/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240112.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, January 12, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 10 Headlines 3M COMPANY: AFFF & TOG Contain Toxic PFAS, Metz Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF & TOG Contain Toxic PFAS, Worth Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Brinton Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Brown Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Carter Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Crimson Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Deering Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Garrison Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Godfrey Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Hall Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Herman Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Hughes Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Lee Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Ludlam Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Mally Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Merciez Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Mix Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Moser Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Norman Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Norris Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Pardue Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Pecevich Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Perky Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Pierce Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Quick Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Roper Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Rorke Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Scott Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Stroud Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Sysak Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Tanner Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Tatel Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Worden Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: Foster Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Gill Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Green Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Harfman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Viertel Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Wagner Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Warnick Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Watson Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Young Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams AEGIS SECURITY: Gamez Files Class Suit in Cal. State Court ANGI HOMESERVICES: Shinkle Suit Removed to E.D. New York ASURION INSURANCE: Tan Files Class Suit in Cal. State Court BAKER CHIROPRACTIC: Trueba Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida BLIND AMBITION: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Calls, Miller Claims BLOOMINGDALES.COM LLC: Daghaly Appeals Dismissal Order to 9th Cir. CELTIC COMMUNICATIONS: Kuehn Sues Over Illegal Background Check CHA GENERAL: Hoye & Jimenez Sue Over Fiduciary Duty Breach CHURCH & DWIGHT: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Karim Says CIELITO CORP: Palomar Sues Over Sexual Harassment & Wage Violations CINFED FEDERAL: Davis Files Suit in S.D. Ohio CITIBANK NA: Daibyan Files Suit in C.D. California CITIBANK NA: Hakopyan Files Suit in C.D. California ESO SOLUTIONS: Fails to Protect Health, Personal Info, Love Claims ESO SOLUTIONS: Smith Sues Over Personal Injury Claim in W.D. Tex. ESO SOLUTIONS: Todd Sues Over Breach of Contract in W.D. Texas FLORIDA PREPAID: Faces Lavina Civil Rights Suit in S.D. Florida GENERATIONS PAINTING: Perez-Garcia Files Suit in Cal. State Court GOODLEAP LLC: Bueno Suit Removed to S.D. Florida GROWIN ESTATE: Rosser Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida GUEST SERVICES: Matthews Sues Over Unlawful Leave Pay Plan Terms GUESTOLOGY GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Casadeli Alleges HANCOCK REGIONAL: Appeals Remand Ruling in Fleece Wiretapping Suit HOLLY RIDGE, NC: Paul Sues Over Exposure to Mold HOWARD LUTNICK: Siseles Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. HYPHEN LLC: Layne Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey INSTRON INC: Faces Warren Torts Suit in Cal. Superior Court INTEGRIANT VENTURES: Bishop Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia INTER & CO: Verri Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls in Florida LAWRENCE RECRUITING: Gilson Files Class Suit in Cal. State Court MARRIOTT INT'L: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Data Breach Suit MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL: Dematties Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection MILLAN ENTERPRISES: Wahab Sues Over ADA Violations in S.D.N.Y. MINNESOTA: Sagataw Files Civil Rights Complaint in D. Minnesota MR. COOPER: Joens Files Suit in M.D. Florida MR. COOPER: Short Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Franz Alleges Licensed Products' Conspiracy NORTHWELL HEALTH: Lowery Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI PERRY JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES: Colon Sues Over Data Breach PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Clarke Files Suit in W.D. New York PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Mendez Files Property Damage Suit in S.D.N.Y. REAL ESTATE BOARD: Friedman Sues Over Alleged Antitrust Conspiracy REFRESCO BEVERAGES: Alonzo Files Suit in D. New Jersey SEATTLE SERVICE: Rivera FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Potvin Sues Over Negligence SLT LENDING SPV: Keifer Suit Transferred to C.D. Indiana STANFORD HEALTH: Appeals Remand Ruling in Gibson Privacy Suit SUMMIT PROTECTIVE: Gilson Files Class Suit in Cal. State Court SUPERGOOP LLC: Dunning Sues Over Mislabeled Sunscreen Products SUPERIOR STAFFING: Appeals Judgment in Voyles FLSA Suit to 5th Cir. SUTTER HEALTH: O'Connor Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI UNITED AIRLINES: McKnight Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois UNITED STATES: German Files Civil Class Suit in Cal. State Court UNITED STATES: Sinkfield Suit Moved From E.D. Pa. to D. Minn. UNITED STATES: Woodley Apppeals Ruling in Haggart Suit to Fed. Cir. USA CARSHIP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barrow-Rivas Suit Claims VALET LIVING: Franklin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VIRIBUS INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Duckwyler and Hurd Allege Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Allows J&J Class Action Over Talc Disclosure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Subsidiaries May Remain in Bankruptcy ********* 3M COMPANY: AFFF & TOG Contain Toxic PFAS, Metz Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ PAUL METZ v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06337-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 7, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Mr. Metz is a resident and citizen of Wisconsin. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer and ulcerative colitis as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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; 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.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 3M COMPANY: AFFF & TOG Contain Toxic PFAS, Worth Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WORTH v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06336-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 7, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Mr. Worth is a resident and citizen of Idaho. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with renal cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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; 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.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Brinton Class Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROSS BRINTON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06382-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 8, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Ross Brinton is a resident and citizen of Oregon. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF during his employment as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid cancer as a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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 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; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.). 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Dr. Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 879-5000 Facsimile: (205) 879-5901 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Brown Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- LORRAINE BROWN, as Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of FRANK A. BROWN III deceased, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06412-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 11, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury and death resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Mr. Frank A. Brown III was, at the time of death, an adult resident and citizen of Saugus, Massachusetts. The Decedent regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. Prior to death, the Decedent was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Decedent's diagnosis allegedly caused and/or contributed to his death. The Decedent passed away on November 17, 2021. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Decedent's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, 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.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Carter Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS CARTER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06339-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 7, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Mr. Carter is a resident and citizen of Georgia. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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; 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.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Crimson Class Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- KARA CRIMSON, as Surviving Spouse and Heir to the Estate of DAVID CRIMSON deceased, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06415-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 11, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury and death resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Mr. David Crimson was, at the time of death, an adult resident and citizen of Bridgeton, Missouri. The Decedent regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. Prior to death, the Decedent was allegedly diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his death. The Decedent passed away on August 18, 2023. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Decedent's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, 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.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Deering Class Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL DEERING, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06383-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 8, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Michael Deering is a resident and citizen of Colorado. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF during his employment as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was allegedly diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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 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; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.). 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Dr. Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 879-5000 Facsimile: (205) 879-5901 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Garrison Class Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW GARRISON, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06350-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 7, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Mr. Garrison is a resident and citizen of Florida. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with hypothyroidism as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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; 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.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Godfrey Class Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA QUINTANS GODFREY, as Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of DONALD REID GODFREY deceased v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06411-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 11, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury and death resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Mr. Donald Reid Godfrey was, at the time of death, an adult resident and citizen of Chesapeake, Virginia. The Decedent regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. Prior to death, the Decedent was allegedly diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, & colon cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his death. The Decedent passed away on August 11, 2022. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Decedent's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, 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.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Hall Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- STANLEY HALL v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06335-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 7, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Stanley Hall is a resident and citizen of North Carolina. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff Stanley Hall was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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; 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.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Herman Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS HERMAN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06330-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 7, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Mr. Herman is a resident and citizen of New York. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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; 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.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Hughes Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN HUGHES v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06384-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 8, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff John Hughes is a resident and citizen of Florida. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF during his employment as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was allegedly diagnosed with kidney cancer and prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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 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; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.). 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Dr. Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 879-5000 Facsimile: (205) 879-5901 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Lee Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ PERRY LEE v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06385-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 8, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Perry Lee is a resident and citizen of Texas. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF during his employment as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was allegedly diagnosed with thyroid disease as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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 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; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.). 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Dr. Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 879-5000 Facsimile: (205) 879-5901 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Ludlam Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MELVIN LUDLAM v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06334-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 7, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Mr. Melvin Ludlam is a resident and citizen of Nebraska. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer and urinary incontinence as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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; 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.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Mally Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- LUCIA MALLY v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06386-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 8, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Lucia Mally is a resident and citizen of Colorado. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF during his employment as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was allegedly diagnosed with thyroid disease as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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 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; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.). 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Dr. Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 879-5000 Facsimile: (205) 879-5901 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Merciez Class Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- TED MERCIEZ v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06387-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 8, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Ted Merciez is a resident and citizen of Michigan. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF during his employment as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was allegedly diagnosed with thyroid disease as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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 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; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.). 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Dr. Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 879-5000 Facsimile: (205) 879-5901 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Mix Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN MIX v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06388-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 8, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff John Mix is a resident and citizen of Alabama. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF during his employment as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was allegedly diagnosed with thyroid disease as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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 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; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.). 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Dr. Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 879-5000 Facsimile: (205) 879-5901 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Moser Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT MOSER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06347-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 7, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Mr. Moser is a resident and citizen of Washington. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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; 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.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Norman Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL NORMAN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06345-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 7, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Mr. Norman is a resident and citizen of North Carolina. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with bladder cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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; 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.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Norris Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- GLENDA NORRIS, as Surviving Spouse and Heir to the Estate of JAMES RAY NORRIS deceased, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06409-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 11, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury and death resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Mr. James Ray Norris was, at the time of death, an adult resident and citizen of St. Louis, Missouri. The Decedent regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. Prior to death, the Decedent was allegedly diagnosed with liver cancer & bladder cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants AFFF products. The Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his death. The Decedent passed away on January 6, 2021. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Decedent's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, 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.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Pardue Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- RALPH PARDUE v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06331-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 7, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Mr. Pardue is a resident and citizen of South Carolina. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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; 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.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Pecevich Class Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- WALTER PECEVICH, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06390-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 8, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Walter Pecevich is a resident and citizen of Florida. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF during his employment as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was allegedly diagnosed with thyroid disease as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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 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; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.). 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Dr. Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 879-5000 Facsimile: (205) 879-5901 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Perky Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID PERKY, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06391-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 8, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff David Perky is a resident and citizen of New York. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF during his employment as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with thyroid cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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 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; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.). 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Dr. Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 879-5000 Facsimile: (205) 879-5901 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Pierce Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- RON PIERCE v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06392-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 8, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Ron Pierce is a resident and citizen of Mississippi. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF during his employment as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was allegedly diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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 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; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.). 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Dr. Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 879-5000 Facsimile: (205) 879-5901 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Quick Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- VICKI M. QUICK, as Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of GEORGE BURNUM QUICK deceased v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06407-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 11, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury and death resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Mr. George Burnum Quick was, at the time of death, an adult resident and citizen of Springville, Alabama. The Decedent regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. Prior to death, the Decedent was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Decedent's diagnosis allegedly caused and/or contributed to his death. The Decedent passed away on September 21, 2023. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Decedent's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, 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.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Roper Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN ROPER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06393-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 8, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. The Plaintiff John Roper is a resident and citizen of Alabama. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF during his employment as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was allegedly diagnosed with thyroid disease as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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 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; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.). 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Dr. Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 879-5000 Facsimile: (205) 879-5901 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Rorke Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON RORKE v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06394-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 8, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Brandon Rorke is a resident and citizen of Kansas. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF during his employment as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was allegedly diagnosed with thyroid disease as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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 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; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.). 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Dr. Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 879-5000 Facsimile: (205) 879-5901 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Scott Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- RUTH SCOTT, as Surviving Spouse and Heir to the Estate of LELAND K. SCOTT deceased, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06414-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 11, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury and death resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Leland Scott was, at the time of death, an adult resident and citizen of Council Grove, Kansas. The Decedent regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. Prior to death, the Decedent was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Decedent's diagnosis allegedly caused and/or contributed to his death. The Decedent passed away on June 6, 2023. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Decedent's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, 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.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Stroud Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS STROUD v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06395-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 8, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Dennis Stroud is a resident and citizen of Florida. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF during his employment as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was allegedly diagnosed with thyroid disease as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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 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; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.). 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Dr. Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 879-5000 Facsimile: (205) 879-5901 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Sysak Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- PETER SYSAK, NADIA SYSAK GONZALEZ, TIM SYSAK, RICK SYSAK, & EDWIN SYSAK, as Heirs to the Estate of, RANDY K. SYSAK deceased v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06410-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 11, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury and death resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Mr. Randy K. Sysak was, at the time of death, an adult resident and citizen of Arroyo Grande, California. The Decedent regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. Prior to death, the Decedent was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Decedent's diagnosis allegedly caused and/or contributed to his death. The Decedent passed away on December 23, 2021. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Decedent's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, 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.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Tanner Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- LOYD TANNER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06396-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 8, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Loyd Tanner is a resident and citizen of Mississippi. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF during his employment as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was allegdly diagnosed with ulcerative colitis as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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 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; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.). 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Dr. Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 879-5000 Facsimile: (205) 879-5901 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Tatel Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- HONESTO TATEL v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06397-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 8, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, the suit says. Plaintiff Honesto Tatel is a resident and citizen of California. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF during his employment as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was allegedly diagnosed with thyroid cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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 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; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.). 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Dr. Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 879-5000 Facsimile: (205) 879-5901 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Worden Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WORDEN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06346-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 7, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Michael Worden is a resident and citizen of Wisconsin. Mr. Worden regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. Mr. Worden was diagnosed with thyroid disease, sleep apnea, high blood pressure and diabetes as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC 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; 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.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 3M COMPANY: Foster Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Foster, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC 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 PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-05674-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 6, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with hypothyroidism; and prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Gill Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel James Gill, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; 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; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P. as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L.GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-05643-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 6, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by the Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Decedent was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Decedent to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq. RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP 225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110 Atlanta, GA 30624 Phone: 404-381-2888 Email: buck@lawrsd.com 3M COMPANY: Green Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals --------------------------------------------------------------- John S. Green, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC 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 PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-05675-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 6, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, vascular cancer, and colon cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Harfman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Harfman, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC 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 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.), WILLFIRE HC LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, Case No. 2:23-cv-05789-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 9, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Hendler, Esq. HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC 901 S. MoPac Expressway Bldg. 1, Ste 300 Austin, TX 78746 Phone: (512) 439-3202 Fax: (512) 439-3201 Email: shendler@hendlerlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Viertel Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------ Walter A. Viertel, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC 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 PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-05691-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 6, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with kidney cancer; and renal cell carcinoma, resulitng in kidney removal as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Wagner Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cyrus Wagner, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; 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; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P. as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L.GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-05624-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 3, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by the Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Decedent was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Decedent to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq. RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP 225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110 Atlanta, GA 30624 Phone: 404-381-2888 Email: buck@lawrsd.com 3M COMPANY: Warnick Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals --------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Warnick, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), Case No. 2:23-cv-05694-RMG (D.S.C. Nov. 7, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendant collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise inappropriately disposed of PFAS chemicals with knowledge that it was highly toxic and bio persistent, which would expose plaintiff to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendant knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous PFAS in his drinking water and unaware of the toxic nature of the Defendant's PFAS in general. Plaintiff's consumption of PFAS from Defendant's contamination and inappropriate disposal caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendant's PFAS at various locations. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was exposed to PFAS chemicals through drinking water both at home and at his place of work, due to contamination on behalf of the 3M plant in Decatur, Alabama and potential AFFF sources, and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendant's PFAS contamination. The Defendant is a designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor, releaser, promotors and seller of PFAS chemicals.[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 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 - and - Hunter Garnett, Esq. GARNETT PATTERSON INJURY LAWYERS 100 Jefferson St S #300 Huntsville, AL 35801 Phone: 256-539-8686 3M COMPANY: Watson Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams ---------------------------------------------------------- Waymond Henry Watson III, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC 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 PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-05692-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 6, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Young Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ----------------------------------------------------------- Norman J. Young, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC 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 PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-05693-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 6, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com AEGIS SECURITY: Gamez Files Class Suit in Cal. State Court ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aegis Security & Investigations Inc., a California Corporation, et al. The case is captioned as JOHN GAMEZ, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AEGIS SECURITY & INVESTIGATIONS INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 24CV000022 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., January 2, 2024). A case management conference is set for December 20, 2024, before Judge Christopher E. Krueger. Aegis Security & Investigations Inc. is a provider of high-end security, investigation, training, and consulting solutions in California. [BN] ANGI HOMESERVICES: Shinkle Suit Removed to E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Amos Shinkle, Nika Mosenthal, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Angi Homeservices, Handy Technologies, I, Case No. 530099/2023 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Nov. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-08700-FB-SJB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Angi Inc. -- https://www.angi.com/ -- is an internet services company formed in 2017 by the merger of Angie's List and HomeAdvisor.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael J.S. Pontone, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL J.S. PONTONE, ESQ. 233 Broadway, Suite 2340 New York, NY 10279 Phone: 917-648-8784 F: 718-228-8459 Email: michael@pontonelaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Grant MacQueen, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Phone: (212) 309-6000 Fax: (212) 309-6001 Email: grant.macqueen@morganlewis.com ASURION INSURANCE: Tan Files Class Suit in Cal. State Court ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asurion Insurance Services, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation, et al. The case is captioned as NATALIA TAN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ASURION INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., A TENNESSEE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 24CV000032 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., January 2, 2024). A case management conference is set for January 3, 2025, before Judge Richard K. Sueyoshi. Asurion Insurance Services, Inc. is a provider of consumer mobile and technology protection services doing business in California. [BN] BAKER CHIROPRACTIC: Trueba Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baker Chiropractic, LLC. The case is styled as Annette Trueba, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Baker Chiropractic, LLC doing business as: Baker Chiropractic and Wellness, Case No. 8:23-cv-02855-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla., Nov. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Baker Chiropractic -- https://bakerfamilychiro.com/ -- is a local Chiropractor in Orlando.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com gberg@shamisgentile.com scott@edelsberglaw.com BLIND AMBITION: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Calls, Miller Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blind Ambition STL, LLC. The case is captioned as CRICKETT MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. against BLIND AMBITION STL, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00001 (E.D. Mo., January 2, 2024). The case arises from the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Blind Ambition STL, LLC is a shutter services provider in Saint Peters, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com BLOOMINGDALES.COM LLC: Daghaly Appeals Dismissal Order to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff AMANDA DAGHALY filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated October 6, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled AMANDA DAGHALY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLOOMINGDALES.COM, LLC, and any related entities, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00129-L-WVG, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class action, filed on January 24, 2023, is brought against Defendants for secretly recording the electronic communications of visitors to their website, www.bloomingdales.com, including their scrolling, clicking, and keystrokes, in violation of the Wiretap Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Business & Professions Code and an invasion of the privacy rights of website visitors. According to the complaint, the Defendants use recent developments in session replay technology to surreptitiously record visitors to its website using JavaScript software code that continuously wiretap Internet users' keystrokes, mouse movements, clicks, webpage locator data, and/or other electronic communications. These scripts are placed on a website or app and are responsible for recording the user's actions. When a user visits www.bloomingdales.com, the Session Replay Code begins recording their interactions for storage in video form on a server for playback, including by third parties such as FullStory. FullStory developed some of the session recording technology that Bloomingdale is using, says the suit. On June 27, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim and motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. On October 6, 2023, Judge M. James Lorenz entered an Order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The appellate case is captioned as Daghaly v. Bloomingdales.com, LLC, Case No. 23-4122, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Dec. 12, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Opening Brief for Appellant is due on February 23, 2024; -- Answering Brief for Appellee is due on March 25, 2024; -- Optional Reply Brief is due 21 days after service of Answering Brief. All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1.[BN] CELTIC COMMUNICATIONS: Kuehn Sues Over Illegal Background Check --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL KUEHN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CELTIC COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-022975 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., December 29, 2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970. Plaintiff Kuehn asserts that the Defendant had taken adverse employment action based on undisclosed consumer report information against Plaintiff and other putative class members without first providing them with a copy of the pertinent consumer report and a summary of their rights. Defendant operates a custom communications company and is headquartered in Coconut Creek, FL. Defendant does business across the country, including in Broward County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com gdesane@wfclaw.com - and - Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd.. Suite 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: craig@clalegal.com CHA GENERAL: Hoye & Jimenez Sue Over Fiduciary Duty Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN J. HOYE and LEONARDO JIMENEZ, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of The Cambridge Health Alliance Partnership Plan, Plaintiffs v. CHA GENERAL SERVICES, INC.; RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE; and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-13238 (D. Mass., December 29, 2023) alleges that the Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, to the detriment of the Plan, its participants, and its beneficiaries. The Defendants have failed to ensure that the over 3,600 participants in the Plan have had appropriate investment options and have failed to ensure the fees they pay for plan services are reasonable -- during the class period, participants paid as much as $93 for services materially identical to those for which participants in similar plans paid less than half that amount. The Plaintiffs bring this action to remedy this unlawful conduct, recover losses to the Plan, and obtain other appropriate relief as provided by ERISA. Headquartered in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, Cambridge Health is a medical institution that provides healthcare services to Cambridge, Somerville and Boston's metro-north communities in Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Osvaldo Vazquez, Esq. Stephen Churchill, Esq. Osvaldo Vazquez, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3260 Facsimile.(617) 488-2261 E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com oz@fairworklaw.com CHURCH & DWIGHT: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Karim Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-11279-DEH (S.D.N.Y., December 29, 2023) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Church & Dwight's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The class action also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Church & Dwight Co. owns and operates Herocosmetics.us, a commercial website that sells skin care products in New York and throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GRABRIEL A. LEVY P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Telephone:+1 (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com CIELITO CORP: Palomar Sues Over Sexual Harassment & Wage Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------- Cristina Palomar, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated Aggrieved Employees v. CIELITO CORP dba EL REY DEL MAR; a California corporation; MANUEL VAZQUEZ, an individual, and DOES 1-100, Case No. 23VEC05233 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 22, 2023), is brought for Sexual Harassment, Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation from Occurring; Meal Break Violations; Rest Break Violations; Wage Statement Penalties; Waiting Time Penalties; and Violation of Unfair Competition Law; Private Attorneys General Act. During Plaintiff's employment, she was subjected to severe and pervasive sexual harassment by the owner, MANUEL, including unwelcome hugging, groping, pressing of his body against hers, and attempts to kiss her. MANUEL'S harassment began in or around November 2019 and continued through the end of her employment in August 2021. MANUEL'S harassment occurred in the workplace, including when Ms. Mendoza Palomar was cleaning the bathroom and Defendant Manuel would enter the bathroom and sexually accost her. Plaintiff complained about the sexual harassment to co-workers, but no action was taken to prevent or correct the harassment. The Plaintiff asked the line cooks to stay late and wait for her so that MANUEL could not be alone with her and continue the harassment. In the small workplace environment of Defendants, Plaintiff's only avenue to oppose the harassment was to complain to co-workers. Instead, MANUEL retaliated against Plaintiff by prohibiting her from giving rides to cooks so that she would be left alone with him. During her employment, Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees regularly worked shifts over 5 hours in length, often 12-13 hours, without receiving an uninterrupted 30-minute meal period in which they were relieved of all duties prior to the 5th hour of work. Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees also did not receive 10-minute rest breaks for every 4 hours of work. Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees regularly worked over 8 hours in a day and/or 40 hours in a week but were not paid any overtime premiums for this overtime work. They were paid a daily rate that did not vary regardless of how many hours they worked. When Plaintiff quit her employment in or around August 2021, Defendants did not pay her final wages immediately upon termination as required by law. Aside from not being paid in a timely fashion, Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees were necessarily denied all payment due and owing at the time of termination, or within 72 hours of resignation, because Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees with premium pay for missed breaks, wages for all hours worked, or overtime for all overtime hours worked. Similarly, Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees were not provide compliant wage statements, as those wage statements did not reflect Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees' premium pay for missed breaks, full wages for all hours worked, or overtime wages for overtime hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a waitress at the El Rey Del Mar restaurant. EL REY DEL MAR is a business of unknown form, doing business in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manny Starr, Esq. Joseph Gross, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818) 914-3433 Facsimile: (818) 914-3433 Email: Manny@frontierlawcenter.com Joseph@frontierlawcenter.com - and - Janelle Carney, Esq. JANELLE CARNEY-ATTORNEY AT LAW, APC 14758 Pipeline Ave., Suite E, Chino Hills, CA 91709 Phone: (909) 521-9609 Facsimile: (909) 393-0471 Email: janelle@janellecarneylaw.com CINFED FEDERAL: Davis Files Suit in S.D. Ohio --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cinfed Federal Credit Union, et al. The case is styled as Valencia R. Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cinfed Federal Credit Union, Case No. 1:23-cv-00776-DRC (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 22, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Cinfed Federal Credit Union provides banking and financial services. The Union offers financial solutions such as loans, investment, savings, credit and debit cards, online banking, and other related services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 767-3613 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com CITIBANK NA: Daibyan Files Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citibank, N.A., et al. The case is styled as Mkritch Daibyan, Rebeka Grigoryan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Citibank, N.A., Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-09962-PA-SSC (S.D. Fla., Nov. 26, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Truth in Lending. Citibank, N. A. -- http://www.citi.com/-- is the primary U.S. banking subsidiary of financial services multinational Citigroup.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ara Ray Jabagchourian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN, P.C. 1650 South Amphlett Boulevard, Suite 216 San Mateo, CA 94402 Phone: (650) 437-6840 Email: ara@arajlaw.com CITIBANK NA: Hakopyan Files Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citibank, N.A., et al. The case is styled as Anna Hakopyan, Aram Sargsyan, Anna Abrahamyan, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Citibank, N.A., Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-09954-ODW-MRW (S.D. Fla., Nov. 22, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights. Citibank, N. A. -- http://www.citi.com/-- is the primary U.S. banking subsidiary of financial services multinational Citigroup.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gabriel Barenfeld, Esq. Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq. NELSON AND FRAENKEL LLP 601 South Figueroa Suite 2050 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (844) 622-6469 Fax: (213) 622-6019 Email: gbarenfeld@nflawfirm.com gnelson@nflawfirm.com - and - Arin Pezeshkian, Esq. Raffi Kassabian, Esq. Sareen Bezdikian, Esq. BEZDIK KASSAB LAW GROUP 301 N Lake Avenue Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: (626) 499-6998 Email: raffi@bezdikkassab.com sareen@bezdikkassab.com ESO SOLUTIONS: Fails to Protect Health, Personal Info, Love Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ BILLY LOVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ESO Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01577 (W.D. Tex., December 29, 2023) arises from the ESO Solutions' failure to properly secure and safeguard protected health information of Plaintiff as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, medical information, and other personally identifiable information. and brings claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. On or about October 23, 2023, ESO discovered a data security incident where unauthorized third parties accessed and stole patient private information. However, ESO failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain that private information and failed to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class members that their private information had been compromised. The Plaintiff seeks, among other things, orders requiring Defendant to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised and to adopt reasonably sufficient security practices and safeguards to prevent incidents like the disclosure in the future. Based in Austin, TX, ESO offers an integrated suite of software products for EMS agencies, fire departments, and hospitals. It offers cloud-based logistical software, including management for billing, electronic health records, asset management, and more. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. Paul D. Stickney, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Rd., Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 E-mail: bruce@swclaw.com judgestick@gmail.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 318-5189 Facsimile: (813) 222-2496 ESO SOLUTIONS: Smith Sues Over Personal Injury Claim in W.D. Tex. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ESO Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as MICHAEL SMITH, et al., individually and on behalf of his minor children J.S., B.S., T.S., and B.S., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ESO SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00003-RP (W.D. Tex., January 2, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as 360 Torts - Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury. ESO Solutions, Inc. is a software company based in Austin, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Austin P. Smith, Esq. Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 E-mail: austin@swclaw.com ESO SOLUTIONS: Todd Sues Over Breach of Contract in W.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ESO Solutions, Inc. The case is captioned as DEBORAH TODD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ESO SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00006-DII (W.D. Tex., January 2, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as 190 Contract - Other Contract. ESO Solutions, Inc. is a software company based in Austin, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com FLORIDA PREPAID: Faces Lavina Civil Rights Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Florida Prepaid College Board, et al. The case is captioned as ERICA LAVINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FLORIDA PREPAID COLLEGE BOARD, et al., Case No. 0:24-cv-60001-DMM (S.D. Fla., January 2, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as 440 Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights. Florida Prepaid College Board is a board that allows families to prepay the cost of college tuition in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec Huff Schultz, Esq. HILGERS GRABEN PLLC 1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 630-8304 E-mail: aschultz@hilgersgraben.com - and - Edward Herbert Zebersky, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ LLC 110 SE 6th Street, Ste. 2900 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 989-6333 Facsimile: (954) 989-7781 E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com - and - Mark S. Fistos, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE LLP 110 Southeast 6th Street, Suite 2150 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 933-5083 Facsimile: (954) 989-7781 E-mail: mfistos@zpllp.com GENERATIONS PAINTING: Perez-Garcia Files Suit in Cal. State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Generations Painting Group, et al. The case is captioned as JOSE NORBERTO PEREZ-GARCIA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERATIONS PAINTING GROUP, et al., Case No. 24CV000037 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., January 2, 2024). A case management conference is set for January 3, 2025, before Judge Richard K. Sueyoshi. Generations Painting Group is a paint contractor in California. [BN] GOODLEAP LLC: Bueno Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Ana Bueno, and all others similarly situated v. GoodLeap, LLC, Modern Concepts Construction, LLC, Case No. 2023-CA-025256 was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Nov. 27, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-24484-RAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. GoodLeap -- https://goodleap.com/ -- formerly Loanpal is a finance technology company that provides financing options for the residential solar energy industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andres Felipe Vidales, Esq. Reginald John Clyne, Esq. QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD, AND BOYER 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., Fourth Floor Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (786) 344-9764 Email: andres.vidales@qpwblaw.com Reginald.Clyne@qpwblaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Sophie Madeleine Labarge, Esq. NELSON MULLINS 100 SE 3rd Ave., Suite 2700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Phone: (954) 745-5284 Email: sophie.labarge@nelsonmullins.com - and - Terrance Wayne Anderson, Jr., Esq. NELSON MULLINS 1905 NW Corporate Boulevard, Suite 310 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 483-7000 Email: tw.anderson@nelsonmullins.com - and - Joseph Kennett, Esq. BRICK BUSINESS LAW, P.A. 3413 W. Fletcher Ave Tampa, FL 33618 Phone: (813) 816-1816 GROWIN ESTATE: Rosser Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Growin Estate LLC. The case is styled as Dianna Rosser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Growin Estate LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01107-SPC-KCD (M.D. Fla., Nov. 22, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Growin Estate -- https://growinestate.com/ -- is digital Real Estate Referral Network that provides pre-screened, geo-targeted, Double Verified leads to Realtors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph E. Parrish, Esq. PARRISH & GOODMAN PLLC 915 N. Franklin Street, Unit 2302 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 643-4529 Fax: (813) 315-6535 Email: jparrish@parrishgoodman.com - and - Megan E. Shaw, Esq. Robert Henry Goodman PARRISH & GOODMAN 13031 McGregor Boulevard, Suite 8 Fort Myers, FL 33908-6003 Phone: (239) 410-1052 Email: mshaw@parrishgoodman.com rgoodman@parrishgoodman.com - and - William F. King, Esq. GALLAGHER & KENNEDY 2375 E. Camelback Road, Ste 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: (602) 530-8000 Email: bill.king@gknet.com GUEST SERVICES: Matthews Sues Over Unlawful Leave Pay Plan Terms ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Matthews et al., Plaintiffs v. Guest Services, Inc; Guest Services, Inc. Termination Pay Plan; and Gerard T.Gabrys, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00910 (W.D.N.C., December 29, 2023) is a class action arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act in connection with Guest Services' failure to pay Plaintiffs benefits under a Terminal Leave Pay Plan and seeking to recover damages for violation of North Carolina Wage and Hour Act's wage payment provisions. Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants misrepresented Plan terms and condition to participants, applied unlawful plan terms, including but not limited to purported terms that would result in a cutback of Plan participants' benefits, and failed to make proper disclosures and provide appropriate information and disclosures to Plan participants and the US Department of Labor, including but not limited to appropriate disclosures of purported changes to Plan terms under ERISA. Headquartered in Fairfax, VA, Guest Services, Inc. provides hospitality management and business support services. Founded in 1917, the company is one of the longest-running contractors for the United States government. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Victoria T. Kepes, Esq. THE NOBLE LAW FIRM, PLLC 141 Providence Road, Suite 210 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Telephone: (919) 251-6008 Facsimile: (919) 869-2079 E-mail: vkepes@thenoblelaw.com - and - Bryan L. Tyson, Esq. Hannah Auckland, Esq. MARCELLINO & TYSON, PLLC 2200 East 7th Street, Suite 100 Charlotte, NC 28204 Telephone: (704) 919-1519 Facsimile: (980) 219-7025 E-mail: bryan@yourncattorney.com hauckland@yourncattorney.com GUESTOLOGY GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Casadeli Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- TRISTAN CASADEI; and KELLIE SOLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE GUESTOLOGY GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23SM CV06045(Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 28, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staff. THE GUESTOLOGY GROUP, INC. owns and operates Calamigos Ranch Hotel in Malibu, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq. Christine T. LeVu, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858)551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Website: www.bamlawca.com HANCOCK REGIONAL: Appeals Remand Ruling in Fleece Wiretapping Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE HANCOCK REGIONAL HOSPITAL filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JENNIFER FLEECE, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE HANCOCK REGIONAL HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01235-MPB-TAB, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit was removed from the Hancock Circuit Court, Hancock County, Indiana, to the Southern District of Indiana on Aug. 18, 2023. The Plaintiffs allege that Hancock engaged in unlawful wiretapping and invaded their privacy by allegedly using the Meta Pixel on Hancock's website. The Plaintiffs allege that the conduct described above resulted in the unlawful disclosure of private information to unauthorized third parties, alongside the individuals IP address and Facebook IDs. The Defendant, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, filed this appeal to review the Court's Order granting remand back to the Marion Superior Court County Court, which was entered in this action on November 17, 2023. The appellate case is captioned as JENNIFER FLEECE, Plaintiff-Appellee v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE HANCOCK REGIONAL HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 23-3363, in the United States Court Of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on December 13, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Appellant's brief is due on January 22, 2024.[BN] Defendant-Appellant BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE HANCOCK REGIONAL HOSPITAL is represented by: Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. Michelle R. Gomez, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street, Ste. 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-0600 Facsimile: (303) 861-7805 E-mail: MGomez@bakerlaw.com PKarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com - and - Tyler Moorhead, Esq. Philip R. Zimmerly, Esq. BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS LLP 111 Monument Circle, Suite 2700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 684-5000 Facsimile: (317) 684-5173 E-mail: TMoorhead@boselaw.com PZimmerly@boselaw.com HOLLY RIDGE, NC: Paul Sues Over Exposure to Mold ------------------------------------------------ Brianna Paul, individually; Brianna Paul, as guardian of A.P, A.P., R.K. Jr., and A.F., her minor children; and Brianna Paul, as class representative on behalf of the class defined herein v. THE TOWN OF HOLLY RIDGE; HOLLY RIDGE HOUSING AUTHORITY; THE PENDERGRAPH COMPANIES, LLC; PENDERGRAPH DEVELOPMENT, LLC; FRANKIE W. PENDERGRAPH; and JOHN DOE CONTRACTORS 1 through 10, Case No. 4:23-cv-00196-M-RJ (E.D.N.C., Nov. 27, 2023), is brought on behalf former residents of Holly Plaza Apartments who were exposed by mold and will face the holiday season living in hotel rooms in another town with the knowledge that on January 1, 2024, they will have no home as a result of the Defendants' failure to implement repairs to take care of mold. For an unknown period of time, these residents have been exposed to mold that Defendants allowed to invade their homes to the point that their apartments are unrepairable. In addition to the disruption of their lives, the residents are suffering from personal injuries caused by exposure to mold. In 2020, the Town of Holly Ridge took over the board of the Holly Ridge Housing Authority with the members of the Town Council becoming the Board of the Housing Authority. The Authority's contract with Pendergraph was then assigned to the Town. As a proximate result of the failure to repair and/or otherwise improper repairs, water intruded into the structures of Holly Plaza and mold began to develop in the walls and ceilings of units at Holly Plaza, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and her children are former tenants of the Holly Plaza Apartments. Holly Ridge caused Holly Plaza to be constructed in 1980.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anna C. Majestro, Esq. Benjamin S. Chesson, Esq. J. Douglas Grimes, Esq. David N. Allen, N.C. Bar # 9095 ALLEN, CHESSON & GRIMES PLLC 505 N. Church St. Charlotte, NC 28202 Phone: 704.755.6010 Email: amajestro@allenchesson.com bchesson@allenchesson.com dgrimes@allenchesson.com dallen@allenchesson.com - and - David S. Miller Jr., Esq. MILLER LAW, LLC 81 Columbus Street, Unit A Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: 843-822-131 Email: david@attorneymiller.com - and - Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. West Virginia Bar No. 5165 POWELL & MAJESTRO PLLC 405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200 Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 346-2889 Fax: (304) 346-2895 Email: amajestro@powellmajestro.com HOWARD LUTNICK: Siseles Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Howard Lutnick, et al. The case is styled as Mariano Siseles and Zalmon Uvaydov, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated v. HOWARD LUTNICK, ANSHU JAIN, PAUL PION, ROBERT HOCHBERG, CHARLOTTE BLECHMAN, ALICE CHAN, CF FINANCE HOLDINGS II LLC, CANTOR FITZGERALD L.P., and CANTOR FITZGERALD & CO.,, Case No. 2023-1152-JTL (Del. Chancery Ct., Nov. 13, 2023). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties." Howard William Lutnick is an American billionaire businessman, who succeeded Bernard Gerald Cantor as the head of Cantor Fitzgerald.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq. Kelly L. Tucker, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 622-7000 Phone: (302) 622-7000 Fax: (302) 622-7100 - and - David Wissbroecker, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 2325 3rd Street, Suite 329 San Francisco, CA 94107 Phone: (302) 622-7000 Fax: (302) 622-7100 - and - Christopher H. Lyons, Esq. Tayler D. Bolton, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 301 Wilmington, DE 19803 Phone: (302) 467-2660 - and - Randall J. Baron, Esq. Benny Goodman, Esq. Erik Luedeke, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 231-1058 - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Gregory Del Gaizo, Esq. Marion D. Valdovinos, Esq. ROBBINS LLP 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: (619) 525-3990 - and - Leonid Kandinov, Esq. Aaron Morris, Esq. MORRIS KANDINOV LLP 550 West B Street, 4th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 780-3993 HYPHEN LLC: Layne Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HYPHEN LLC, et al. The case is styled as Alverson Layne, on behalf himself and all others similarly situated v. HYPHEN LLC doing business as: HELIX FINANCIAL, LEAD BANK, Case No. 2:23-cv-22394-MCA-JBC (D.N.J., Nov. 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence C Hersh, Esq. 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102b Rutherford, NJ 07070 Phone: (201) 507-6300 Email: lh@hershlegal.com INSTRON INC: Faces Warren Torts Suit in Cal. Superior Court ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Instron, Inc. The case is captioned as JASON WARREN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INSTRON, INC., Case No. 2482CV00007 (Cal. Super., Norfolk Cty., January 2, 2024). The suit is brought over alleged tort law violation. Instron, Inc. is a provider of mechanical testing systems in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael S. Appel, Esq. KETTERER BROWNE AND ASSOCIATES LLC 336 South Main St. Bel Air, MD 21014 Telephone: (855) 522-5297 INTEGRIANT VENTURES: Bishop Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integriant Ventures Insurance Services, Inc. The case is styled as Quiana Bishop, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Integriant Ventures Insurance Services, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01609-TSE-LRV (E.D. Va., Nov. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Integriant -- https://www.integriant.com/ -- is a developer of an insurance marketing and sales platform designed for the life and medicare insurance industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Peter Robinson, III, Esq. 1934 Old Gallows Road, Suite 350K Vienna, VA 22181 Phone: (703) 789-4800 Email: william@robinsonslaw.com INTER & CO: Verri Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls in Florida ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inter & Co Payments, Inc. The case is captioned as EDDIE VERRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INTER & CO PAYMENTS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-20006 (S.D. Fla., January 2, 2024). The case arises from the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Inter & Co Payments, Inc. is a digital bank company doing business in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com LAWRENCE RECRUITING: Gilson Files Class Suit in Cal. State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lawrence Recruiting Specialists, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as LAUREN HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LAWRENCE RECRUITING SPECIALISTS, INC., et al., Case No. CGC24611347 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., January 2, 2024). A case management conference is set for June 5, 2024, before Judge Anne-Christine Massullo. Lawrence Recruiting Specialists, Inc. is a medical staffing agency in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, APC 515 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 MARRIOTT INT'L: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Data Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Marriott International, Incorporated filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated November 29, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled IN RE: MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 19-md-2879, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. In September 2016, Marriott acquired Starwood. Unbeknownst to Marriott, an unauthorized third party had accessed Starwood's reservation database. Over 80 potentially related actions were filed in courts across the country. In re Marriott Int'l, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 363 F.Supp.3d 1372, 1373 (J.P.M.L. 2019). The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation determined that pretrial proceedings should occur via an MDL sited in the District of Maryland. The Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint bringing 96 claims under the laws of all 50 states. Litigation proceeded on ten "bellwether" claims. Pursuant to the district court's direction to agree to a bellwether process, the parties expressly reserved choice-of-law arguments in selecting bellwether claims. Marriott moved to dismiss. In its motion, Marriott reaffirmed the parties' agreement to reserve choice-of-law arguments. Marriott also noted that "Plaintiffs' generic pleading style makes it difficult to sort out what terms and conditions apply to their dealings with Starwood or Marriott, which could include arbitration provisions, class-action waivers, choice-of-law provisions, and limitations on liability." The district court denied dismissal largely based on Plaintiffs' identity theft allegations. Marriott then answered and raised Plaintiffs' waiver of class relief as an affirmative defense. During discovery, Marriott asked Plaintiffs what contracts they were relying on for their class claims. The Plaintiffs kept their options open, naming 31 contracts potentially at issue. Some contained class-action waivers; others did not. And some contained inconsistent choice-of-law and venue provisions. The Plaintiffs, in turn, asked Marriott to explain why their class claims were barred by a class-action waiver. Marriott responded by pointing to the Starwood Preferred Guest Program Terms & Conditions, among other contracts. Discovery failed to substantiate Plaintiffs' allegations of class-wide identity theft. The Plaintiffs nevertheless moved to certify sprawling classes encompassing every consumer who provided information to Starwood during the relevant period. But in so doing, Plaintiffs had to change their theory of the case. The Plaintiffs rested their standing and class-wide damages on an "overpayment" theory: They would have paid less for their hotel rooms had they known about the data-security incident. And, for the first time in this litigation, Plaintiffs identified the SPG Terms as the sole basis for defining their class contract claims. Marriott opposed certification on various grounds, including the classaction waiver in the SPG Terms. All bellwether plaintiffs had enrolled in the SPG Program, the late-breaking centerpiece of plaintiffs' class contract claims. That meant all bellwether plaintiffs had agreed to resolve disputes "individually without any class action" and could not bring class claims. The district court nonetheless certified damages classes covering Maryland (breach of contract, consumer fraud), New York (same), and California (consumer fraud). Because the SPG class-action waiver applied only to SPG members and thus raised typicality problems, the court sua sponte redefined the non-contract classes to include only SPG members, as the contract classes did. The court deferred addressing the effect of the class-action waiver on class certification. It also certified Rule 23(c)(4) negligence classes limited to duty and breach. The certified classes encompass approximately 20 million individuals. This Court's review is urgently needed once again to address one of the largest class certification orders ever issued in a data-security case. This Court previously vacated class certification because the district court failed to address the parties' class-action waiver before certifying. On remand, Judge Bailey "respectfully disagree[d]" with key aspects of the panel's ruling and recertified identical classes consisting entirely of individuals who had expressly agreed not to pursue class relief. The recertification order rests on two unprecedented holdings. First, the court held that Marriott relinquished its class-waiver defense simply by participating in multidistrict litigation, even though Marriott timely and repeatedly invoked the waiver defense. Second, the court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) prohibits class-action waivers unaccompanied by arbitration provisions. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a party waives its contractual class-action waiver, venue, and choice-of-law provisions by participating in multidistrict litigation; 2. Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 prohibits class action waivers unaccompanied by arbitration agreements; 3. Whether a class may be certified where ascertaining standing and class membership requires millions of mini-trials; 4. Whether a class may be certified where the class-wide damages theory rests on a premise that was proven incorrect; and 5. Whether Rule 24(c)(4) can be used to certify issue classes containing millions of individuals who lack standing. The appellate case is captioned as Marriott International, Incorporated v. Peter Maldini, Case No. 23-299, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on Dec. 13, 2023.[BN] Defendant-Petitioner MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED is represented by: Lindsay Claire Harrison, Esq. Matthew S. Hellman, Esq. Zachary C. Schauf, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK, LLP 1099 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001-4412 Telephone: (202) 639-6000 Plaintiffs-Respondents PETER MALDINI, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. FINLEY FIRM, PC 3535 Piedmont Road, NE Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 320-9979 - and - Amy Elisabeth Keller, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 10 North Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 - and - James Joseph Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD, LLP 888 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL: Dematties Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------------------- BERNADETTE DEMATTIES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-022961 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Dec. 28, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES USA LLC provides financial services. The Company offers financing and leasing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com MILLAN ENTERPRISES: Wahab Sues Over ADA Violations in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Millan Enterprises, LLC. The case is captioned as ANGELA WAHAB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MILLAN ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00001 (S.D.N.Y., January 2, 2024). The nature of the suit is stated as 446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other. Millan Enterprises, LLC is a residential and commercial real estate company doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com MINNESOTA: Sagataw Files Civil Rights Complaint in D. Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mayor Jacob Frey, in his individual and official capacity. The case is captioned as CHERYL SAGATAW, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MAYOR JACOB FREY, in his individual and official capacity, Case No. 0:24-cv-00001-ECT-TNL (D. Minn., January 2, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as 440 Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kira Aakre Kelley, Esq. 238 Emerald St. Minneapolis, MN 55414 Telephone: (802) 683-4086 E-mail: kira@climatedefenseproject.org MR. COOPER: Joens Files Suit in M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mr. Cooper, et al. The case is styled as Janet Joens, and all others similarly situated v. Mr. Cooper, Pingora Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-02717-MSS-UAM (M.D. Fla., Nov. 28, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Mr. Cooper -- https://www.mrcooper.com/ -- offers mortgage services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryant Dunivan, Jr., Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ATTORNEY, PA 301 W. Platt St., #216 Tampa, FL 33606 Phone: (813) 252-0239 Email: bryant@theconsumerprotectionattorney.com MR. COOPER: Short Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII --------------------------------------------------------------- Jerold Short and Carlette Short, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MR. COOPER GROUP INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-02592-S (N.D. Tex., Nov. 22, 2023), is brought against Mr. Cooper for its failure to secure and safeguard customers' personally identifiable information ("PII") and for failing to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and Class members that their PII had been compromised. On November 2, 2023, Mr. Cooper posted on its website and filed an 8-K statement announcing that it had sustained a potentially massive data breach in which unauthorized actors gained access to its networks (the "Data Breach"). While admitting the actors "gained access to certain of our technology systems," Mr. Cooper failed to disclose which systems were affected, what information was accessed, and how many of its 4.3 million customers were impacted. Mr. Cooper also omitted when the breach began, disclosing only that it discovered the unauthorized access on October 31, 2023. It is unclear from Mr. Cooper's statements whether the breach has actually been contained. Although Mr. Cooper's disclosures have been scarce, the available evidence suggests the Data Breach is massive in size and scope. Millions of customers went days without being able to make mortgage payments, and other customers report having experienced unauthorized bank transactions they believe are directly tied to the Data Breach. As a result of Mr. Cooper's failure to protect the sensitive information it was entrusted to safeguard, Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered harm and have been exposed to a significant and continuing risk of identity theft, financial fraud, and other identity-related fraud indefinitely, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have been customers of Mr. Cooper since 2022. Mr. Cooper is a Texas based loan servicer that "provides servicing, origination and transaction-based services related to single family residences throughout the United States."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sara Hollan Chelette, Esq. Christopher W. Patton, Esq. LYNN PINKER HURST & SCHWEGMANN LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 981-3800 Facsimile: (214) 981-3839 Email: schelette@lynnllp.com cpatton@lynnllp.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. J. Austin Moore, Esq. Tanner J. Edwards, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 714-7100 Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com moore@stuevesiegel.com tanner@stuevesiegel.com NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Franz Alleges Licensed Products' Conspiracy -------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Franz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Football League et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11288 (S.D.N.Y., December 29, 2023) seeks to recover recover treble damages and the litigation costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, as well as for injunctive relief, pursuant to the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, directly and through their agents, were engaged in anticompetitive activities affecting all states, as Defendants coordinated activities related to marketing, design and manufacture, pricing, sales, and shipments of National Football League Licensed Products to customers throughout the country. Thus, the Defendants' conspiracy and anticompetitive conduct caused, and continues to cause, him and the Class members to pay unlawfully inflated prices for NFL Licensed Products purchased from Defendants, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in New York, NY, NFL is an association of 32 professional football teams in the United States. NFL and its member teams created NFL Properties LLC, which serves as their representative for the licensing of their trademarks and logos. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Warren T. Burns, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 Facsimile: (469) 444-5002 E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com - and - Christopher J. Cormier, Esq. Spencer Cox, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 577-3977 Facsimile: (469) 444-5002 E-mail: ccormier@burnscharest scox@burnscharest - and - Claire Curwick, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 365 Canal Street, Suite 1170 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 799-2845 Facsimile: (504) 881-1765 E-mail: ccurwick@burnscharest.com - and - Matthew S. Tripolitsiotis, Esq. Cristina Delise, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 757 Third Ave., 20th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 Facsimile: (469) 444-5002 E-mail: mtripolitsiotis@burnscharest.com cdelise@burnscharest.com NORTHWELL HEALTH: Lowery Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ratiek Lowery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NORTHWELL HEALTH, INC. and PERRY JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01857-RFB-NJK (D. Nev., Nov. 13, 2023), is brought against Defendants for their failure to secure and safeguard his and approximately 3.9 million other individuals' personally identifying information ("PII") and personal health information ("PHI"), including names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, medical record numbers, encounter numbers, medical information, and dates/times of service. Between approximately March 27, 2023, and May 2, 2023, an unauthorized third party gained access to PJA's network system and obtained files containing information about Northwell's current and former patients (the "Data Breach"). The Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized access and disclosure. Defendants breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect Northwell's patients' PII/PHI from unauthorized access and disclosure. As a result of Defendants' inadequate security and breach of their duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class members' PII/PHI was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all persons whose PII/PHI was exposed as a result of the Data Breach, which occurred between approximately March 27, 2023, and May 2, 2023. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other Class members, asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the New York Deceptive Acts and Practices Act, and seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff obtained healthcare or related services from Northwell. Northwell is the largest health system in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. Nevada State Bar No. 12078 STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Phone: (725) 235-9750 Email: lasvegas@stranchlaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615-254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-621-2000 Fax: 312-641-5504 Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.co PERRY JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES: Colon Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Byron Colon and Edward Miller, Jr., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. PERRY, JOHNSON, & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01910-RFB-EJY (D. Nev., Nov. 20, 2023), is brought to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. This class action arises out of the recent targeted cyberattack and data breach ("Data Breach") at PJA, a healthcare-focused information technology company. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiffs and approximately 9 million Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack. In addition, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive personal information--which was entrusted to Defendant for safe keeping --was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. Information compromised in the Data Breach includes patient contact information (such as patient names, dates of birth, and addresses,); Social Security numbers; medical and/or treatment information (dates of services, locations, services requested or procedures performed, diagnosis, physician names, and Medical Record Numbers). The Data Breach included protected health information ("PHI") as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), and personally identifiable information ("PII") that Defendant collected and maintained (collectively "Private Information"). The Defendant collected and maintained Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, Private Information was collected by Defendant and maintained on its computer network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiffs and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a patient who received health care services from one of Defendant's customers. PERRY, JOHNSON, & ASSOCIATES, INC. is a company that provides healthcare-focused information technology services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miles N. Clark, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MILES N. CLARK, LLC 5510 S. Fort Apache Rd, Suite 30 Las Vegas, NV 89148-7700 Phone: (702) 856-7430 Fax: (702) 552-2370 Email: miles@milesclarklaw.com - and - Jean S. Martin, Esq. Francesca K. Burne, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 559-4908 Facsimile: (813) 222-4795 Email: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com fburne@forthepeople.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Clarke Files Suit in W.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progress Software Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Kimberly Clarke, Alexander Hagen, on behalf of her minor child and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progress Software Corporation, Greater Rochester Independent Practice Association Inc., Cadence Bank, Case No. 6:23-cv-06665-FPG (W.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Other Contract. Progress Software Corporation -- http://www.progress.com/-- is an American public company that produces software for creating and deploying business applications.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frederic D. Ostrove, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, PC One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 Fax: (516) 747-5024 Email: rostrove@lmblaw.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Mendez Files Property Damage Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progress Software Corporation, et al. The case is captioned as JESSICA MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00018-JHR (S.D.N.Y., January 2, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as 380 Torts - Personal Property - Other Personal Property Damage. Progress Software Corporation is a software company doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Alexander Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW PC 1 Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 Facsimile: (516) 747-5024 E-mail: mtompkins@lmblaw.com REAL ESTATE BOARD: Friedman Sues Over Alleged Antitrust Conspiracy ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT FRIEDMAN, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, DOUGLAS ELLIMAN, INC., CHRISTIE’S INTERNATIONAL REAL ESTATE LLC, THE CORCORAN GROUP, INC., SOTHEBY’S INTERNATIONAL REALTY AFFILIATES LLC, BROWN HARRIS STEVENS, LLC, SERHANT LLC, COMPASS, INC., NEST SEEKERS LLC, THE AGENCY IP HOLDCO, LLC d/b/a THE AGENCY RE, ELEGRAN LLC, ENGEL & VOLKERS NEW YORK REAL ESTATE LLC, R NEW YORK, ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE, INC., TERRA HOLDINGS, LLC and LESLIE J. GARFIELD & CO., INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-09601 (E.D.N.Y., December 29, 2023) arises out of an alleged horizontal antitrust conspiracy among major residential real estate firms not to compete over broker commissions in Brooklyn, New York's most expensive neighborhoods. Allegedly, the Defendants perpetrated this conspiracy through the Real Estate Board Of New York (REBNY), New York City's real estate trade organization. As REBNY members, Defendants devised and agreed in writing to a set of rules requiring a real estate broker representing a home seller to split the commission from a real estate transaction equally with the broker representing the home buyer -- a commission that must be paid by the home seller. As a result, the Defendants' conspiracy has artificially inflated broker commissions to a range of 5% to 6% of the sale price in nearly all residential real estate transactions in REBNY Brooklyn -- half of which automatically goes to the buyer broker--an overcharge that is borne entirely by the home seller, says the suit. Headquartered in New York, NY, REBNY is a private trade association comprised of a vast majority of New York’s real estate agents and brokerages. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven L. Groopman, Esq. Steven J. Buttacavoli, Esq. Kristie A. LaSalle, Esq. Brooke E. Lowell, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 542-8300 Facsimile: (617) 542-1194 E-mail: sgroopman@bermantabacco.com sbuttacavoli@bermantabacco.com klasalle@bermantabacco.com blowell@bermantabacco.com - and - Daniel Goldman, Esq. BIENERT KATZMAN LITRELL WILLIAMS LLP 903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350 San Clemente, CA 92673 Telephone: (973) 476-5485 E-mail: dgoldman@bklwlaw.com - and - Todd A. Seaver, Esq. Carl N. Hammarskjold, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO 425 California St, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 Facsimile: (415) 433-6382 E-mail: tseaver@bermantabacco.com chammarskjold@bermantabacco.com REFRESCO BEVERAGES: Alonzo Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cinfed Federal Credit Union, et al. The case is styled as Anna Villa Alonzo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cinfed Federal Credit Union, Case No. 3:23-cv-22695-GC-JBD (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 28, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Refresco -- https://www.refresco.com/en -- is the world's largest independent bottler of beverages for leading retailers and A-brands with production in Europe, North America and Mexico.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gaetano Joseph Dipersia, I, Esq. Charles Joseph Kocher, Esq. MCOMBER MCOMBER & LUBER, P.C. 50 Lake Center Drive, Suite 400 Marlton, NJ 08053 Phone: (856) 985-9800 Email: gjd@njlegal.com cjk@njlegal.com SEATTLE SERVICE: Rivera FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Vanessa Rivera, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Seattle Service Bureau, Inc., Case No. 2023-CA-016283-O was removed from the 9th Judicial Circuit, In and For Orange County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Nov. 28, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:23-cv-02278-PGB-DCI to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Seattle Service Bureau, Inc., doing business as National Service Bureau, operates as a debt recovery agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq. Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 S.E. 6TH Street, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 628-5793 Fax: (954) 507-9974 Email: jen@jibraellaw.com jibrael@jibraellaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Marc S. Dobin, Esq. DOBIN LAW GROUP, PA 500 University Blvd., Suite 205 Jupiter, FL 33458 Phone: (561) 575-5880 Fax: (561) 203-4153 Email: mdobin@dobinlaw.com SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Potvin Sues Over Negligence ------------------------------------------------- Timothy Potvin, indiviually and others similarly situated V. SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-12809-WGY (D. Mass., Nov. 20, 2023), is brought against the Defendant's breach of duty and negligence which caused the Plaintiff to sustain considerable injury. The Plaintiff was taking the cover off the 8-cup food processing attachment off the subject product when the interior blade fell out of the bowl and landed on Plaintiff's big toe of his right foot causing a severe laceration. The Plaintiff was using the product for its general purpose and its intended and ordinary uses. The incident resulted in Plaintiff severing two tendons requiring surgery and extensive rehabilitation treatment. The Defendant has a duty to assure that the products will not be unreasonably dangerous with normal intended use, and to warn consumers of any potential dangers that may result with normal use. The Defendant breached its duty to assure that products will not be unreasonably dangerous with intended use, and warn consumers of dangers of using the product as intended. This breach includes, but is not limited to: allowing the blade of the subject product to sit loosely within the bowl without anything to prevent it from moving or falling out of the bowl, allowing the cover the fit so tightly in the bowl that a large amount of force must be used to remove the cover causing the blade to move around and potentially fall out of the bowl, not designing the bowl deep enough to prevent the blade from falling out of the bowl should the blade move around, and not warning customers that the blade is not secured to the bowl and its potential to fall out causing injury. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff sustained considerable injury. Mr. Potvin had to have surgery could not bear weight on the toe for about six weeks. He then attended physical therapy to improve range of motion, pain, tenderness, muscle strength and edema resulting from this incident. Mr. Potvin continues to suffer from his injuries and his way of life, including raising of his young child has been affected, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a Ninja Mega Kitchen System 1500 Model No. BL770 (hereinafter "subject product") The Defendant is the designer and manufacturer of the subject product.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Damien J. Martin, Esq. 2341 Boston Road Wilbraham, MA 01095 Phone: (413) 433-5000 Email: Damien@djm-law.net SLT LENDING SPV: Keifer Suit Transferred to C.D. Indiana -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Keifer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SLT Lending SPV, Inc. doing business as: Sur La Table, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-04790 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana on Nov. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00394-JD-JPK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. SLT Lending SPV Inc doing business as Sur La Table, Inc. -- https://www.surlatable.com/ -- is a privately held retail company based in Seattle, Washington, that sells kitchenware including cookware, cutlery, cooks' tools, small electrics, tabletop and linens, bakeware, glassware and bar, housewares, food, and outdoor products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 The Defendant is represented by: Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP - CHI/IL One North Wacker Drive Ste 4500 Chicago, IL 60606-1901 Phone: (312) 416-6200 Fax: (312) 416-6201 Email: bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com - and - Victoria Leigh Weatherford, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 659-2634 Fax: (415) 659-2601 STANFORD HEALTH: Appeals Remand Ruling in Gibson Privacy Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Stanford Health Care filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated November 9, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled DAVINA GIBSON, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STANFORD HEALTH CARE, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-02320-BLF, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiff Gibson filed this putative class action against Defendant Stanford Health Care on May 11, 2023 in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, asserting three state law privacy claims on behalf of California residents who have used Stanford's online patient portal. The Plaintiff claims that Stanford's website utilizes certain code provided to it by Facebook -- "the Facebook Tracking Pixel" -- that transmits patients' personally identifiable information and protected health information to Facebook whenever the patient portal is used, without the patients' consent and in violation of their privacy rights. Defendant Stanford removed the action to federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1), commonly referred to as the federal officer removal statute, which in relevant part provides for the removal of an action brought against a federal officer or "any person acting under that officer" where the action is "for or relating to any act under color of such office." Gibson moved to remand the action to state court, arguing that Section 1442(a)(1) does not apply because Stanford was not "acting under" a federal officer when Stanford violated patients' privacy rights. Stanford opposed remand. The Court previously vacated the hearing on the motion. On November 9, 2023, Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an Order granting Plaintiff's motion to remand the case. The appellate case is captioned as Gibson v. Stanford Health Care, Case No. 23-4102, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 12, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Mediation Questionnaire for Appellant was due on December 18, 2023; -- Appeal Opening Brief for Appellant is due on January 22, 2024; and -- Appeal Answering Brief for Appellee is due on February 21, 2024.[BN] SUMMIT PROTECTIVE: Gilson Files Class Suit in Cal. State Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Summit Protective & Investigative Services, Inc., a California Corporation, et al. The case is captioned as ELIZABETH R. GILSON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUMMIT PROTECTIVE & INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 24CV000013 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., January 2, 2024). A case management conference is set for December 27, 2024, before Judge Richard K. Sueyoshi. Summit Protective & Investigative Services, Inc. is a provider of security guard services in California. [BN] SUPERGOOP LLC: Dunning Sues Over Mislabeled Sunscreen Products -------------------------------------------------------------- MARCEANN DUNNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUPERGOOP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-11242 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2023) alleges that the Defendants sells a mislabeled Supergoop Unseen Sunscreen SPF 40 products for face or body (the "Products" or the "Unseen Sunscreens"). According to the complaint, the Products' Principal Display Panels prominently state that the Products are "SPF 40." As described herein, the representation "SPF 40" on the PDPs is false and misleading as the Products1 are not SPF 40 and, in fact, provide a significantly lower SPF protection. Had the Plaintiff known the truth that the Product contained a materially lower SPF, she would not have purchased it, or would have paid significantly less for it. As such, she has been injured as a direct result of Defendant's conduct, says the Plaintiff. SUPERGOOP, LLC provides personal care products. The Company offers lotions, powders, setting sprays, oils, mousse, and skin care products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian Levis, Esq. Nicole A. Veno, Esq. Amanda Fiorilla, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 Email: clevis@lowey.com nveno@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com SUPERIOR STAFFING: Appeals Judgment in Voyles FLSA Suit to 5th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUPERIOR STAFFING, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment in the lawsuit entitled William Voyles, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Superior Staffing, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-1410, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). On Nov. 7, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Robert R Summerhays on Sept. 27, 2023. On Oct. 24, 2023, the Defendants filed a first motion for reconsideration on the default judgment order, which the Court denied on Nov. 27, 2023. The appellate case is captioned Voyles v. Superior Staffing, Case No. 23-30920, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on December 27, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees WILLIAM VOYLES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Kenneth W. Dejean, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH DEJEAN 417 W. University Lafayette, LA 70506 Telephone: (337) 235-5294 Defendants-Appellants Superior Staffing, LLC, et al. are represented by: Lauren Ashley Noel, Esq. LAUREN & COMPANY P.O. Box 1362 Scott, LA 70583 Telephone: (337) 385-0543 SUTTER HEALTH: O'Connor Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI ------------------------------------------------------------- Catherine O'Connor and Frank Coats, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUTTER HEALTH; WELLTOK, INC.; PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION; and IPSWITCH, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-02725-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal., Nov. 20, 2023), is brought against Defendants for their failure to secure and safeguard their and approximately 845,441 other similarly situated individuals' personally identifiable information ("PII") and personal health information ("PHI"), including but not limited to names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, Medicare/Medicaid ID numbers, certain health insurance plan or group names, provider names, prescription names, and treatment codes. Sutter contracts with Welltok to provide communications to its patients and shares its patients' PII/PHI with Welltok.Welltok transferred Sutter's patients' PII/PHI through Ipswitch and PSC's MOVEit Transfer software. Plaintiffs' and Class members' PII/PHI was disclosed to unauthorized third parties during a massive data breach compromising the MOVEit Transfer and MOVEit Cloud ("MOVEit") software that occurred between approximately May 30, 2023, and May 31, 2023 (the "Data Breach"). During the Data Breach, and due to Defendants' data security and privacy shortcomings, unauthorized persons were able to gain access to files containing the PII/PHI of Sutter's patients by exploiting a vulnerability in the MOVEit platform. The Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiffs and Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized access and disclosure. Defendants breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect their PII/PHI from unauthorized access and disclosure. As a result of Defendants' inadequate security measures and breach of their duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiffs' and Class members' PII/PHI was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all of Sutter's patients whose PII/PHI was exposed as a result of the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was required to provide her PII/PHI to Sutter in connection with obtaining healthcare or other services Sutter is a large healthcare system based in Sacramento, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Jennifer L. Macpherson, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619/338-1100 Fax: 619/338-1101 Email: tblood@bholaw.com jmacpherson@bholaw.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312/621-2000 Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com UNITED AIRLINES: McKnight Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ginnie McKnight, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and UNITED AIRLINES HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2023-CH-08820 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 20, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-16118. On October 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, based on alleged violations of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act ("GIPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ada W. Dolph, Esq. Danielle Kays, Esq. Ala Salameh, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606-6448 Phone: (312) 460-5000 Facsimile: (312) 460-7000 Email: adolph@seyfarth.com dkays@seyfarth.com asalameh@seyfarth.com UNITED STATES: German Files Civil Class Suit in Cal. State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States Cold Storage of California, a California Corporation, et al. The case is captioned as JOSE GERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES COLD STORAGE OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al., Case No. BCV-24-100005 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., January 2, 2024). A case management conference is set for July 1, 2024, before Judge Bernard C. Barmann, Jr. United States Cold Storage of California is a logistics solutions provider in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION 5950 Canoga Ave., Suite 550 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 293-5623 E-mail: roman@olfla.com UNITED STATES: Sinkfield Suit Moved From E.D. Pa. to D. Minn. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled DEON SINKFIELD, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-04684, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on January 2, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the District of Minnesota assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-00002-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of the suit is stated as 440 Civil Rights – Other Civil Rights. United States of America Inc. is a company in the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. UNITED STATES: Woodley Apppeals Ruling in Haggart Suit to Fed. Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff DENISE LYNN WOODLEY filed an appeal from the court's order entered in the lawsuit styled DANIEL HAGGART, KATHY HAGGART, HUSBAND AND WIFE, FOR THEMSELVES AND AS REPRE-SENTATIVES OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITU-ATED PERSONS, GORDON ARTHUR WOODLEY, PERSONAL COUNSEL FOR KIT-TINGER DEED CLAIMANTS, WESTPOINT PROP-ERTIES, LLC, C/O FARAMARZ GHODDOUSSI, CLEVELAND SQUARE, LLC, RC TC MERIDIAN RIDGE, LLC, TWOSONS LLC, GRETCHEN CHAM-BERS, WILLIAM AMES, DENNIS J. CRISPIN, DEBLOIS PROPERTIES LLC, C/O DAVID AND DEBRA DEBLOIS, STAR EVANS, MICHAEL B. JA-COBSEN, FRANCES JANE LEE, SUSAN B. LONG, CLAUDIA MANSFIELD, FREDERICK P. MILLER, SUSAN L. MILLER, PBI ENTERPRISES, LLC, MI-CHAEL G. RUSSELL, ELANA RUSSELL, JAMES M. SATHER, KELLY J. SATHER, JAMES E. STRANG, D. MICHAEL YOUNG, JULIA H. YOUNG, MOLLY A. JACOBSEN, LESLIE MILSTEIN, ALISON L. WEBB, PATRICIA STRANG, Plaintiffs, DENISE LYNN WOODLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 2021-1660, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The origins of the dispute underlying this case concern land in the state of Washington that was converted into a recreational train pursuant to Section 208 of the National Trails System Act Amendments of 1983. The Plaintiffs filed suit over a decade ago, alleging that the conversion constituted a taking of their property without just compensation. The court certified an initial class of over 500 members, which was subsequently split into six subclasses. In 2012, the court ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment, finding "the government liable to certain class members within Subclass Two and Categories A through D of Subclass Four" while also granting "the government summary judgment as to class claimants in Subclass Four, Category E." The Plaintiffs sought approval of a renewed notice to the class regarding the settlement, which the government opposed to the same grounds it had raised in its prior post-remand motions. The court held a fairness hearing on December 18, 2017 in Seattle, Washington, in which numerous class members participated. On January 26, 2018, the court approved the settlement agreement and entered a partial final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), enabling the government to appeal the settlement approval immediately while reserving judgment on the matter of whether the Plaintiffs could recover statutory legal fees and costs beyond those already contained within the settlement agreement itself. Effectively, the court employed Rule 54(b) to bifurcate its approval of the settlement agreement from any determination regarding legal fees and costs outside the settlement agreement. On the government's subsequent appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the court's approval of the settlement on November 27, 2019 but declined to address the government's arguments regarding legal fees and costs on the jurisdictional ground that this court had not previously acted regarding them. The Federal Circuit's mandate was issued on January 21, 2020. On March 2, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed five separate motions, representing four different plaintiffs or groups of plaintiffs, seeking statutory legal fees and costs pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Following an additional round of motions practice in which the government sought to compel the production of retainer and fee agreements from class counsel, the government individually responded to each of the fee motions on June 22, 2020. The Plaintiffs filed replies on July 6, 2020. A motion was filed separately by Plaintiff Denise Woodley for fees and expenses. In the motion, she sought attorney's fees for work performed by her attorney-spouse, Gordon Woodley, joint owner of the property at issue and co-plaintiff in the case, explaining that he was one of her lawyers throughout the proceeding, and she also sought to recoup certain expenses. The Claims Court denied the motion, reasoning that pro se litigants cannot recover attorney's fees and expenses and that the work of Gordon Woodley, as a co-plaintiff and joint owner of the property at issue, was pro se and thus not compensable. Denise Woodley appealed. On June 22, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Claims Court's determination that Denise Woodley is not entitled to attorney's fees for the legal work performed by her attorney-spouse in this case. But the Court vacated the court's determination that she is not entitled to any expenses on that basis, and remanded for a determination of the proper reimbursement, if any, of the claimed expenses. The appellate case is captioned as Haggart v. United States, Case No. 24-1256, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, filed on December 12, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Entry of Appearance was due December 26, 2023; -- Certificate of Interest was due December 26, 2023; -- Docketing Statement was due January 11, 2024; and -- Appellant/Petitioner's brief is due on February 12, 2024.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DENISE LYNN WOODLEY is represented by: Gordon Arthur Woodley, Esq. PO Box 53043 53043 Bellevue, WA 98015 Telephone: (425) 802-1400 Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by: David A. Harrington, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PO Box 480 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 616-0465 - and - William B. Lazarus, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PO Box 7415 Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 514-4168 USA CARSHIP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barrow-Rivas Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDRA BARROW-RIVAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USA CARSHIP INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-CV-279-RWS (N.D. Ga., Dec. 28, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. USA CARSHIP INC. provides auto transport service, with network of hundreds of professional car carriers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin T. Holcombe, Esq. SKAAR & FEAGLE LLP 133 Mirramont Lake Drive Woodstock, GA 30189 Telephone: (70) 427-5600 Facsimile: (404) 601-1855 Email: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com - and – Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (952) 336-2940 Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. Kevin M. Cox, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com kcox@thelyonfirm.com VALET LIVING: Franklin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valet Living, LLC. The case is styled as Lakeisha Franklin, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Valet Living, LLC, Case No. 23CV057101 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Nov. 22, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Valet Living, LLC provides property management services. The Company offers building maintenance, security, waste and recycling collection, and bill payment services for residential communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com VIRIBUS INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Duckwyler and Hurd Allege ------------------------------------------------------------------- REGINA DUCKWYLER and AYINDE HURD, individually, and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VIRIBUS INC., d/b/a Viribus Staffing LLC, SANDRA JADUSINGH ALLEN, Individually, and TIANNA JADUSINGH COLE, individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00466-TRM-DCP (E.D. Tenn., December 29, 2023) brings claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act against the Defendants for unpaid overtime and other damages owed to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former employees. The complaint asserts that Plaintiffs Duckwyler and Hurd were employed by Defendants as hourly-paid non-exempt employees but were not paid overtime wages at a rate equal to at least one and one-half time their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in any given workweek. Viribus Inc. is staffing company that provides workers to customers, primarily in the hospitality, food service, construction, janitorial, warehousing, packaging, logistics and light industrial and manufacturing industries. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLTOWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Allows J&J Class Action Over Talc Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters.com, reports that a Federal Judge said Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) shareholders may pursue as a class action their lawsuit accusing the company of fraudulently concealing how its talc products were contaminated by cancer-causing asbestos. U.S. District Judge Zahid Quraishi in Trenton, New Jersey, allowed shareholders from Feb. 22, 2013, to Dec. 13, 2018, to pursue their securities fraud claims as a group. He rejected J&J's argument that any class period be at least a year shorter because some events that allegedly caused its stock price to fall contained no "new" information. J&J's talc products have included its signature baby powder. The company stopped selling talc-based baby powder globally this year, switching to corn starch as the main ingredient. It has said its talc products are safe and do not contain asbestos. "Johnson & Johnson always strives to provide truthful and fulsome disclosures," Erik Haas, J&J's worldwide vice president of litigation, said in a statement. "We will continue to vigorously litigate cases that challenge the safety of our product or the accuracy of our public statements." Lawyers for shareholders including the lead plaintiff San Diego County Employees Retirement Association did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Class actions make it easier for shareholders to recover more money, at lower cost, than if they sued individually. A longer class period could increase the amount recovered. Shareholders said J&J's stock price fell six times in late 2017 and 2018 following events that confirmed how the New Brunswick, New Jersey-based company and various executives hid the truth about asbestos in its talc products. These events included a jury awarding $4.69 billion in July 2018 to 22 women who said asbestos caused them to develop ovarian cancer, and a Reuters report five months later that said J&J knew about the asbestos risks for decades. J&J said the six events could not have hurt its stock price because none contained new information that "corrected" its earlier disclosures. It said the only new information from the verdict was that jurors accepted the women's arguments, and that all 56 internal documents mentioned in the Reuters report were already public. Quraishi was unpersuaded. Addressing the Reuters report, he said its "careful analysis" and providing of "necessary context" made it more than a rehash of "stale information." The share price fell 10% the day the report was released. J&J also faces mass tort litigation encompassing more than 50,000 lawsuits over its talc products. Courts have rejected two efforts by the company to use the bankruptcy process to limit its exposure to talc litigation. The case is Hall v Johnson & Johnson et al, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, No. 18-01833. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Subsidiaries May Remain in Bankruptcy ------------------------------------------------------------ Dietrich Knauth, writing for Reuters.com, reports that a U.S. Bankruptcy Judge ruled that two Trane Technologies subsidiaries, Aldrich Pump and Murray Boiler, may remain in bankruptcy despite asbestos plaintiffs' arguments that the companies are not in "financial distress." The ruling is a sign that the Texas Two-step - a controversial legal maneuver that allows solvent companies to dump legal liabilities into shell companies that then file for bankruptcy - is still alive, despite high-profile setbacks in 2023 cases involving Johnson & Johnson and 3M. Clay Thompson, an attorney who represents mesothelioma victims in several Texas Two-step bankruptcies, said that he was disappointed that Whitley did not follow the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the J&J case, which found that bankruptcy protections are not available to companies that are not in immediate "financial distress." "Bankruptcy is for people and companies in financial distress, not multi-billionaires who want to pay less to their cancer victims," Thompson said in an email. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Craig Whitley in Charlotte, North Carolina, declined to dismiss the bankruptcies, saying that his hands were tied by precedent in the 4th Circuit, which requires a finding of "objective futility" before bankruptcy cases are dismissed for bad faith. The Aldrich Pump and Murray Boiler bankruptcies were not objectively futile, because the companies still might reach a bankruptcy settlement that resolves 90,000 asbestos cases, Whitley ruled. Those lawsuits accuse the companies of exposing customers to asbestos through their historical sales of heating and air conditioning systems. Whitley's ruling said that the two companies were likely not in "financial distress," given the fact that their parent companies have reported a combined $16 billion in annual revenues since they filed for bankruptcy. The two companies have estimated their total asbestos liabilities at $547 million, with about half of that amount covered by insurance, according to Whitley. The "financial distress" requirement has compelling "common sense" appeal, but it is not explicitly written into the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, Whitley ruled. "Obviously, using an artificially created subsidiary to obtain bankruptcy relief for a prosperous non-debtor corporate conglomerate is on the far reaches of the Congressional bankruptcy power, if within it at all," Whitley wrote. Whitley said that appeals courts must clarify the legality of the "Texas Two-step" bankruptcies before any progress is made in the Aldrich or Murray cases. "These cases are simply spinning round and about, to the growing frustration of all," Whitley wrote. Aldrich Pump and Murray Boiler filed for bankruptcy in 2020, after absorbing liabilities from their predecessor companies, Trane Technologies and Ingersoll-Rand Company. The case is In re: Aldrich Pump LLC et al, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina, No. 20-30608. For Aldrich and Murray: Greg Gordon, Brad Erens, Mark Cody and Amanda Johnson of Jones Day; Rick Rayburn Jr. and Jack Miller Jr. of Rayburn Cooper & Durham. For the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants: Kevin Maclay, Todd Phillips and Jeffrey Liesemer of Caplin & Drysdale; Natalie Ramsey and Davis Wright of Robinson + Cole; and others. For asbestos claimants represented by the Maune Raichle Hartley French & Mudd law firm: Tom Waldrep, Jim Lanik and Ciara Rogers of Waldrep Wall Babcock & Bailey. ********* 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 2024. 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 ***