using Interac, for example, to be compensated. The amount is not specified. Rogers Communications said the outage was caused by a maintenance update to its backbone network. Millions of Canadians were then left without mobile service or internet. This disrupted the police, courts, Service Canada, broadcasters and Interac technology, among others. The outage began on Friday, July 22, and ended on Saturday, July 23. On Twitter, Rogers Communication promised automatic compensation to its customers. But that wouldn't prevent a court from ordering the company to pay punitive damages, argues the attorney in the case, Joey Zukran. [GN] SACRAMENTO, CA: Garza Bid for Class Certification Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOES 1 to 225, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William B. Shubb entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification of: "All persons present on May 30, 2020, and May 31, 2020, at the demonstrations in downtown Sacramento, who were injured by less-lethal impact weapons, referred to as "beanbag rounds," "baton rounds," or "rubber bullets," fired by Sacramento Police Department's officers and/or mutual aid partners." The Plaintiffs Daniel Garza, Joshua Ruiz, Elisabeth Crouchley, Steven Passal, Russell Vreeland, Anthony Pires, John Ruffner, and Jennifer Loret de Mola brought this putative class action against the defendants alleging violations of constitutional, statutory, and common law rights based on Sacramento police and other law enforcement officers' use of "less-lethal" impact weapons against them during protests on May 30 and 31, 2020. Specifically, in the operative complaint, the plaintiffs assert both individual and class-wide claims for: (1) excessive force under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) excessive force under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (3) retaliation under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; (4) violation of equal protection 11 under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, (5) violation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. section 701, et 13 seq.; (6) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 14 U.S.C. section 12101, et seq.; (7) excessive force under Article I, Section 13 of the California Constitution; (8) excessive force 16 under Article I, Section 7(a) of the California Constitution; (9) retaliation under the California Constitution; (10) violation 18 of equal protection under the California Constitution; (11) violation of the Tom Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code section 52.1; (12) assault and battery; (13) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (14) negligence. On May 26, 2020, a white Minneapolis police officer killed George Floyd, a black man, sparking nationwide protests. The Plaintiffs were each present at these protests at varying times, at varying locations in the city, and in varying capacities – as protesters, as legal observers, or as bystanders. Sacramento, capital of the U.S. state of California, lies at the confluence of the Sacramento River and American River. A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BfaHb6 at no extra charge.[CC] SCHUETTE INC: Faces Alcione Suit Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------------ ARMANDO ALCIONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHUETTE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00393 (W.D. Wis., July 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid regular wages and overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws and for interference and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a laser operator in Rothschild, Wisconsin from September 2018 until his termination on July 14, 2022. Schuette, Inc. is a metal fabrication company, with a principal office address of 1604 Morrison Avenue, Rothschild, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com SEALED AIR: UA LOCAL 13, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as UA LOCAL 13 & EMPLOYERS GROUP INSURANCE FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SEALED AIR CORPORATION and WILLIAM G. STIEHL, Case No. 1:19-cv-10161-LLS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs UA Local 13 Pension Fund, UA Local 13 & Employers Group Insurance Fund, Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 267 Pension Fund, and Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 7 Pension and Welfare Funds move the Court for an Order: 1. certifying this action to proceed as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 23(a) and (b)(3); 2. appointing them to serve as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP to serve as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). Sealed Air Corporation is a packaging company known for its brands: Cryovac food packaging and Bubble Wrap cushioning packaging. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oy7M68 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Robert M. Rothman, Esq. Mark T. Millkey, Esq. Robert D. Gerson, Esq. Magdalene Economou, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com rrothman@rgrdlaw.com mmillkey@rgrdlaw.com rgerson@rgrdlaw.com meconomou@rgrdlaw.com - and - Michael J. Asher, Esq. Jacqueline A. Kelly, Esq. ASHERKELLY 25800 Northwestern Highway, Suite 1100 Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: (248) 746-2710 Facsimile: (248) 747-2809 E-mail: masher@asherkellylaw.com jkelly@asherkellylaw.com - and - Daniel R. Brice, Esq. BLITMAN & KING LLP 4443 North Franklin Street Syracuse, NY 13204-5412 Telephone: (315) 422-7111 Facsimile: (315) 471-2623 E-mail: dbrice@bklawyers.com SECURITY PAVING: Uffelman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Security Paving Company, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kevin Uffelman, and all others similarly situated v. Security Paving Company, Inc., a California corporation, Does 1 to 50, Inclusive, Case No. 34-2022-00323560-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 18, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Security Paving Company, Inc. -- http://securitypaving.com/-- is a construction company based in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-975-1493 Fax: 310-300-1705 - and - Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq. FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 1901 Avenue Of The Stars, Ste. 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006 Phone: 818-456-6168 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com SEKO WORLDWIDE: Faces Paisley Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHAVOUY PAISLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEKO WORLDWIDE LLC (DBA SEKO WORLDWIDE), Defendant, Case No. 9:22-cv-04301 (E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours premium, failure to provide a written notice, failure to timely pay wages, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a clerk in New York from February 2021 until August 2021 and later from May, 2022 until the present. Seko Worldwide LLC is a logistics company based in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Villanueva Seeks to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA VILLANUEVA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. SELECT EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC., a corporation; CONCENTRA HEALTH SERVICES, INC., a corporation; SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION, a corporation; and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:17-cv-06875-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the case as a class action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). The plaintiff class consists of the following: 1. Overtime Regular Rate Class "All current and former hourly non-exempt employees employed by Defendant in California between October 26, 2013, and December 31, 2020, that the Defendant paid overtime wages during pay periods which occurred during the period the employees' earned a non-discretionary bonus and/or incentive payments;" 2. Meal/Rest Regular Rate Class "All current and former hourly non-exempt employees employed by Defendant in California between October 26, 2013, and September 9, 2021, that earned any non- discretionary bonus and/or incentive payments during a pay period they received meal or rest break premium wages;" 3. On Premises Meal Break Class "All current and former hourly non-exempt employees, employed by Defendant in California between October 26, 2013, and December 31, 2017, whose timecards reflect at least one meal period being taken on a workday they worked over 5 hours in the workday;" 4. On Premises Rest Break Class "All current and former hourly non-exempt employees employed by Defendant in California between October 26, 2013, and November 19, 2019, and worked over 3.5 hours in a workday. 5. Second Meal Break Class "All current and former hourly non-exempt employees employed by Defendant in California between October 26, 2013, through the date the court certifies the class that worked at least one shift in excess of 10 hours in a workday. 6. Third Rest Break Class "All current and former hourly non-exempt employees employed by Defendant in California between October 26, 2013, through the date the court certifies the class that worked at least one shift in excess of 10 hours in a workday;" and 7. Wage Statement Class "All current and former hourly non-exempt employees employed by the Defendant in California between October 26, 2016, and the date the court certifies the class that fall within any of the classes described above. In addition, Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint her as Class Representative. Plaintiff also 21 request that the Court appoint their counsel, Joseph Lavi, Jordan D. Bello, Vincent Granberry, and Pooja 22 Virendra Patel of Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP as Class Counsel. Select Employment Services is a locally-owned staffing company with experience serving the Laredo and surrounding markets. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QeSTBx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Jordan D. Bello, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Pooja Virendra Patel, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com jbello@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com ppatel@lelawfirm.com SHAUM'S CASABLANCA: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Jones et al. Say ------------------------------------------------------------------ SIDNEY JONES and CRYSTAL WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. SHAUM'S CASABLANCA d/b/a Lady Godivas/Casablanca, Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-02307-TMC (D.S.C., July 19, 2022) is a collective action brought against the Defendant for its alleged willful and intentional violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as exotic dancers at the Defendant's Lady Godivas/Casablanca Club – Plaintiff Jones was for the period of about 2016 through about May 2, 2022, while Plaintiff Williams was for the period of about October 2019 through about April 2022. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated exotic dancers were misclassified by the Defendant as non-employee independent contractors. Throughout their employment with the Defendant, they were not paid any wages or any other form of compensation for hours they have worked in or at the Defendant's Lady Godivas/Casablanca, wherein they were required by the Defendant to perform private and semi-private dances under the pricing guidelines, policies, procedures, and promotions set exclusively by the Defendant. In addition, the Defendant required them to pay a per-shift house fee or kickback of $20.00 to $40.00 or more for each shift worked, and to pay or assign a portion of the tips they received from the Defendant's customers to Defendant's managers, agents, assigns, and other non-dancer employees and/or contractors, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this complaint seeking to recover all unpaid minimum wages; all tips and gratuities and other related monies unlawfully taken; all deductions, kickbacks, fees, fines, and assignments from wages taken and/or assigned by the Defendant and/or the Defendant's management; statutory liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs; and other relief as may be necessary and appropriate. Shaum's Casablanca d/b/a Lady Godivas/Casablanca operates an adult entertainment business establishment featuring exotic dancers. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeremy R. Summerlin, Esq. HORTON LAW FIRM, P.A. 307 Pettigus Street Greenville, SC 29601 Tel: (864) 233-4351 Fax: (864) 233-7142 E-mail: jsummerlin@hortonlawfirm.net SMILEDIRECTCLUB: Court Won't Review Discovery Denial in Ciccio Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DR. JOSEPH CICCIO, et al., Plaintiffs v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00845 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, denies the Defendants' first and second Motion for Review of Nondispositive Magistrate Judge Order. The Defendants seek review of the Magistrate Judge's determinations regarding two sets of discovery requests. SmileDirect sells plastic dental aligners as an alternative to conventional orthodontics. The Plaintiffs are orthodontists and orthodontic practices who allege that they have been harmed by SmileDirect's use of deceptive marketing to entice potential customers away from more traditional treatments. The parties are in discovery, for which a Special Master has been appointed. That discovery has been bifurcated into a stage focused on class certification and a later stage focused on the merits, and the case is currently in the first of those two stages. The Defendants seek review of the Magistrate Judge's determinations regarding two sets of discovery requests: (1) the Magistrate Judge's decision not to require the Plaintiffs to produce certain information regarding the geographic markets of their clinics; and (2) the Magistrate Judge's decision to compel the production of certain documents that the Defendants assert to be privileged. Each of those decisions was considered in the first instance by the Special Master, then, unsuccessfully challenged by the Defendants before the Magistrate Judge. The Defendants now argue that both the Special Master and Magistrate Judge erred. Geographic Market Requests The Defendants "respectfully request that the Court compel responses to Interrogatory No. 6 (seeking zip codes of Entity Plaintiffs' patients), Interrogatory No. 12 (asking Provider Plaintiffs to identify the geographic boundaries of the consumer market for their traditional orthodontic services), and to Request for Production No. 34 (seeking documents that identify or describe that same consumer market)." In rejecting those requests, the Special Master found it unclear how any of the requested information is relevant to the issue of class certification. The Defendants appealed the conclusion to the Magistrate Judge, who overruled their objections after finding no abuse of discretion in the Special Master's ruling. In keeping with their approach to the zip code issue before the Magistrate Judge, the Defendants merely argue that allowing the Plaintiffs avoid substantively responding to these three requests is clearly erroneous and contrary to law. As the Magistrate Judge noted, however, the most recent of those three incorporated-by-reference filings merely "refers to and incorporates" the earlier two for the purpose of extending their arguments to Interrogatory No. 6. Judge Trauger finds that the Defendants have not identified any meaningful basis for reversing the Magistrate Judge's rulings regarding geographic discovery. She does not doubt that issues of geography bear on the Plaintiffs' claims and even on some aspects of class certification. The fact that geographic markets matter to their theory generally, however, does not mean that the particular information requested was discoverable. Interrogatory No. 12 and Request for Production No. 34 also appear to have been formulated based on the unsupported assumption that the Plaintiff clinics functioned with well-defined -- and internally documented -- geographic markets, which does not appear to be the case. Interrogatory No. 6's request for patient zip codes is at least more tethered to actual information likely to be in the Plaintiffs' possession, but, as the Magistrate Judge noted, it is unclear why that information is necessary, particularly at the class certification stage, given that the Defendants already have the clinics' addresses and therefore can make any geography-based arguments already. Judge Trauger accordingly won't reverse the Magistrate Judge's decision to deny the requested geographic discovery. Privilege Claims In the Defendants' second Motion for Review they ask the Court to overturn the Magistrate Judge's Order requiring production of documents reflecting "certain communications with the U.S. Food & Drug Administration Third Party Review Group, Ian Kitching, MRC-X, and Knoell USA." They concede that none of those people or entities were attorneys representing SmileDirect. They argue, however, that the nature of those parties' relationships to SmileDirect -- and in particular SmileDirect's legal department -- entitle the underlying communications to protection. Judge Trauger shares the Magistrate Judge's assessment that additional evidence about the general relationship between SmileDirect and its consultants would be unlikely to negate the conclusion reached by the in camera review of representative communications themselves. The legal and business considerations at issue in the FDA clearance process are so closely intertwined that whether particular advice was directed at one or the other is almost certainly better evaluated in light of the content of representative documents, rather than parties' potentially self-serving characterizations of the underlying relationships. If a party had the power to confer "privileged status" on any regulatory consultant simply by describing the consultant in the right way internally, it would vitiate the distinction between regulatory and legal advice altogether. Because the Defendants have failed to identify any clear error by the Magistrate Judge in her review of the Special Master's conclusions, Judge Trauger denies the Defendants' motion. A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mwurxbst from Leagle.com. SOCLEAN INC: CPAP Cleaning Device Emits Ozone, Clark Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOCLEAN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-02335-MGL (D.S.C., July 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violation of South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading advertising and marketing of its continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) cleaning device. The Defendant advertised that its device used activated oxygen and was safe and healthy. However, the Defendant failed to disclose to consumers that the device emits ozone. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the device or paid a premium for it, says the suit. SoClean, Inc. is a manufacturer of cleaning devices, with its principal place of business in Peterborough, New Hampshire. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harper Todd Segui, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 825 Lowcountry Blvd., Unit 101 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (900) 600-5000 Facsimile: (900) 600-5035 E-mail: hsegui@milberg.com - and – Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq. Sarah T. Bradshaw, Esq. SHARP LAW FIRM 4820 W. 75th St. Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 E-mail: rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com sbradshaw@midwest-law.com - and – Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5101 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 429.2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com - and – Ronald Verdell Johnson, IV, Esq. Russell L. Johnson, Esq. DEAKLE-JOHNSON LAW FIRM, PLLC P.O. Box 2072 Hattiesburg, MS 39403 Telephone: (601) 544-0631 E-mail: rljohnson@djlawms.com rvjohsnon@djlawms.com SOUTHCOAST HEALTH: Souza Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southcoast Health System, Inc. The case is styled as Jonathan Souza, on his own behalf and on behalf of All others similarly situated v. Southcoast Health System, Inc., Case No. 2273CV00496 (Mass. Super. Ct., Bristol Cty., July 18, 2022). The case type is stated as "Torts." Southcoast Health -- https://www.southcoast.org/ -- is an affiliation of three partner hospitals located in the southeastern portion of Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Patrick McLane, Esq. MCLANE AND MCLANE, LLC 269 South Westfield Feeding Hills, MA 01030 SPA'AH LLC: Wells Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Arkansas -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spa'ah LLC. The case is styled as Patty Wells, Chelbra Washington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Benesys, Inc., R. Michelle Christen, Case No. 4:22-cv-00664-BRW (E.D. Ark., July 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. THE SPA'AH -- https://thespaah.com/ -- offers many therapeutic massages, professional esthetics, and spa services in a gender neutral atmosphere.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher Wesley Burks, Esq. Stewart Alexander Whaley, Esq. WH LAW 1 Riverfront Place, Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Phone: (501) 891-6000 Email: chris@whlawoffices.com stewart@whlawoffices.com STEMILT AG: Garcia Class Certification Bid Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILBERTO GOMEZ GARCIA, JONATHAN GOMEZ RIVERA, JOSE RODRIGUEZ LLERENAS, FRANCISCO MUNOZ MEDRANO, SANDRO VARGAS LEYVA, ALEJANDRO CHAVEZ MONROY, and VICTOR FRANCISCO PADILLA PLASCENCIA, as individuals and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, v. STEMILT AG SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00254-TOR (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas O. Rice entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's Second Motion for Class Certification: 1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the Court hereby certifies the following "FLCA Disclosure Class" in this case: a. All Mexican nationals employed by Stemilt Ag Services, LLC in Washington, pursuant only to the second H-2A contract from August 14, 2017 through November 15, 2017 who received disclosures in violation of RCW 19.30.110(2) and (7)(h). 2. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B), the Court hereby certifies the following claims, including all damages related thereto: a. The claim that the Defendant, as a farm labor contractor, did not disclose to every person with whom it dealt in the capacity of a farm labor contractor the amount of its bond and the existence and amount of any claims against the bond. b. The claim that Defendant, as a farm labor contractor, did not disclose, on a form prescribed by the director, furnished to each worker, at the time of hiring, recruiting, soliciting, or supplying, whichever occurs first, a written statement in English and any other language common to workers who are not fluent or literate in English that contains a description of: The name and address of the owner of all operations, or the owner's agent, where the worker will be working as a result of being recruited, solicited, supplied, or employed by the Defendant. 3. Intervenor-Plaintiffs Jose Rodriguez Llerenas and Francisco Munoz Medrano are appointed as Class Representatives. 4. Columbia Legal Services and Keller Rohrback L.L.P. are appointed as Class Counsel. 5. The Defendant shall have fourteen (14) days from service of the proposed "Notice" to serve and file any objections to the same. This case concerns H-2A farm workers who were employed by Stemilt in Washington. On August 20, 2021, the Court certified the following FLCA class 8 claims raised under RCW 19.30.110(7): "All Mexican nationals employed at 9 Stemilt Ag Services, LLC in Washington, pursuant to both the 2017 H-2A contract from January 16, 2017 through August 11, 2017 and the H-2A contract from August 14, 2017 through November 14, 2017." Following certification, the Court allowed a final amendment for an FLCA claim relating to the August 2017 Clearance Order. The operative Fourth Amended Complaint raises the following class causes of action: (1) "TVPA Class" for violations under 18 U.S.C. section 1589(a)(3)-(4), RCW 16 49.60.180(3), and 42 U.S.C. section 1981; (2) "Wait Time Class" for violation of RCW 49.52.050(2); and (3) "FLCA Class" for violations under RCW 19.30.110(1), (2), (5), (7). On June 2, 2022, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' FLCA claim 20 under RCW 19.30.110(1). Stemilt AG was founded in 2011. The company's line of business includes providing farm management services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oo4get at no extra charge.[CC] STEPHEN NG: Ng Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stephen Ng. The case is styled as Albert Ng and Danny Wong, both individually and derivately on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated shareholders of Sunny Palace Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Sunny Palace v. Stephen Ng, as trustee of the Ng Family Irrevocable Trust, Case No. 520884/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., July 21, 2022). Stephen Ng Financial Group -- https://www.stephenngfg.com/ -- are professionals who specialize in financial planning and other important milestones.[BN] The nature of suit and the professionals are not stated in the doc. STUPP BROS: Class Status Deadlines Extended in Stoklosa Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA STOKLOSA, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v. STUPP BROS., INC. d/b/a STUPP, Case No. 3:21-cv-00162-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Shelly D. Dick entered an order granting the the joint motion to extend the deadline to issue class and other deadlines for another 60 days. -- The Plaintiff to file a Motion for Conditional Class Certification of Collective Action and for Notice to Prospective Class Members by September 8, 2022. Stupp Bros. is a privately-owned company focused on providing infrastructure development in the United States as well as serving the St. Louis market through a successful community bank, continually ranked among the top Missouri banks for safety and soundness. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cM7N3H at no extra charge.[CC] SUNFLOW INC: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunflow, Inc. The case is styled as Alexandra Hobbs, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Sunflow, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06208 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sunflow -- https://getsunflow.com/ -- is a beach brand designing products that transform every beach outing into a luxurious and indulgent retreat.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal SWEETIE BOY: Munn Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages for Auto Pilots ----------------------------------------------------------------- TYNIKA MUNN and BEAU OARE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SWEETIE BOY TRANSPORTATION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00512-REP (E.D. Va., July 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, and the Virginia Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiffs Munn and Oare worked for the Defendant as auto pilots from January 2022 until May 2022 and from October 2021 until April 2022, respectively. Sweetie Boy Transportation, LLC is a transportation services company, headquartered in Ashland, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Krista Sheets, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: krista@sanfordlawfirm.com T-MOBILE: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $350 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Dan Avery, writing for CNET, reports that almost a year after a cybersecurity breach that exposed sensitive information from millions of current, past and prospective customers, T-Mobile has agreed to a $350 million settlement. If approved, the deal will be the second-largest data-breach settlement in US history, after Equifax's agreement to pay $700 million in 2019. The mobile carrier has not acknowledged any wrongdoing but, in a statement shared with CNET, said it was "pleased to have resolved this consumer class action filing." "Customers are first in everything we do and protecting their information is a top priority," T-Mobile added. "Like every company, we are not immune to these criminal attacks." In addition to paying affected customers, T-Mobile will invest $150 million in improving its data security, according to SEC filings. Here's what you need to know about the T-Mobile data-breach settlement, including who's eligible for a payout, how much they could get and when the money might arrive. For more on class-action suits, find out if you qualify for a payout from Facebook's $90 million settlement or the $45 million settlement from Roundup weedkiller. What happened in the T-Mobile data-breach case? On August 15, 2021, T-Mobile reported a cyberattack had led to the theft of millions of people's personal information, including. names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license details and other sensitive information, including unique codes that identified individual phones. Exactly how many people were hacked and how they were impacted is unclear: According to court filings, approximately 76.6 million people had their data exposed, but T-Mobile has claimed only about 850,000 people's names, addresses and PINs were "compromised." An individual selling the information on the dark web for 6 bitcoin (approximately $277,000 at the time) told Vice they had data relating to over 100 million people, all compiled from T-Mobile servers. John Binns, a 21-year-old living in Turkey, eventually took responsibility for the cyberattack, the fifth such attack that has hit T-Mobile since 2015. "I was panicking because I had access to something big," Binns told The Wall Street Journal. "Their security is awful." The July 24 settlement, filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Missouri, merges at least 44 class action suits that claimed T-Mobile was lax with its cybersecurity and failed to protect personal information. How do I find out if I qualify for a payment from the T-Mobile settlement? T-Mobile has not released the full details of its payment plan. Typically class members -- in this case, people who were T-Mobile customers in August 2021 -- are notified they are eligible by mail. (Full disclosure: This reporter was a T-Mobile customer at that time.) Customers are then given 90 days to submit claim forms or request to opt out of the settlement and reserve the right to pursue their own separate legal claims, according to court papers. It could be several months before individuals find out if they will receive money from the settlement, TechCrunch reported. How much money could I receive from the T-Moble settlement? Class members could receive cash payments of $25, Reuters reported, or $100 for California residents. It could also be substantially less, depending on how many people respond. In addition to paying out claims, the $350 million has to go toward settling legal fees and administrative costs. The plaintiffs' lawyers may charge up to 30% of the settlement, according to court filings. Separately, some people could receive as much as $25,000 to cover losses they suffered as a direct result of the breach. T-Mobile is also offering two free years of McAfee's ID Theft Protection Service to anyone who believes they may have been a victim. When will I receive a payment from the T-Mobile settlement? Qualified class members likely won't see any money until at least 2023. T-Mobile has 30 days to provide the court with a list of class members, along with their phone numbers and mailing and email addresses, "to the extent available." Once eligible parties are notified, claims can be submitted. Legal fees are deducted and the remaining money is divvied up among class members who sent back claims. That could take months. In addition, the $350 million payout has only received preliminary approval. It still requires final sign-off from a judge, which T-Mobile said would come by December at the earliest. What is T-Mobile doing to protect against future security breaches? T-Mobile has "doubled-down" on fighting hackers, the company said in its July 22 statement, by boosting employee training, collaborating with industry experts like Mandiant and Accenture on new protocols and creating a cybersecurity office that reports directly to the company's chief executive officer, Mike Sievert. Security journalist Brian Krebs reported in April 2022 that T-Mobile was a victim of the hacking group Lapsus$. The hackers accessed employee accounts and attempted to find T-Mobile accounts associated with the Department of Defense and FBI, TechCruch reported. They were thwarted by secondary authentication checks. [GN] TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Cert Briefing Extended to August 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ford. et al., v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-10090 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge William G. Young entered an order granting joint motion for extension of time to August 9, 2022 regarding class certification briefing. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) involving employee benefits. Takeda provides pharmaceutical services.[CC] TAMPA FLORIDA: Faces Timber Suit Over Failure to Secure Trailers ---------------------------------------------------------------- TIMBER PRODUCTS TRUCKING, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAMPA FLORIDA KENWORTH, a CMS TRUCKING COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 153792812 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 13th Jud. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., July 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and bailment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to store the Plaintiff's and Class members' trailers in a safe location. The Defendant owed the Plaintiff and similarly situated equipment owners a duty to properly keep their trailers. As a result of the Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff's trailer was stolen, the suit asserts. Timber Products Trucking, LLC is a self-insured limited liability company, with a principal place of business at 305 South 4th Street, Springfield, Oregon. Tampa Florida Kenworth is a truck dealer in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank G. Mackoul II, Esq. MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. 1301 Riverplace Blvd., Suite 2140 Jacksonville, FL 32207 Telephone: (262) 673-7850 E-mail: ehernandez@mwl-law.com TAPPED 1010: Reyes Files Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, JOSE HERNANDEZ REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAPPED 1010 INC. d/b/a TAP ROOM, JAMES BONANNO and DAVID JOHNSON, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04230 (E.D.N.Y., July 19, 2022) alleges the Defendant of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a kitchen worker, cook, cleaner, food preparer and online order receiver and preparer while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants from in or around March 2015 until in or around April 2022. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked approximately 72 hours or more hours each week throughout his employment with the Defendants. However, the Defendants did not pay him overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek in violation of the overtime provisions of the FLSA and NYLL. In addition, the Defendant did not pay him an extra hour at the legally prescribed minimum wage for each day worked over 10 hours in violation of the spread-of-hours provisions contained in the NYLL. The Defendant also failed to keep payroll records as required by both NYLL and FLSA. Moreover, the Defendant willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment, and willfully failed to provide the Plaintiff with a written notice and with any wage statements, alleges the suit. Tapped 1010 Inc. d/b/a Tap Room operates a restaurant owned by James Bonanno and David Johnson. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Tel: (718) 263-9591 TAX AFFAIR: Fails to Pay Premium Overtime Wages, Bopp Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ THOMAS BOPP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. TAX AFFAIR, INC. d/b/a JACKSON HEWITT TAX SERVICE, and KEN SRA, Case No. 2:22-cv-04300 (E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2022) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, premium overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff brings this action due to the Defendants' failure to pay him all commissions owed by the end of each month in which they were earned, in violation of NYLL 191(c), as well as for failure to provide him with accurate wage statements with his wages each week pursuant to NYLL section 195(3) and for failure to provide him with a compliant wage notice upon his hire pursuant to NYLL section 195(1), and for claims of unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and breach of contract under New York common law. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all other persons similarly- situated during the applicable limitations periods who suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' violations of the NYLL and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations and violations of New York common law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a tax preparer from on or about December 17, 2016 until in or about February 2021. The Plaintiff did not work from the months of May through November each year, only serving as a tax preparer during "tax season." For the purposes of this Complaint, the term "tax season" represents the period of December through April the following year. The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing tax advice and preparing tax returns for customers, and maintain a place of business in Shirley, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: mfarnworth@RomeroLawNY.com TAX DEFENSE NETWORK: Reimer Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tax Defense Network, LLC. The case is styled as Ruhi Reimer, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tax Defense Network, LLC doing business as: Moneysolver, Case No. 3:22-cv-00793 (M.D. Fla, July 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Tax Defense Network, LLC doing business as MoneySolver -- https://www.moneysolver.org/ -- is a national financial services company based in Jacksonville, Florida that helps people and businesses transform their student loan, tax, business, and credit situations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander J. Taylor, Esq. NATIONAL LITIGATION LAW GROUP, LLP 2401 Northwest 23rd Street, Suite 42 Oklahoma City, OK 73107 Phone: (630) 366-0140 Email: ataylor@nationlit.com TERRAFORM LABS: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Vignesh Karunanidhi, writing for TronWeekly, reports that a new class action lawsuit has been brought on TerraForm Labs, its founder Do Kwon, its director of research Nicholas Platias, and other companies. The class action complaint has been filed by Bragar Eagel & Squire PC accusing the defendants of breaking the California Common Law, the Exchange Act, the Securities Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Terra faces three class action lawsuits In a news statement on July 25, Bragar Eagel & Squire PC disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against TerraForm Labs, its founder Do Kwon, and Nicholas Platias. In addition, affiliates like GSR/GSR Markets, Three Arrows Capital, Republic Capital, Republic Maximal, Tribe Capital, DFinance Capital, and DFinance Technologies (3AC). All investors, including people and businesses, who bought or obtained LUNA tokens between May 20, 2021, and May 25, 2022, are included in the class action lawsuit. In the case, Terra Labs and other defendants are charged with breaking Exchange Act rules. Investors claim that the company misled them, causing them to purchase LUNA Tokens at inflated rates. The defendants reportedly carried out a strategy and set of actions to entice investors. The defendants are charged with approving false claims that were deceptive and of which they knew or ought to have known. The complaint also asserts that by failing to register their token, Terraform Labs and other defendants violated Securities Act restrictions. The investigating teams from South Korea and the United States had already agreed to exchange information on their investigations into Do Kwon and the LUNA disaster. In reality, South Korea's investigative team searched 15 cryptocurrency businesses and exchanges, as well as co-founder of TerraForm Labs Daniel Shin's residence and offices, stepping up inquiries into claims that Do Kwon and TerraForm Labs committed fraud. Terra's USTC and LUNC values have fallen as a result of the new round of investigations; previously, they had been steadily rising as a result of community-led token burning.[GN] TESLA INC: Securities Suit in Delaware Court Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- Tesla, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2022, that the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint, its trial is set for October 2022. On June 4, 2018, a purported Tesla stockholder filed a putative class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Elon Musk and the members of Tesla's board of directors as then constituted, alleging corporate waste, unjust enrichment and that such board members breached their fiduciary duties by approving the stock-based compensation plan awarded to Elon Musk in 2018. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and rescission or reformation of the stock-based compensation plan. On August 31, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint; plaintiff filed its opposition brief on November 1, 2018; and defendants filed a reply brief on December 13, 2018. The hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on May 9, 2019. On September 20, 2019, the Court granted the motion to dismiss as to the corporate waste claim but denied the motion as to the breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims. Defendants' answer was filed on December 3, 2019. On January 25, 2021, the Court conditionally certified certain claims and a class of Tesla stockholders as a class action. On September 30, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a verified amended derivative complaint. On October 1, 2021, defendants Kimbal Musk and Steve Jurvetson moved for summary judgment as to the claims against them. Following the motion, the plaintiff agreed to voluntarily dismiss the claims against Kimbal Musk and Steve Jurvetson. Plaintiff also moved for summary judgment on October 1, 2021. On October 27, 2021, the Court approved the parties' joint stipulation that, among other things, (a) all claims against Kimbal Musk and Steve Jurvetson in the Complaint are dismissed with prejudice; (b) the class is decertified and the action shall continue exclusively as a derivative action under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1; and (c) the direct claims against the remaining defendants are dismissed with prejudice. On November 18, 2021, the remaining defendants (a) moved for partial summary judgment, (b) opposed plaintiff's summary judgment motion and (c) opposed the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint. In January 2022, the case was assigned to a different judge. On February 24, 2022, the court (i) granted plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint, and (ii) canceled oral argument on the summary judgment motions, stating that the court is "skeptical that this litigation can be resolved based on the undisputed facts" and the "case is going to trial," but that the "parties may reassert their arguments made in support of summary judgment in their pre-trial and post-trial briefs." Trial is currently set for October 24-31, 2022. Tesla Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and sells fully electric vehicles, solar energy generation and energy storage products. TESLA INC: Securities Suits in California Court Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- Tesla, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2022, that between August 10, 2018 and September 6, 2018, nine purported stockholder class actions were filed against Tesla and Elon Musk in connection with Mr. Musk's August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was considering taking Tesla private. All of the suits are now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Although the complaints vary in certain respects, they each purport to assert claims for violations of federal securities laws related to Mr. Musk's statement and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Tesla's securities. Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on January 16, 2019 and added as defendants the members of Tesla's board of directors. The now-consolidated purported stockholder class action was stayed while the issue of selection of lead counsel was briefed and argued before the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit ruled regarding lead counsel. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 22, 2019. The hearing on the motion was held on March 6, 2020. On April 15, 2020, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. The parties stipulated to certification of a class of stockholders, which the court granted on November 25, 2020. On January 11, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. On April 1, 2022, the Court granted in part plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. The company disagrees with the ruling and accordingly, on April 22, 2022, asked the Court for reconsideration or, in the alternative, certification to file an interlocutory appeal. On June 16, 2022, in response to Tesla's motions, the Court denied certification to appeal and declined to reconsider its opinion but clarified its summary judgment ruling to make clear that it had not ruled that any misstatements it identified met the required materiality element under the securities statute. The issue of materiality and reliance will both be questions for the jury to decide at trial, which is set for January 17, 2023. Tesla Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and sells fully electric vehicles, solar energy generation and energy storage products. TG THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of Sept. 16 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Attention TG Therapeutics, Inc. ("TG Therapeutics") (NASDAQ: TGTX) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on July 25 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased between January 15, 2020 and May 31, 2022. If you suffered a loss on your investment in TG Therapeutics, contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/tgtx-lawsuit-loss-submission-form?prid=30151&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against TG Therapeutics includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) clinical trials revealed significant concerns related to the benefit-risk ratio and overall survival data of the Company's therapeutic product candidates, Ublituximab and Umbralisib; (ii) accordingly, it was unlikely that the Company would be able to obtain approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of the Umbralisib marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma New Drug Application, the Biologics License Application for Ublituximab in combination with Umbralisib, the supplemental New Drug Application for Ublituximab in combination with Umbralisib, or the Ublituximab relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis Biologics License Application in their current forms; (iii) as a result, the Company had significantly overstated Ublituximab and Umbralisib's clinical and/or commercial prospects; and (iv) therefore, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. DEADLINE: September 16, 2022 Aggrieved TG Therapeutics investors only have until September 16, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] TJB GEARYS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against TJB Gearys, LLC. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TJB Gearys, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06135 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gearys, LLC -- https://www.gearys.com/ -- offers luxury jewelry, dinnerware, watches, gifts, tableware and more by the most coveted luxury brands.[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 TRANSDEV SERVICES: Ganther Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled BRENDA GANTHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 22CV000632, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Napa, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 20, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-04230 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay all wages, knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement, failure to timely pay wages due at termination, failure to timely pay employees, and failure to reimburse for business expenses. Transdev Services, Inc. is a provider of passenger transportation services doing business in California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq. Olga Savage, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 1999 Harrison St., Suite 700 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 768-0650 Facsimile: (510) 768-0651 E-mail: Tyler.Paetkau@huschblackwell.com Olga.Savage@huschblackwell.com TRANSPORTATION MARKETING: Nordstedt Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transportation Marketing Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Mindi Nordstedt, individually, and on behalf of, other members of the general public similarly situated v. Transportation Marketing Services, Inc., King Courier, Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22600780 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., July 18, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Transportation Marketing Services International, Inc. provides transport and logistics services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101 Pasadena, CA 91103-3069 Phone: (818) 230-7502 Fax: (818) 230-7259 Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com TREK RETAIL: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Green Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT GREEN v. TREK RETAIL CORPORATION, Case No. 4:21-cv-07004-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an amended scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline -- Close of Fact Discovery March 31, 2023 -- Exchange of Opening April 10, 2023 Expert Reports: -- Exchange of Rebuttal April 24, 2023 Expert Reports: -- Deadline for Class May 15, 2023 Certification Motion: -- Deadline for Class June 14, 2023 Certification Opposition: -- Deadline for Class June 28, 2023 Certification Reply: -- Class Certification July 13, 2023 Motion Hearing Deadline: A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ztJjot at no extra charge.[CC] TRI-COUNTY CONSTRUCTION: Bailey Class Suit Junked ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN BAILEY v. TRI-COUNTY CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-312-MOC-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Max Cogburn entered an order granting the Plaintiff's Consent Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff's motion is granted, and this action is dismissed with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own costs. Furthermore, since this matter is being dismissed, the Plaintiff's pending Motion to Certify Class and Approve Notice is denied as moot. The Clerk shall terminate this action. A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cDvH0W at no extra charge.[CC] UKG INC: Arpie Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Compromised Employees' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ AUDREY ARPIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UKG, INC., MERCY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., and TRINITY HEALTH OF NEW ENGLAND CORPORATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-30096 (D. Mass., July 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid regular wages in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act, negligence, intrusion upon seclusion/invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful withholding of the Plaintiff's and Class Members' wages and the negligent disclosure of over 8 million employees' personally identifiable information in a massive data breach on or around December 11, 2021. The Defendants' inadequate security measures allowed unauthorized individuals to access and render unusable a workforce management software application the Defendants used to process payroll and store data that contained the PII of Plaintiff and other individuals. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members were not timely paid the full amount of wages to which they are entitled, says the suit. UKG, Inc. is a provider of workforce management solutions, with its principal place of business at 2000 Ultimate Way, Weston, Florida. Mercy Medical Group, Inc. is a medical care services company, with its principal place of business at 271 Carew St., Springfield, Massachusetts. Trinity Health of New England Corporation, Inc. is a healthcare services firm, with its principal place of business at 114 Woodland St., Hartford, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com - and – Jack J. Canzoneri, Esq. Nicholas Wanger, Esq. MCDONALD LAMOND CANZONERI 352 Turnpike Rd., Suite 210 Southborough, MA 01772 Telephone: (508) 485-6600 E-mail: jcanzoneri@masslaborlawyers.com nwanger@masslaborlawyers.com UNITED STATES: Gov't. Issues Formal Apology for Anti-Black Racism ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Lapointe, writing for The Hill Times, reports that following the federal government's formal apology for the systemic, anti-Black racism experienced by members of the No. 2 Construction Battalion who served during World War I, members of the multi-billion-dollar Black class action lawsuit welcome the prime minister's words, but leading lawyer Courtney Betty says the "battle that the battalion fought 106 years ago is no different from the battle that we're fighting right now on behalf of Black public service workers." The apology comes in the midst of an ongoing, multi-billion dollar class-action lawsuit representing current and former Black federal public servants seeking long-term solutions to permanently address systemic racism and discrimination in the bureaucracy. [GN] UNITED STATES: Murphey Files Suit in D. Arizona ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States of America, et al. The case is styled as Jennifer N. Murphey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United States of America, Merrick B Garland, United States Attorney General, United States Department of Justice; Anne Milgram, Administrator of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration; Mark Brnovich, Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Case No. 2:22-cv-01224-JJT (D. Ariz., July 21, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil Rights Act. The U.S. -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. UNITY SOFTWARE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 6 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Unity Software Inc. (NYSE:U) between March 5, 2021 and May 10, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important September 6, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Unity securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Unity class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7381 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 6, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) deficiencies in Unity's product platform reduced the accuracy of the Company's machine learning technology; (2) the foregoing was likely to have a material negative impact on Unity's revenues; (3) accordingly, Unity had overstated its commercial and/or financial prospects for 2022; (4) as a result, Unity was likely to have to reduce its fiscal 2022 guidance; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Unity class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7381 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Students Seek to Certify Classes ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI COVID-19 TUITION AND FEE REFUND LITIGATION, Case No. 0:20-cv-60851-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following proposed classes: -- The Tuition Class "All students who paid tuition and were enrolled in classes at the University of Miami for the Spring 2020 semester but were denied live, in-person instruction and forced to use online distance learning platforms for the latter portion of that semester;" and -- The Fees Class "All students who paid the Activity Fee, Athletic Fee, Wellness Center Fee, Student Health and Counseling Centers Fee, and Student Center Fee, and were enrolled in classes at the University of Miami for the Spring 2020 semester." The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court appoint Plaintiffs as class representatives and appoint their lawyers as co-lead class counsel under Rule 23(g). The case raises one central question: who should bear the burden of Defendant University of Miami's ("UM") failure to provide students with bargained for on-campus education: the students -- entering the workforce with an average indebtedness of $18,645 1 or UM -- an institution supported by a $1.05 billion endowment. This question will be answered the same way for every student in the proposed class because every student who paid UM tuition and/or fees for the Spring 2020 semester lost a portion of the benefit of their bargain when the school closed in response to the pandemic and transitioned classes from in-person to virtual. Therefore, class action treatment is not merely appropriate, it is the ideal way to answer questions about the propriety and calculation of refunds to each student. Multiple courts, including one applying Florida law, have readily concluded that class treatment is appropriate in similar cases. The central facts relevant to class certification are not in genuine dispute. UM is an institution of higher learning in Coral Gables, Florida. While it disputes the terms and sources of its contractual bargain with its students, UM admits that it entered into a contract with its students. UM charged, and Plaintiffs and class members paid, tuition and fees when they registered to take classes during the Spring 2020 semester, specifically registering for classes that UM specifically described as in-person. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ozXzWO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131-2800 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com - and - Roy T. Willey IV, Esq. Eric M. Poulin, Esq. G. Abbott, Esq. POULIN WILLEY & ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 614-8888 E-mail: roy@akinlawfirm.com eric@akinlawfirm.com blake@akinlawfirm.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq. Whitney K. Siehl, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (708) 628-4949 Facsimile: (708) 628-4950 E-mail: dank@hbsslaw.com whitneys@hbsslaw.com UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: More Student-Athletes File Abuse Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ FeganScott announced in MENAFN that nine former University of San Francisco (USF) baseball players joined the class action lawsuit filed in March 2022 against their two (now former) baseball coaches, USF, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The players allege that USF coaches Anthony Giarratano and Troy Nakamura created an intolerable sexualized environment on the team over the course of 22 years, that USF knew about their misconduct and did nothing to stop it, and that the NCAA has inadequate policies in place to protect student-athletes from such abuse or prevent coaches from moving on to another member institution with impunity. The amended complaint includes the claims brought by the original three plaintiffs. It provides vivid details of an environment rife with emotional abuse and highly sexualized behavior, with the earliest allegations dating back to 1999 -- Giarratano's first year as coach. The original complaint was filed on March 11, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. Since the filing, Giarratano and Nakamura have been fired, and USF athletic director, Joan McDermott, has left her position. "Since we filed this case on behalf of three young student-athletes who had the courage to stand up and share their horrific experiences at USF, we've been contacted by many former USF baseball players who share similar stories of crippling emotional abuse and perverse sexual behavior by the USF coaches," said Elizabeth Fegan, founding partner of FeganScott, and one of the attorneys representing the students."These experiences clearly illustrate why USF and the NCAA should be held accountable for abuse by coaches." According to Fegan, the intent of the suit is to force the school to adopt and implement best practices to prevent future occurrences and to compensate the young men for the harm they suffered at the hands of the coaches. "These nine new plaintiffs -- who played baseball at USF going back to the very beginning of Giarratano and Nakamura's coaching tenure -- establish that this was not a one-off, one day, one player, or one season incident," said Jonathan Selbin, a senior partner at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, who has led the firm's litigation against the University of Southern California and the University of Michigan involving sexual abuse of students and serves as co-counsel on the present suit."It was a two-decade period during which the coaches created a pervasive and intolerable sexualized environment that did lasting damage to these young players, that USF did nothing to stop despite its knowledge, and for which the NCAA had and has inadequate policies in place to address or prevent it from recurring." "The reality is that the University of San Francisco has an abysmal record in safeguarding students," Fegan added."The deplorable case involving the baseball team comes on the heels of similar allegations involving both the men's soccer program and the women's basketball program." "We are forced to use the civil court system to require the Jesuit school to make the changes it won't make on its own," she added. The complaint also challenges the NCAA's refusal to take meaningful steps to create penalties for sexual, violent, or criminal conduct by coaches or personnel in their athletics programs. While the NCAA freely metes out punishments for student-athletes for poor academic performance and disciplines athletes for profiting off their own likenesses, the NCAA's bylaws do not contain any penalties for sexual, violent, or criminal conduct by coaches or personnel in their athletics programs. According to the complaint, the NCAA has taken no action in the two decades since the NCAA adopted a coaching code of ethics in 1992, which prohibits sexual harassment and sexual relationships between coaches and athletes. The complaint also cites the NCAA's failure to track instances of abuse to prevent coaches from moving to different schools. With over 140 pages, the complaint also cites repeated instances in which USF coaches used emotional abuse to force players to leave the team, often forced to walk away from guaranteed scholarships worth as much as $280,000. 'Our investigation has revealed that the coaches would routinely berate players with profanity-laced, sexualized screeds intended to humiliate and intimidate them, often in front of other players or fans," said Fegan."The intent was clear, to get the kids to quit, freeing up scholarships the coaches could dangle in front of other prospects, and the data supports this conclusion." According to the complaint of the 13 recruits in the 2017 USF class, only five stayed for four years. Of the 17 recruits in 2020, eight have transferred, and two are planning to, giving the team a 60% transfer rate compared to a national average of just 2%. "Many of the student-athletes we represent are dealing with severe trauma, depression and other health issues stemming from the horrific sexualized abuse and bullying Giarratano and Nakamura put them through," said Fegan."These impressionable young men looked forward to a bright future playing college baseball with the training and mentorship they were promised. Instead, the coaches tasked with guiding and teaching them, abused and scarred them. These experiences at USF are an example of what happens when the NCAA is allowed to refuse responsibility." About FeganScott FeganScott is a national class-action law firm dedicated to helping victims of sexual abuse and sexual harassment. Elizabeth Fegan, the firm's founder and managing member, represents the group of survivors suing criminally convicted movie mogul Harvey Weinstein. The firm, championed by acclaimed veteran, class-action attorneys who have successfully recovered $1 billion for victims nationwide, has helped survivors of sexual abuse reclaim their lives and seek compensation from their perpetrators. FeganScott is committed to pursuing successful outcomes with integrity and excellence while holding the responsible parties accountable. Contact: Mark Firmani +1 206-466-2700 About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser is a national law firm that represents individuals and small businesses in a variety of individual and class action cases, including cases brought by survivors of sexual abuse against physicians, teachers, and the institutions who employ them, including the groundbreaking sexual abuse class action against the University of Southern California filed on behalf of nearly 18,000 women who were abused by USC gynecologist George Tyndall. Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Class Counsel in the USC suit, securing a historic $215 million settlement for the survivors that also included sweeping institutional reforms requiring USC to make significant and substantial changes to ensure such sexual abuse never happens again on its campus. Lieff Cabraser is currently serving as Co-Lead Class Counsel in litigation against the University of Michigan on behalf of student-patient and other survivors of sexual abuse by the late Dr. Robert E. Anderson. [GN] UPTOWN TAVERN: Fails to Pay Mandated Wages for Restaurant Servers ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANNE FULLINGTON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UPTOWN TAVERN, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, Case No. 3:22-cv-03136-SEM-KLM (C.D. Ill., July 21, 2022) is a class action complaint for damages and demand for jury trial against the Defendant for failure to comply with provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Act, and to recover applicable tips and minimum wages for certain hours worked for the Plaintiff and all Restaurant Servers who worked within the past 5 years for Uptown Tavern in Carlinville, Illinois. The Plaintiff and the Class Members were paid less than the applicable Illinois minimum wage by Defendant for certain hours worked in one or more workweeks, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Server from on or about May 1, 2021, through on or about June 2, 2022. The proposed Class Members worked for Defendant as Servers in the same or identical capacity as Plaintiff within the past 5 years. The Plaintiff seeks class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 of the following three classes for failure to pay Illinois' mandated minimum wages pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Act: -- Tip Notice Class "All Servers who worked for the Defendant at Uptown Tavern in Carlinville, Illinois, during the five years preceding this lawsuit, who were paid less than the prevailing Illinois Minimum Wage and not provided the sufficient tip notice;" -- Tip Pool Class "All Servers who worked for Defendant at Uptown Tavern in Carlinville, Illinois from March 23, 2018, through the present, who were required to share any portions of their tips with employers, supervisors, and/or managers;" -- 80/20 Class "All Servers who worked for Defendant at Uptown Tavern in Carlinville, Illinois within the past five years preceding this lawsuit, who were required to spend more than 30 minutes (or 20% of their shift) performing non-tip producing work."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com David@usaemploymentlawyers.com Catherine@usaemploymentlawyers.com UTILITY TRAILER: Class Certification Filing Extended to August 26 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINA KHEDERLARIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UTILITY TRAILER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Case No. 8:22-cv-00435-JFW-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John F. Walter entered an order that: 1. The July 26, 2022 deadline for Plaintiff Khederlarian to file a motion for class certification in Khederlarian pursuant to Section 5(i) of the Court's Scheduling Order is continued to August 26, 2022; and 2. The August 18, 2022 deadline for Plaintiff Easley to file a motion for class certification in Easley pursuant to Section 5(i) of the Court's Scheduling Order is continued to August 26, 2022; Utility Trailer is an American semi-trailer truck dry van, flatbed, and refrigerated van trailer manufacturing company, with its headquarters in the City of Industry, Los Angeles County, California, and sales office in Alpharetta, Georgia and a Parts Distribution Center in Batavia, Ohio. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cMbm9K at no extra charge.[CC] VALLE DEL SOL: Pineda Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled VERONICA BENITEZ PINEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VALLE DEL SOL, LLC; VALLE DEL SOL JONES; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV03518, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 19, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04926 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay meal periods, failure to pay rest periods, failure to pay wages timely upon cessation of employment, and unfair competition. Valle Del Sol, LLC is a healthcare services firm doing business in California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Thomas E. Campagne, Esq. CAMPAGNE & CAMPAGNE A Professional Corporation Airport Office Center 1685 North Helm Avenue Fresno, CA 93727 Telephone: (559) 255-1637 Facsimile: (559) 252-9617 E-mail: tcampagne@campagnelaw.com VELEX INC: Jordan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Velex, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Derrick Jordan, and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. Velex, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2022-00323715-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 20, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Velex -- https://www.velex.com/ -- is a tower construction and technical services company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brittany V. Berzin, Esq. SHIMODA LAW CORP 9401 E Stockton Blvd., Ste. 120 Elk Grove, CA 95624-5050 Phone: 916-525-0716 Fax: 916-760-3733 Email: bberzin@shimodalaw.com VIAERO WIRELESS: Fails to Pay Briseno Lawful OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Briseno, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Viaero Wireless Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01798-STV (D. Colo., July 21, 2022) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff lawful overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Act, and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Wage Order. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant within the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint. She was employed by the Defendant from October of 2017 until January of 2019 as a Customer Care Representative, and from January of 2019 until November of 2021 as an Online Sales Representative. As an OSR, the Plaintiff was paid an hourly wage and she also earned commission based on sales made. The Defendant also employed other hourly-paid OSRs who also earned commission within the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, says the suit. Viaero is in the Cellular Telephone Services business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com VIESTE SPE: Crossfirst Bank, et al., File Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crossfirst Bank, a Kansas banking corporation, et al., v. Vieste SPE, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, et al., Case No. CV-18-01637-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs CrossFirst Bank and CrossFirst Investments, Inc., Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, and ALPS Property & Casualty Insurance Company move the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, to certify the following class: "All purchasers or holders of The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix, Arizona's Sold Waste Disposal Facilities Revenue Bonds (Vieste SPE, LLC -- Glendale, Arizona Project) that read and relied upon the Official Statement before purchasing the Bonds;" Excluded from the Class are legal representatives, attorneys, heirs, and assigns of Defendants; any judge, justice or judicial officers presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff. The operative Third Amended Complaint alleges Defendant made several fraudulent misrepresentations in the Official Statement ("OS") issued as part of the bond sale. This centrally orchestrated scheme to unlawfully sell bonds will be the "center of gravity" in this action and thus should be certified. CrossFirst Bank provides banking services primarily designed for business owners, professionals, and their families. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 15, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J6aOb3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey Goulder, Esq. Timothy Lauxman, Esq. STINSON LLP 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4584 Telephone: (602) 279-1600 Facsimile: (602) 240-6925 E-mail: jeffrey.goulder@stinson.com - and - Clinton A. Krislov, Esq. Christopher M. Hack, Esq. KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 20 North Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 606-0500 Facsimile: (312) 739-1098 E-mail: clint@krislovlaw.com chris@krislovlaw.com VISION SOLAR: Sego Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------- PHILLIP NEAL SEGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VISION SOLAR LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-11181 (D. Mass., July 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of making unsolicited telemarketing calls to promote its goods and services. The Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers did not provide prior express written consent to receive calls from the Defendant. The Plaintiff's and Class members' telephone numbers are listed on the National Do Not Call Registry, says the suit. Vision Solar LLC is a renewable energy company, headquartered in Blackwood, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. J. Campbell, Esq. CHARLESTOWN LAW GROUP The Schrafft Center Power House 529 Main Street, Suite P200 Charlestown, MA 02129 Telephone: (617) 872-8652 E-mail: jcampbell@charlestownlawgroup.com - and – Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: S&C Eliminates 2019 Lawsuit Over Used Cars ------------------------------------------------------------ Sullivan & Cromwell LLP announced that culminating a series of wins, Volkswagen obtained summary judgment in a case in which plaintiffs had sought significant damages on behalf of multiple purported classes of thousands of consumers who bought used Volkswagen vehicles over a 14-year period. On July 7, Judge Liam O'Grady of the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' remaining claims and also granted Volkswagen's Daubert motions as to plaintiffs' two damages experts - a separate and independent basis for summary judgment. The decision in Garcia et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America brings the litigation to a close in the district court, eliminating all that remained of a sprawling proposed class action filed originally in 2019. It built upon two earlier key rulings in which Volkswagen eliminated significant legal exposure by successfully opposing plaintiffs' two attempts to certify a class, including in a ruling in January 2022. The case involved used cars that Volkswagen utilized for its internal purposes -- such as for auto shows or for publicity loans to members of the automotive press -- and which Volkswagen dealers then sold as Certified Pre-Owned vehicles. In May 2018, Volkswagen initiated a recall for some of these vehicles out of an abundance of caution because the vehicle's internal documentation was not maintained properly. Plaintiffs claimed that their vehicles did not comply with federal safety standards and had sustained damage that was not properly documented. They asserted that they were entitled to statutory penalties of at least $10,000 per vehicle, plus a full refund of their purchase prices. In his summary judgment ruling, Judge O'Grady concluded that despite extensive discovery, plaintiffs ultimately came up with nothing: "The series of innuendos and implications that the Plaintiffs have continuously attempted to piece together into a coherent theory of liability does not meet [their legal] burden and has not demonstrated any actual harm to any of the individual Plaintiffs." He added: "There is no admissible evidence in the record that any of the Plaintiffs' individual vehicles has any defect." Volkswagen was represented by Robert Giuffra Jr., Suhana Han, Bill Monahan and Judson Littleton, who received an American Lawyer "Litigator of the Week" runner-up recognition for this result. The team also included Adam Brebner, Elizabeth Rose, Lee Deppermann, Stephanie Freudenberg, Thomas McIver, Martin Erreich, Elizabeth Williams, Riley Foley, Madeline Jenks, and Zachary Barker. LAWYERS Robert J. Giuffra Jr. Suhana S. Han William B. Monahan Judson O. Littleton Adam R. Brebner Elizabeth A. Rose Lee JF Deppermann Stephanie L. Freudenberg Sullivan & Cromwell LLP [GN] WALMART INC: Vazquez Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walmart, Inc. The case is styled as Charlene Vazquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Walmart, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06215-JPO (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Walmart Inc. -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- 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.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Road, Ste. 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 268-7080 Fax: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com WELLS FARGO: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 29 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Attention Wells Fargo & Company ("Wells Fargo") (NYSE: WFC) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on July 25 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Wells Fargo common stock between February 24, 2021 and June 9, 2022. If you suffered a loss on your investment in Wells Fargo, contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/wells-fargo-class-action-loss-submission-form?prid=30145&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Wells Fargo includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Wells Fargo had misrepresented its commitment to diversity in the Company's workplace; (ii) Wells Fargo conducted fake job interviews in order to meet its Diverse Search Requirement; (iii) the foregoing conduct subjected Wells Fargo to an increased risk of regulatory and/or governmental scrutiny and enforcement action, including criminal charges; (iv) all of the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to negatively impact Wells Fargo's reputation; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. DEADLINE: August 29, 2022 Aggrieved Wells Fargo investors only have until August 29, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] WORLD RUGBY: Former Rugby Players File Brain Injury Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that more than 100 former rugby players are taking legal action against World Rugby and the national governing bodies of England and Wales over what they say was a failure to protect them from permanent injury caused by repeated concussions during their careers. Many players in the group, which includes former internationals Steve Thompson (England), Carl Hayman (New Zealand) and Alix Popham (Wales), suffer from neurological impairments such as early onset dementia, CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy), epilepsy, Parkinson's disease and motor neurone disease. The group is represented by Rylands Legal, which says it is in contact with more than 185 former rugby union players. The firm says the class action is being issued on behalf of the majority of those 185, with the rest taking legal action soon. "This claim isn't just about financial compensation," Rylands Legal said in a statement, "it is also about making the game safer and ensuring current and former players get tested so that if they are suffering a brain injury they can get the clinical help they need." World Rugby told The Associated Press it had yet to receive notification of any formal proceedings being filed. "It would be inappropriate to comment until we have received and reviewed the formal details of any potential action being taken," the governing body said. England's Rugby Football Union and the Welsh Rugby Union have yet to comment. Rylands Legal said it is the biggest class action of its kind outside of the United States. In 2013, the NFL settled lawsuits from thousands of former players who developed dementia or other concussion-related health problems they say were caused by the very on-field clashes that fueled the game's rise to popularity and profit. The NFL has paid out more than $800 million to date and is expected to cost it $1 billion. The settlement spared the league a trial over claims that it long hid what it knew about the link between concussions and brain injuries. The settlement fund is designed to cover more than 20,000 retirees suffering from brain disorders that include Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and dementia. The settlement did not include an admission from the NFL that it hid information from players about head injuries. In the rugby case, the allegations raised by the players include the failure of the governing bodies to "take proper steps as the game turned professional to respond to a disregard for player safety and brain health at the club and international level." It is claimed the rugby bodies did not educate the players about the risks of permanent brain damage or subject them to regular monitoring, and did not seek expert medical advice about the issue. A pre-action letter of claim was issued to World Rugby, England's Rugby Football Union and the Welsh Rugby Union on behalf of a group of nine players in December 2020. "The players we represent love the game," Rylands Legal said. "We aim to challenge the current perceptions of the governing bodies, to reach a point where they accept the connection between repetitive blows to the head and permanent neurological injury and to take steps to protect players and support those who are injured." Former Wales rugby captain Ryan Jones announced he has been diagnosed with early onset dementia and probable CTE. Rylands Legal said it also represents 75 rugby league players as part of a separate but similar potential claim against England's Rugby Football League. [GN] WYNDHAM VACATION: Bennett Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Brittani Bennett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership Inc., Wyndham Destinations, Inc., Does 1-20, Case No. 37-02022-00015195-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court, San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on July 19, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01050-CAB-BLM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for FLSA action for Overtime Wage Violation. Wyndham Destinations -- https://www.wyndhamdestinations.com/ -- is the largest vacation ownership company, with 230 vacation club resort locations across the globe.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David C Hawkes, Esq. BLANCHARD KRASNER & FRENCH 800 Silverado Street, Second Floor La Jolla, CA 92037 Phone: (858) 551-2440 Email: dhawkes@bkflaw.com - and - Stephen J. Matcha, Esq. MATCHA LAW 2535 Kettner Blvd., Suite 2C2 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 565-3865 Email: steve@matchalaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Abbey M. Jahnke, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 573-4900 Email: Abbey.Jahnke@jacksonlewis.com - and - Kathy A. Le, Esq. Sanam Aghnami, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 885-1360 Fax: (949) 885-1380 Email: Kathy.le@jacksonlewis.com YEXT INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 16 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Attention Yext, Inc. ("Yext") YEXT shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on July 25 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased between March 4, 2021 and March 8, 2022. If you suffered a loss on your investment in Yext, contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/yext-class-action-lawsuit?prid=30143&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Yext includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Yext's revenue and earnings were significantly deteriorating because of, among other things, poor sales execution and performance, as well as COVID-19 related disruptions; (ii) accordingly, Yext was unlikely to meet consensus estimates for its full year fiscal 2022 financial results and fiscal 2023 outlook; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. DEADLINE: August 16, 2022 Aggrieved Yext investors only have until August 16, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] YONISKI AMSTERDAM: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Victoriano Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLAUDIA VICTORIANO and HUGO CANDIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. YONISKI AMSTERDAM LLC (DBA HOLY SCHNITZEL) and HISKI MIEROV, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06203 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 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 provide notice at time of hiring, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiffs Victoriano and Candia worked at the Defendants' restaurant located at 654 Amsterdam Ave., New York, New York from March 2019 until May 5, 2022. Yoniski Amsterdam LLC, doing business as Holy Schnitzel, is a restaurant owner and operator located at 654 Amsterdam Ave., New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 YUGA LABS: Scott+Scott Mulls Class Suit Over Inflated Crypto Assets ------------------------------------------------------------------- Shalini Nagarajan, writing for Blockworks, reports that Yuga Labs, the $4 billion startup behind the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) NFT collection, could face a class action lawsuit that alleges it artificially boosted the price of its crypto assets, leaving investors with deep losses. Investors were "inappropriately induced" to buy the company's NFTs (non-fungible tokens) and its native coin ApeCoin, law firm Scott+Scott wrote on July 21. Lawyers are claiming that Yuga Labs used celebrity promoters and endorsements to "inflate" the price of its NFTs by overpromising high returns. Celebrities such as rapper Snoop Dogg, football star Tom Brady and influencer Paris Hilton, among others, own and have endorsed the BAYC collection. The most expensive BAYC digital artwork sold for $3.4 million late last year. More recently, prices for crypto assets and NFTs have declined amid the wider financial market downturn. The average price of a BAYC NFT sold over the past seven days is now $115,000, according to data from NFT Stats, down from around $425,000 three months ago. Alongside its popular BAYC NFTs, Yuga Labs launched ApeCoin in March via the Ethereum blockchain, intended to power its upcoming metaverse ecosystem. But Scott+Scott slammed the firm's move to introduce a community-focused token. "After selling off millions of dollars of fraudulently promoted NFTs, Yuga Labs launched ApeCoin to further fleece investors," lawyers said. They added: "Once it was revealed that the touted growth was entirely dependent on continued promotion (as opposed to actual utility or underlying technology), retail investors were left with tokens that had lost over 87% from the inflated price high on April 28, 2022." ApeCoin, listed on major exchanges Coinbase, Binance and Kraken, opened trade at $8.15 on March 17. The token hit an all-time high of $26.70 on April 28 -- a 200% surge. It has since retreated more than 75% to $6.30 as of Monday, July 25, 4:40 am ET, CoinGecko data shows. Yuga Labs class action would join hundreds of other crypto lawsuits Scott+Scott is now calling on individual investors that have borne losses from their Yuga Labs-related investments between April to June this year to join a potential class action. Pseudonymous critic Ryder Ripps -- who is being sued by Yuga Labs in a separate case involving trademark infringement -- said he expects more lawsuits to follow. Others criticized the law firm for wanting to take up a case against Yuga Labs, with one suggesting the investors "don't know how to hold." An official case is yet to be filed, but Scott+Scott would have to submit evidence that investors were not aware of risks involved, or that they didn't know celebrities were (allegedly) being paid to promote the NFTs they held. Scott+Scott maintains offices across the US, as well as New York, London, Amsterdam and Berlin. If formally proposed, the firm's lawsuit would add to an ever-expanding sea of legal actions levied at cryptocurrency companies. Bloomberg Law reported that the cryptocurrency industry had generated more than 200 class action lawsuits and other private litigations as of March, with targets including Binance, Solana Labs and KuCoin. Yuga Labs didn't return Blockworks' request for comment by press time. [GN] YUMA REGIONAL MEDICAL: Ashby Files Suit in D. Arizona ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yuma Regional Medical Center. The case is styled as Carol Ashby, Keith Gren, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Yuma Regional Medical Center, Case No. 2:22-cv-01223-CDB (D. Ariz., July 21, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Breach of Contract. Yuma Regional Medical Center -- https://www.yumaregional.org/Home -- is a 406-bed, not-for-profit hospital dedicated to providing outstanding medical care to the residents of Yuma and the surrounding communities.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq. PEREZ LAW GROUP PLLC 7508 N 59th Ave. Glendale, AZ 85301 Phone: (623) 826-5593 Email: cperez@perezlawgroup.com - and - Jason Rathod, Esq. Kevin Leddy, Esq. Nicholas A Migliaccio, Esq. Tyler Bean, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 YUMA REGIONAL MEDICAL: Ogrady Suit Removed to D. Arizona -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Margaret Ogrady, Mayra Esquivel, next friend of E.N.; individually on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Yuma Regional Medical Center, Unknown Parties named as John and Jane Does I-X; ABC Corporations I-X; DEF LLCs I-X; and XYZ, Case No. S1400CV202200351 was removed from the Yuma County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on July 19, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01207-JJT to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt. Relations. Yuma Regional Medical Center -- https://www.yumaregional.org/Home -- is a 406-bed, not-for-profit hospital dedicated to providing outstanding medical care to the residents of Yuma and the surrounding communities.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Roland Bainer, Esq. BAINER LAW FIRM 1999 Harrison Street Suite 1800 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 922-1802 Email: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Amanda Whitney Molinari, Esq. Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq. JONES DAY 555 South Flower Street 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 489-3939 Fax: (213) 243-2539 Email: amolinari@jonesday.com asommerfeld@jonesday.com ZRS & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Paramedics' OT Wages, Corbell Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER CORBELL, VESTER WILLIAMS, RICCARDO MUSCATO, AND BRAD ANDREW, Each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ZRS & ASSOCIATES LLC and CINDY STAUTY, Case No. 5:22-cv-05146-TLB (W.D. Ark., July 21, 2022) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs and other EMT/paramedic, driver, or dispatcher employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as EMTs/paramedics, drivers, or dispatchers, working in Washington County and Benton County, Arkansas. ZRS & Associates, LLC is a provider of non-emergency medical transport, transporting individuals to and from medical appointments and hospitals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Burks, Esq. Stewart Whaley, Esq. WH LAW | WE HELP 1 Riverfront Pl. -- Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 891-6000 E-mail: chris@wh.law stewart@wh.law ZYNGA INC: Court Okays Rider to Protective Order in Ferrando Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TONDA FERRANDO and DEX MARZANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZYNGA INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-0214RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, approves the Agreed Rider To Protective Order Regarding The Use And Disclosure Of Discovery Produced By Nonparty Apple Inc. The Agreement is entered into between and among nonparty Apple and the Named Plaintiffs. They anticipate that Apple will produce documents that contain sensitive consumer information and are necessary to provide notice of the Class Action Settlement Agreement to members of the Settlement Class. The Agreement is intended to supplement the protective ordered entered by the Court on July 15, 2022. Apple Protected Material designated under the terms of the Rider will be used by the Parties solely for the purpose of providing notice to and verifying and paying the recovery amount owed to each member of the Settlement Class. It will not be used directly or indirectly for any other purpose whatsoever. No Apple Protected Material provided by Apple to the Class Action Administrator under the terms of the Rider may be shared with any of the Parties, unless specifically authorized. It is the intention of Apple and the Parties that the Rider will protect all materials produced by Apple in the Actions unless otherwise specified. Nothing in this Rider will prevent or restrict Apple's own disclosure or use of its own Apple Protected Material for any purpose, and nothing in the Rider will preclude Apple from showing its Apple Protected Material to an individual who prepared the Apple Protected Material. Even after the termination of the case, the confidentiality obligations imposed by the Order will remain in effect until a Producing Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs, subject to the Final Disposition clause therein. The Rider is intended to provide no mechanism to the Parties through which they can challenge the designation or protected status of Apple Protected Materials. Absent written permission from Apple or a court Order secured after appropriate notice to all interested persons, the Parties may not file or disclose in the public record any Apple Protected Material. Unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure does not change the status of Apple Protected Material or waive the right to hold the disclosed document or information as Protected. Not later than 90 days after closure of the Final Disposition of the case, each Party and the Class Action Administrator will return all Discovery Material of a Producing Party to the respective outside counsel of the Producing Party or destroy such Material, at the option of Apple. "Final Disposition" occurs after an order, mandate, or dismissal finally terminating the action with prejudice, including all appeals. All Parties that have received any such Discovery Material, as well as the Class Action Administrator, will certify in writing that all such materials have been returned to counsel for Apple or destroyed. All disputes concerning Apple Protected Material, however designated, produced under the protection of the Order will be resolved by the United States District Court for the Western District Washington. A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n8st3du from Leagle.com. [*] Companies Hit with Class Action Over "Sustainability" Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shawn Collins, Esq., and Lisa M. Northrup, Esq., of Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, in an article for Bloomberg Law, report that when a company misrepresents its sustainability or eco-friendly policies, it is referred to as greenwashing, and consumer activists groups are taking action, warn attorneys with Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth. They look at several pending lawsuits, and offer steps for companies to be proactive to minimize their legal risks. "Eco-friendly," "sustainable," "net zero, " and "reusable" -- the advertising landscape is increasingly awash with these buzzwords as companies increasingly prioritize environmental, social, and governance initiatives in response to increased consumer demand for sustainable and socially conscious products and services. For example, the clean beauty market is estimated to reach $22 billion (on a global basis) by 2024, making it one of the fastest growing categories within the cosmetics industry. Cosmetic companies, as well as companies in other industries, are eager to gain market share in the incredibly lucrative and expanding sustainability and eco-friendly movement. Indeed, 72% of North American executives agreed that their organization has overstated its sustainability efforts in a recent survey conducted by Harris Poll for Google Cloud. This practice of misrepresenting the sustainability or eco-friendliness of a company's products or services, commonly referred to as "greenwashing," has caught the attention of plaintiff consumer and activist organizations. A wide range of companies presently face class action lawsuits including, for example, Whole Foods for touting its commitment to "sustainability" and "environmental stewardship," Burt's Bees Cosmetics for advertising that its ingredients "come from nature" and are obtained using "responsible sourcing methods," Dasani and other bottled water brands for marketing products as "100% recyclable," and KLM for its "Be a hero, fly CO2 zero" tag line. While both the law and many of these cases are still in their early stages, recent court decisions shed additional insight into how courts may analyze these types of claims and how companies can proactively take action to minimize their legal risk. Don't Assume Ads Will Be Viewed as Puffery Defendants facing allegations of false advertising have frequently mounted successful defenses by showing the statements were mere puffery, such as "world's best cup of coffee." ALDI Inc. took this approach in defending against false advertising allegations in relation to the statement "Simple. Sustainable. Seafood." on its Atlantic salmon products. Yet, the court recently rejected this argument. Kroger Co., as one of several companies in a recent spate of lawsuits attacking advertising of sunscreen products as reef friendly, similarly sought dismissal on the grounds of puffery, pointing to other court decisions where statements such as "pet friendly" constituted puffery. The court rejected this argument. Context and Visual Proximity Matters While well-established case law advises courts to examine allegedly false advertising in context, recent court decisions underscore the risks companies assume in relying on context for proving the truth of broad advertising statements. StriVectin Operating Co. argued its advertising of sunscreen products reading "REEF SAFE* SUNSCREEN" is literally true because on the back of the product package there is an asterisk and fine print stating that the product does not contain two particular ingredients that are widely thought to harm coral reefs. Quickly rejecting this argument, the court described the argument as "absurd" explaining a company cannot have a misleading statement on the front and then escape liability by stating in fine print on the back "that's not actually what we mean." A court, however, also recently rejected ALDI's argument that its "Simple. Sustainable. Seafood." advertising is not misleading when read in connection with the third-party best aquaculture practices certification symbol that also appears on the front of the packaging (pictured below as in the court's order). The court explained consumers may not connect the slogan with the certification due to the separation by space and color design. Specificity Is Critical These recent decisions suggest companies should be prepared to defend an advertising statement as true on its face by a reasonable consumer. Specific representations allow truth to be more readily established. For instance, Allbirds Inc. faced a class action in which plaintiffs attacked allegedly false advertising statements regarding the environmental impact of its wool shoes as described using a life-cycle assessment tool to estimate the product's carbon footprint and a sustainability index. The plaintiffs argued that the methodologies Allbirds used were too narrowly focused on the impact of the shoes and failed to take into account the environmental impact of wool production overall. Not only did the court reject this argument, but the court granted Allbirds' motion and terminated the case. On the Horizon Companies can anticipate forthcoming legal guidance to aid themselves and counsel. While not binding, courts frequently look to the Federal Trade Commission's guides for the use of environmental marketing claims. The FTC is set to review these green guides this year. Additionally, there are several greenwashing advertising cases with pending motions to dismiss that should be decided this year. In the meantime, companies should anticipate that plaintiffs will continue to pursue these types of false advertising claims. While some companies such as Allbirds quickly disposed of these claims, Keurig is waiting for court approval of a $10 million class settlement in relation to claims it falsely advertised its coffee pods as recyclable. A good practice is to engage in the ongoing assessment and review of advertising to aid in minimizing and understanding a company's legal and regulatory risk. Companies can proactively manage and minimize this risk by making specific, readily understandable representations in their advertisements that directly align with the company's present actions. Companies additionally may benefit from reviewing their insurance policies, which frequently contain exclusions for false advertising claims. Lastly, companies should not limit their review and risk assessment to advertising statements, but rather should broadly analyze all of their ESG representations. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 ***