/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240129.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, January 29, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 21
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Myogeto Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Piland Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Reyes Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Scites Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Class Certification Bid in Russo Due March 5
ASHEVILLE, NC: Court Rejects Class Suit Over Racial Discrimination
ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Briefing on Class Cert Bids Closed
BEDFORD STUYVESANT: Damassia Files Appeal to N.Y. Appellate Div.
BIONTECH SE: Faces Ladewig Suit Over Drop in Share Price
BLACKHAWK NETWORK: Settles Data Breach Class Suit For $985,000
CARNIVAL CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Microsoft Data Sharing
CHARLES CHIPS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Martinez Says
CHICK-FIL-A INC: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set Feb. 15
CHRISTUS HEALTH: Web Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Dailey Says
CMB EXPORT: Bid to Extend Filing of Class Cert Opposition Tossed
COFFEE MEETS: Cajas Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection
CORSAIR GAMING: Seeks to Seal Portion of Class Cert Opposition
CUMMINS INC: Faces Securities Class Suit Over False Statements
DIGNITY HEALTH: Ghaemmaghami Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
EDWARD JONES: Parties Seek to Amend Phase 1 Case Management Order
ENVIVA INC: Corporate Officers Liable to Losses, Williston Claims
ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Ristau Sues Over Eyewear Market Monopoly
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for Feb. 12
GOOGLE LLC: Court of Appeal Reverses Google Photos Suit Dismissal
GREYSTAR REAL: Faces Class Suit Over 'Junk Fees' for Basic Services
HAMILTON COVE: Faces Class Suit Over Rental Contract Waivers
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Claims Immunity in Human Remains Class Suit
HEMPSTEAD, NY: Faces Class Suit Over School Bus Camera Program
HESS CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Price-fixing Scheme
HOLLIS OPERATING: Smith Sues Nursing Home for Mismanagement
HUNAN MANOR: Appeals Judgment in Chen Labor Suit to 2nd Cir.
J-M MANUFACTURING: CLL Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
KANSAS CITY, MO: Bid for Leave To Amend Pleadings Partly OK'd
KFB & ASSOCIATES: Booker et al. Sue Over Nonpayment of OT Premiums
KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Lack of Engine Immobilizers
LEDGER SAS: Cabrera Balks at Misleading Cryptocurrency Wallet Ads
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Reschedule of Class Cert Hearing
LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Refrigerators
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Bid to Preclude from Submitting Evidence Nixed
LIDO DAO: Markets Unregistered LDO Tokens, Samuels Suit Says
LITTLETON AUTO: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Mechanics
LUXURY CLEANING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chanchavac Alleges
MAC COSMETICS: More Time to File Class Certification Bids Sought
MAGIC CLEANING: Quinones Seeks Final Nod of Class Settlement
MONTANA: Faces Class Suit Over Advisors' Racial Discrimination
MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Doe Suit Over Illegal Background Check
MOTORO CARS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flores Alleges
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Court Certifies Suit Over Sunday Ticket Package
NAVVIS & COMPANY: Fails to Protect Confidential Info, Burns Says
NAVY FEDERAL: Oliver and Jacob Sue Over Lending Discrimination
NEW HOPE BROOKLYN: Faces Chavez Suit Over Cooks' Unpaid Wages
NEW YORK: Ruling in Allen Civil Rights Suit Appealed
NOBLE ENERGY: Phelps Oil Appeals Final Judgment to 10th Cir.
NORTON HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Aldridge Alleges
NOVANT HEALTH: Settles Class Suit Over Info Disclosures for $6.6M
OKLAHOMA STUDENT: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Carr Due Jan. 31
PHARMA-NATURAL INC: Diaz Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
PHILIPS RESPIRONICS: CPAP Suit Continues Despite $479M Settlement
POLY VINYL: Spettel Suit Seeks Warehouse Associates' Unpaid Wages
PRECISION IMAGING: Sharfman TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
PREMERA BLUE: Filing for Class Cert Bids Amended to August 6
R&G BRENNER: Cinar Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
REPSOL SA: Faces Class Suit Over Oil Spill in Peru
RINOWA CONSTRUCTION: Martinez and Gonzalez Sue Over Unpaid OT
RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Fox Loses Renewed Bid for Class Certification
SAINT ELIZABETH: York Seeks to Certify Class of Patients
SAN ALLEN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gilmore Suit Alleges
SANDTRAP MANAGEMENT: Couri Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
SANTA ANA, CA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cante Alleges
SPRUCE POWER: Proposed Settlement in Class Suit Gets Initial Nod
STATE FARM: Filing for Class Certification Bid Amended to April 12
STICKY RICE: Miranda Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Cooks
SWEET LADY JANE: Faces Class Suit Over Wage Theft
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Goldsmith Seeks Refund for Tuition and Fees
TABLE AT REDEYE: Cordero Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
TD BANK: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 19
TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Agrees to Settle Common Stock Class Suit
TRIDENT RESTORATION: Must Produce Written Responses in Ortega
UNITED DEBT: Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice to Re-Filing
VANGUARD GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Truong Claims
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Disapprove $100M Deal
VISION SOLAR: Bid to Amend Complaint Partly OK'd
WELCH FOODS: Winkelbauer Seeks to Certify Class
WELLTOK INC: Fails to Safeguard Patients' Info, Salcedo Alleges
WHITEFISH, MT: Court OK's Proposed Class Notice in Beck Suit
[*] District Court Dismisses FDCPA Suit for Lack of Standing
*********
3M COMPANY: Myogeto Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Myogeto, 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.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; 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.; KIDDE FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP,
INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO.,
INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.;
STEDFAST USA, INC.; 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.);
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:23-cv-06514-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 13, 2023), is brought for damages stemming from 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"). 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 and 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 it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff 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. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG 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 or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and
to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting
career and was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer as a direct result of
exposure to Defendants' 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:
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 N. Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 29440
Phone: (843) 546-2408
Fax: (843) 546-9604
Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
rlee@belllegalgroup.com
gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com
- and -
John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
347 Highland Avenue,
Roanoke, VA 24016
Phone: (540)343-9711
Email: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Piland Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald M. Piland, 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.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; 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.; KIDDE FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP,
INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO.,
INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.;
STEDFAST USA, INC.; 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.);
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:23-cv-06495-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 13, 2023), is brought for damages stemming from 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"). 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 and 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 it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff 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. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG 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 or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and
to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting
career and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a direct result of
exposure to Defendants' 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:
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 N. Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 29440
Phone: (843) 546-2408
Fax: (843) 546-9604
Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
rlee@belllegalgroup.com
gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com
- and -
John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
347 Highland Avenue,
Roanoke, VA 24016
Phone: (540)343-9711
Email: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Reyes Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wilfredo Reyes, 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-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.); Case No. 2:23-cv-06575-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 14,
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 to extinguish fires during his working career
as a state police officer and was diagnosed with Ulcerative Colitis
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:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: 205-879-5000
Facsimile: 205-879-5901
3M COMPANY: Scites Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Scites, 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.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; 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.; KIDDE FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP,
INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO.,
INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.;
STEDFAST USA, INC.; 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.);
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:23-cv-06515-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 13, 2023), is brought for damages stemming from 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"). 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 and 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 it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff 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. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG 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 or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and
to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting
career and was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer as a direct result of
exposure to Defendants' 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:
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 N. Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 29440
Phone: (843) 546-2408
Fax: (843) 546-9604
Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
rlee@belllegalgroup.com
gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com
- and -
John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
347 Highland Avenue,
Roanoke, VA 24016
Phone: (540)343-9711
Email: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Class Certification Bid in Russo Due March 5
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUSSO v. THE COUNTY OF
ALLEGHENY, Case No. 2:18-cv-00097 (W.D. Pa., Filed Jan. 22, 2018),
the Hon. Judge Mark R. Hornak entered an order granting motion to
extend Case Management Order Deadlines:
1. Fact Discovery Ends February 5, 2024;
2. The Plaintiffs Expert Disclosures Due February 22, 2024;
3. Motion for Class Certification Due March 5, 2024;
4. Defense Expert Disclosures Due March 20, 2024;
5. Response to Motion for Class Certification Due April 5,
2024;
and
6. Reply to Motion for Class Certification Due April 25, 2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC]
ASHEVILLE, NC: Court Rejects Class Suit Over Racial Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------
CJ Staff of the Carolina Journal reports that a federal judge has
denied class-action status in a lawsuit challenging race-based
membership qualifications for an Asheville advisory board.
Plaintiffs had argued that the rules discriminate against white
applicants to the Human Relations Commission.
"Plaintiffs contend that the class can be certified based on the
alleged 46 applications from nonminority applicants that were
subjected to the race-based preferences, of which the Plaintiffs
allege 30 were not appointed," Judge Martin Reidinger wrote in an
order signed on January 15, 2024. "These 46 applicants, the
Plaintiffs argue, put the estimated number of class members 'well
above 40.'"
"However, the Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence indicating
why the 30 of those 46 alleged applicants were rejected from
membership on the HRCA," Reidinger wrote. "Given that the criteria
included experience or interest in human relations and residence in
Asheville or Buncombe County in addition to the demographic
criteria, it is not clear whether these 30 applicants were rejected
solely on the basis of their race. Therefore, the Plaintiffs
assertion that they would all qualify for class membership is
merely conjecture."
"It is also unclear as to how all of these applicants would have
standing to challenge the Defendants' actions given that the HRCA
ordinance and policy have been amended since many of these
applicants applied," the judge added. "A plaintiff does not have
standing to challenge a statute that was never applied to him."
Redinger noted that plaintiffs filed suit on Sept. 5, "almost a
year after the HRCA membership policies were amended to remove the
demographic quotas."
"[T]he Plaintiffs have not adequately shown that even the 30
alleged applicants denied appointment belong in their class; the
records provided by the Plaintiffs themselves instead indicate that
only 11 applicants in total have applied for membership under the
revised policy, at least two of whom have already been appointed
for membership," the judge explained. "Of the nine applicants
remaining, four are already Plaintiffs in this matter."
"In an effort to broaden their class membership, the Plaintiffs
further argue that the proposed class includes not only any
nonminority person who has applied for membership on the HRCA and
was rejected, but all potential applicants within Buncombe County
who might have been chilled from applying for membership because of
the publicized demographic preferences," Reidinger wrote. "The
Plaintiffs, however, have not presented any evidence that such a
class exists."
"While speculative representations as to the size of the class can
be sufficient, simply concluding that additional white residents in
the county might have considered applying for the HRCA is not," he
explained.
"In essence, the Plaintiffs argue that the demographic criteria
required for applicants to the HRCA has an adverse impact on
potentially all nonminority residents of Asheville. However, the
'"mere existence" of a potential harm is not enough to justify
class certification; actual injury to each class member must be
shown,'" Reidinger wrote. "The Plaintiffs have made no such
showing."
Plaintiffs claim Asheville is using unconstitutional racial
preferences as it decides who can serve on the Human Relations
Commission.
Residents who want to serve on the commission "are required to
compete for an appointment on unequal grounds," according to a
court document. "In addition to demonstrating an interest in local
government, prospective appointees must also meet a requirement
that treats them differently on the basis of their race. Section
2-185.25(b)(2) of the Asheville Code of Ordinances requires the
City Council to prefer minority applicants for appointment to the
HRCA. The City must specifically favor applicants who are Black or
African American, Latino/a or Hispanic individuals, Native American
and Indigenous people, and Asian Americans."
"Defendants' race-based appointment preferences cannot survive
constitutional scrutiny," wrote lawyers working for five commission
applicants. "Strict scrutiny demands that racial classification
like these can only be upheld where they further a compelling
interest and are narrowly tailored to that interest. Defendants
cannot satisfy strict scrutiny. They have never asserted that the
race-based appointment preferences remedy specific instances of
discrimination against the favored groups, nor have they
demonstrated why race-neutral criteria are inadequate for selecting
members to the HRCA."
The plaintiffs "do not identify as any of the races that the
Asheville ordinance prefers. Yet each of them possesses unique
backgrounds and a passion for making a difference in their
community, " the memorandum continued.
"The City of Asheville deprives Plaintiffs equal consideration for
an appointment to the HRCA because of "their race in violation of
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution," plaintiff's lawyers wrote. "Since the
Asheville City Council will appoint members to vacant positions on
the HRCA on October 10, 2023, Plaintiffs require expedited
preliminary relief to prevent Defendants from making appointments
in a discriminatory manner before this Court can decide the merits
of Plaintiffs' claims."
Carolina Journal first reported on the case, Miall v. Asheville, on
Sept. 6.
Asheville's Human Relations Commission, created in 2018, is a
volunteer group designed to "promote and improve human relations
and achieve equity among all citizens in the city by carrying out
the city's human relations program," according to the original
complaint.
The commission publicized at least four open positions in February
2023. All five plaintiffs applied.
"Plaintiffs did not meet Defendants' racial criteria nor the other
criteria of being disabled, living in public housing, between the
ages of 25 and 18, a member of the LGBTQ community, nor were
Plaintiffs 'recognized community leaders' as Defendants considered
that term," according to the original suit.
Asheville rejected the plaintiffs' applications in June. "At no
time prior to rejecting Plaintiffs' applications did Defendants
communicate with Plaintiffs regarding their interest in the HRCA;
nor did they seek any further information from the Plaintiffs
regarding their qualifications to serve on the HRCA," the complaint
explained.
"Rather than appoint Plaintiffs to the HRCA, Defendants elected to
leave the open positions vacant and re-advertise the openings in
the hopes of obtaining applicants who met Defendants' criteria,"
according to the suit.
"At all relevant times, Defendants excluded white persons from
serving on the HRCA unless they could qualify under . . .
additional criteria," the plaintiffs argued. "In effect, white
applicants must demonstrate a 'plus factor' (age, homosexual/
transgender, disability status, public housing resident, or
community leader) before being qualified for service."
"Defendants conspired with each other to organize and administer
the HRCA in a way that was discriminatory on the basis of race and
ethnicity," the complaint argued. "At all relevant times,
Defendants were, and continue to be, aware that its organization
and administration of the HRCA which discriminated and will
continue to discriminate against applicants on the basis of race
and ethnicity was and continues to be a violation of the Equal
Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
and also a violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act."
City officials disputed the plaintiffs' argument that they were
rejected from the group because of their race.
"[A]ll five of the Plaintiffs' applications for appointment to the
Human Relations Commission of Asheville . . . are still pending
with the City," according to the city's motion to dismiss the case.
"Applicants for advisory boards, like HRCA, are expressly told at
the time of their applications that they will remain listed as
active applicants for consideration for appointment for a period of
one year after the date of their application."
As Reidinger noted, Asheville eventually appointed lead plaintiff
John Miall to the board. [GN]
ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Briefing on Class Cert Bids Closed
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilhoit, et al., v.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, Case No. 1:22-cv-01634 (D. Del.,
Filed Dec. 26, 2022), the Hon. Judge Gregory B. Williams entered an
order that briefing on the motions is closed and no further
briefing shall be submitted absent leave of court.
-- Any further notices of supplemental authority filed with the
court
shall include only the subsequent authority without any
accompanying argument.
The nature of suit states Job Discrimination (Employment).
AstraZeneca manufactures, fabricates, and processes drugs in
pharmaceutical preparations.[CC]
BEDFORD STUYVESANT: Damassia Files Appeal to N.Y. Appellate Div.
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICKELLE DAMASSIA, et al. filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled
Mickelle Damassia, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bedford Stuyvesant South One LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 160827/2022, in the Lower Court of New York.
The case type is stated as Civil Action - General.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, a group of
Bed-Stuy tenants filed a class action lawsuit against the landlord
they accuse of hiking rents illegally despite receiving a hefty tax
break from an expired controversial state program.
Specifically, residents of 27 Albany Ave. accused their landlord
Bedford Stuyvesant South One LLC of dodging rent stabilization laws
by offering low rents as concessions that were only temporary.
The building at 27 Albany Ave. received nearly $5 million in tax
breaks for the current tax year from the 421-a program, which the
city's Comptroller reports cost New York an estimated $1.7 billion
in revenue per year.
The Bed-Stuy tenants claim their landlords offered low rents as
concessions then registered higher rents with the state, thereby
meeting the rent requirements of the city but laying the groundwork
for future rent hikes.
The suit claims that the owners "engaged in similar misconduct at
many, if not all, of the apartments at the Building."
The appellate case is captioned Mickelle Damassia, et al. vs.
Bedford Stuyvesant South One LLC, Case No. 24-00063, in the First
Judicial Department of New York Appellate Division, filed on
January 4, 2024. [BN]
Defendant-Respondent BEDFORD STUYVESANT SOUTH ONE LLC is
represented by:
Ethan Robert, Esq.
ROSENBERG & ESTIS, P.C.
733 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 551-8477
Facsimile: (212) 551-8484
BIONTECH SE: Faces Ladewig Suit Over Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------
ADRIANO LADEWIG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIONTECH SE; UGUR SAHIN; and JENS HOLSTEIN,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00337 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 12, 2024) is a
federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased
or otherwise acquired BioNTech securities between March 30, 2022
and October 13, 2023, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover
damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose that: (i) BioNTech overstated demand for
Comirnaty and its commercial prospects; (ii) the Company and Pfizer
had accumulated excess inventory of raw materials for Comirnaty, as
well as COVID-19 vaccine doses adapted to other, non-XBB.1.5
variants that were produced at risk; (iii) accordingly, BioNTech
was at an increased risk of recording significant inventory
write-offs and other charges related to Comirnaty; and (iv) as a
result, the Defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times.
BioNTech's ADS price fell $6.61 per ADS, or 6.38 percent, to close
at $96.97 per ADS on October 16, 2023.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.
BioNTech SE is a German biotechnology company based in Mainz that
develops and manufactures active immunotherapies for
patient-specific approaches to the treatment of diseases. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: (310) 405-7190
Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
BLACKHAWK NETWORK: Settles Data Breach Class Suit For $985,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Blackhawk agreed to pay $985,000 to
resolve claims that its negligent cybersecurity policies led to a
data breach in 2022.
The settlement benefits individuals whose information was
compromised in the Blackhawk data breach in October 2022 and/or
those who received a data breach notification from Blackhawk.
The settlement also benefits a subclass of class members from
California.
According to the class action lawsuit, Blackhawk failed to
implement reasonable cybersecurity measures that could have
prevented an October 2022 data breach. This attack allegedly
allowed third parties to steal information about certain prepaid
cards managed through MyPrepaidCenter.com.
MyPrepaidCenter.com is a prepaid card platform operated by
Blackhawk.
Blackhawk hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $985,000
settlement to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive up to
$5,000 for out-of-pocket losses related to the data breach. These
losses must be documented with account statements, receipts,
invoices, fraud reports and other proof.
California subclass members can receive an additional cash payment
of $200.
Both loss reimbursement payments and California subclass payments
may be reduced on a pro rata basis if the claims filed exceed the
settlement fund. If any funds remain in the settlement after claims
are paid, claimants may receive an additional, pro rata share of
the residual funds. If the remaining funds are not enough to
warrant a pro rata distribution, they will be donated to a
charity.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 14, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for May
14, 2024.
In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by April 11, 2024.
Who's Eligible
Individuals whose information was compromised in the Blackhawk data
breach in October 2022 and/or those who received a data breach
notification from Blackhawk.
Potential Award
$5,200
Proof of Purchase
Account statements, receipts, invoices, fraud reports and other
proof of loss.
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
04/11/2024
Case Name
In re: Blackhawk Network Data Breach Litigation, Case No.
22-cv-07084, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California
Final Hearing
05/17/2024
Settlement Website
PrepaidCardDataBreachSettlement.com
Claims Administrator:
Blackhawk Network Data Breach
c/o Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA19103
(866) 557-1237
Class Counsel:
Anderson Berry
Gregory Haroutunian
CLAYEO C ARNOLD PC
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 239-4778
E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
gharoutunian@justice4you.com
Terence R. Coates
Justin C Walker
Dylan J Gould
MARKOVITS STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
jwalker@msdlegal.com
dgould@msdlegal.com
Marcus J Bradley
Kiley L Grombacher
Lirit A King
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
lking@bradleygrombacher.com
Scott Edward Cole
Laura Grace Van Note
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 891-9800
Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
E-mail: lvn@colevannote.com
Defense Counsel
Aravind Swaminathan
Caroline Simons
Rebecca Harlow
ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
222 Berkeley Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Tel: (617) 880-1800
Fax: (617) 880-1801
Email: aswaminathan@orrick.com
csimons@orrick.com
rharlow@orrick.com [GN]
CARNIVAL CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Microsoft Data Sharing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that
international cruise operator Carnival Corp. must face a proposed
class action alleging it used tracking software to collect personal
information and share it with Microsoft Corp. and other third
parties in violation of wiretap and privacy laws, a federal court
ruled.
The plaintiffs' wiretap and invasion of privacy claims can proceed,
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the US District Court for the Southern
District of California said Jan. 19. Curiel dismissed their claim
under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, finding they failed to make
adequate allegations of damage or loss as required under the
statute.
Plaintiffs India Price, Erica Mikulsky, and three others alleged in
a consolidated complaint that Carnival and the third parties used
so-called "session-replay" software code to piece together visitor
interactions on the Carnival website, including information
provided in forms and text boxes, and to combine the data with
information collected from visitors' interactions with other
websites.
These practices violated the federal Wiretap Act, the California
Invasion of Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and
state wiretap laws in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania,
the plaintiffs alleged.
Microsoft isn't a party to the lawsuit.
Carnival didn't qualify for a liability exemption under wiretap
laws as a party to the communication because its surveillance
software helped analyze the collected data rather than acting as
mere tape recorders, the judge said.
Under the Wiretap Act, the judge recognized that the information
contained contents of communications and the software qualified as
a "device" that acquired the information during transmission rather
than while it was in electronic storage.
Curiel also disagreed with Carnival's attempt to challenge the
lawsuit's invasion of privacy claim with the argument that the data
collection was routine commercial behavior on the internet. Curiel
found that the alleged collection of information concerning
visitors' web-browsing habits across other websites, including
those where they wished to remain anonymous, was sufficient to
state the claim.
Carnival had also tried to argue that it provided notice of its
information collection practices in a banner at the bottom of its
website, but Curiel said the defense that users consented by the
mere act of communicating over the internet and by constructively
assenting to the terms of its privacy policy fell short.
Given the privacy notice's small text, inconspicuous color scheme,
and potential failure to display on the website, a "reasonably
prudent user" wouldn't necessarily have known of the existence of
the policy before taking action on the site, the judge said.
Hausfeld LLP, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Lynch Carpenter
LLP, The Murray Law Firm, Scott & Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, and
Zimmerman Reed LLP represent the plaintiffs and the proposed
class.
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP represent Carnival.
The case is Price v. Carnival Corp., S.D. Cal., No. 3:23-cv-00236,
1/19/24. [GN]
CHARLES CHIPS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Martinez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO MARTINEZ, Plaintiff v. CHARLES CHIPS ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 536751/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., December
15, 2023) arises from the Defendant's failure to 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 the New York State Human
Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York
City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant violated the basic equal
access requirements under both state and city laws. The Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Charles Chips'
policies, practices, and procedures. He also seeks compensatory
damages for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Headquartered in New Jersey, Charles Chips is a Delaware Foreign
business corporation that manufactures, distributes and sells
snacks and chips. It operates a public website known as
charleschips.com, which provides consumers with access to an array
of goods and services, including, the ability to view the various
types and flavors of potato chips sold in iconic tin cans or bags.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone. (917) 373-9128
E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com
CHICK-FIL-A INC: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set Feb. 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
6abc Digital Staff reports that time is running out to submit a
claim in connection with a Chick-fil-A class action lawsuit.
The fast food chain may owe you a $29 gift card after agreeing to
pay out $4.4 million in the settlement.
Chick-fil-A is accused of promising low delivery fees through its
app or website during the COVID pandemic but actually increased the
menu prices on delivery orders by as much as 30%.
The settlement only applies to five states, including New Jersey,
California, Florida, Georgia, and New York.
Chick-fil-A also agreed to add a disclosure on its app and website
stating that product prices may be higher for delivery orders.
Customers must have placed a delivery order between November 1,
2019, and April 30, 2021, to be eligible.
If you're eligible, you will receive an email. The deadline to
submit a claim is February 15. [GN]
CHRISTUS HEALTH: Web Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOHN DOE, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTUS HEALTH, Defendant, Case
No. DC-23-18676, was removed from the District Court for the 95th
Judicial District, Dallas County, Texas, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, on December
15, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 3:23-cv-02774-S to the proceeding.
The class action arises from the Defendant's use of tracking tools,
such as Meta Pixel and Google Analytics, in which the Defendant
shared its patients' information, including private information
belonging to Plaintiff and Class members, with Facebook, Google,
Invoca, Doubleclick, The Trade Desk, and potentially other
unauthorized third parties.
Based in Irving, TX, Christus Health is a Catholic not-for-profit
healthcare organization that operates more than 600 centers,
including hospitals, clinics, and urgent cares in Texas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Lisa A. Houssiere, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
811 Main Street, Ste. 1100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 751-1600
Facsimile: (713) 751-1717
E-mail: lhoussiere@bakerlaw.com
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Dailey Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHIRLEY DAILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC. and LOANCARE, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-60038 (S.D. Fla., Jan. 8, 2024) is a
class action against Defendants for their failure to properly
secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated
customers' sensitive information held by entities who used Citrix
products, including personally identifiable information.
On October 10, 2023, Citrix announced the vulnerability in the
software product used by LoanCare and thousands of other companies,
known as the "Citrix Bleed" vulnerability, which has been exploited
by ransomware cybercriminals.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to adequately
protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive information -- and
failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information.
This unencrypted, unredacted information was compromised due to
Defendants' negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its
utter failure to protect its clients' customers' sensitive data.
Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members'
information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the
identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and
continuing risk to victims of the data breach will remain for their
respective lifetimes, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class Members seek to remedy these harms and
prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and
stolen as a result of the data breach and who remain at risk due to
Defendants' inadequate data security practices.
Citrix Systems provides cloud computing services to over 16 million
cloud users, and makes a variety of software products, including
networking products.
LoanCare is a mortgage loan servicer for Plaintiff and 1.5 million
customers each year. LoanCare's parent company, Fidelity National
Financial, Inc., used a Citrix software product that, on
information and belief, was a key component leading to the alleged
data breach.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Steven Sukert, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
sukert@kolawyers.com
- and -
William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
301 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
Truist Place Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 500-1500
E-mail: billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
- and -
Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
BAILY & GLASSER, LLP
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 274-2103
E-mail: bcohen@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Mariya Weekes, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON LLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1100
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (786) 206-9057
E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com
CMB EXPORT: Bid to Extend Filing of Class Cert Opposition Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hui Cai et al., v. CMB
Export LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02025-MWF-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald entered an order denying the
Defendant's ex parte application for extension of time to file
opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and to
continue hearing date.
Before the Court is Defendant CMB Export LLC's Ex Parte Application
to Extend Time to Oppose Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
and to Continue Hearing Date, filed on Jan. 2, 2024.
The Court denies the Application for failure to show good cause.
The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendant's claims of
prejudice appear to be self-made.
The Court also finds the Plaintiffs' proposed briefing schedule to
be reasonable and ORDERS as follows:
-- Defendant will file its Motion for Summary Judgment and
Plaintiffs
will file their Motion for Class Certification by January 11,
2024.
-- Each party shall file any Opposition to the other side's motion
by
February 8, 2024.
-- Each party shall file any Reply in support of their respective
motions by February 22, 2024.
-- The Court shall hear both motions on March 11, 2024, at 10
a.m.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41WLKN7 at no extra charge.[CC]
COFFEE MEETS: Cajas Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Cajas, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Coffee Meets Bagel, Inc.; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00144-AGT (N.D. Cal.,
Jan. 8, 2024) seeks to redress and curtail Defendants' unlawful
collections, obtainments, use, storage, and disclosure of
Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric identifiers and/or
biometric information in violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, Coffee Meets Bagel disclosed,
redisclosed, or otherwise disseminated Plaintiff’s biometric
information to numerous third-party service providers for Coffee
Meets Bagel's business purposes including, but not limited to,
third-party providers that provide business services to Coffee
Meets Bagel, third-party service providers that provide
professional services to Coffee Meets Bagel, and third-party
service providers that provide technical support functions to
Coffee Meets Bagel.
Coffee Meets Bagel collected, stored, and used Plaintiff's
biometric information without ever receiving a written release
executed by Plaintiff in which he consented to or authorized
Defendant to do the same. Additionally, Coffee Meets Bagel
disclosed, redisclosed, or otherwise disseminated Plaintiff's
biometric information (1) without Plaintiff's consent; (2) without
Plaintiff's authorization to complete a financial transaction
requested or authorized by Plaintiff; (3) without being required by
State or federal law or municipal ordinance; or (4) without being
required pursuant to a valid warrant or subpoena issued by a court
of competent jurisdiction, says the suit.
The Plaintiff opened a Coffee Meets Bagel account in 2022.
Coffee Meets Bagel is an Internet-based dating and social
networking service and application.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
Leah M. Beligan, Esq.
BELIGAN LAW GROUP, LLP
19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 300
Newport Beach, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 224-3881
E-mail: jbeligan@bbclawyers.net
lmbeligan@bbclawyers.net
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
5000 Rockside Road Liberty Plaza, Suite 520
Independence, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com
- and -
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
FRADIN LAW
8401 Crawford Ave., Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
CORSAIR GAMING: Seeks to Seal Portion of Class Cert Opposition
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO MCKINNEY, CLINT
SUNDEEN, and JOSEPH ALCANTARA, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. CORSAIR GAMING, INC., Case No.
4:22-cv-00312-JST (N.D. Cal.), Corsair files renewed administrative
motion to seal portions of its opposition to the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and documents submitted in support thereof
pursuant to local Rules 7-11 and 79-5.
Accordingly, Corsair submits this renewed and substantially
narrowed motion. To address the concerns raised in the Court's
December 19, 2023 Order.
Corsair seeks to partially seal and redact the following materials
that were filed entirely under seal:
-- Portions of the Declaration of Andy Paul;
-- Portions of the Declaration of Chun Ye and supporting exhibits;
-- Portions of the Declaration of George Makris;
-- Portions of the Declaration of Adam Steinberg; and
-- Portions of the Declaration of Joao dos Santos and supporting
exhibits;
-- Portions of the Declaration of Ran Kivetz and supporting
exhibits.
Corsair also seeks to partially seal and redact the following
documents that were filed publicly, and has narrowed its requested
redactions:
-- Portions of the Memorandum of Law in support of Corsair's
Opposition; and
-- Portions of Exhibit E to the Declaration of Terence Hawley. 2
-- Corsair is an American computer peripherals and hardware
company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O32ooy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Terence N. Hawley, Esq.
Emily F. Lynch, Esq.
Quynh La, Esq.
Mariah K. Fairley, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
101 Second Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
Telephone: (415) 543-8700
Facsimile: (415) 391-8269
E-mail: thawley@reedsmith.com
elynch@reedsmith.com
qla@reedsmith.com
mfairley@reedsmith.com
CUMMINS INC: Faces Securities Class Suit Over False Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
GlobeNewsWire reports that Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that
a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of
Cummins, Inc. ("Cummins" or the "Company") (NYSE: CMI) between
April 30, 2019 and December 21, 2023, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that defendant Cummins purports to be a "a
global power leader". Cummins "designs, manufactures, distributes
and services diesel, natural gas, electric and hybrid powertrains
and powertrain-related components including filtration,
aftertreatment, turbochargers, fuel systems, controls systems, air
handling systems, automated transmissions, axles, drivelines,
brakes, suspension systems, electric power generation systems,
batteries, electrified power systems, electric powertrains,
hydrogen production and fuel cell products."
The Complaint alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that:
(1) contrary to its assurances about its commitment to
compliance, Cummins continued to produce engines with unlawful
emission defeating devices from 2019 to 2023; and
(2) accordingly, Cummins understated its legal and regulatory
risk, and overstated its commitment to environmental protection.
The Complaint further alleges that on December 22, 2023, Cummins
announced that it "expects to record a charge of approximately
$2.04 billion in the fourth quarter of 2023" related to "an
agreement in principle [Cummins reached] with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the California Air Resources Board
("CARB"), the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the
U.S. Department of Justice and the California Attorney General's
Office to resolve civil claims regarding the Company's emissions
certification and compliance process for certain engines primarily
used in pick-up truck applications in the United States."
The Complaint also alleges that the DOJ Press Release stated that
Cummins "allegedly installed defeat devices on 630,000 model year
2013 to 2019 RAM 2500 and 3500 pickup truck engines", but then
revealed that Cummins "also allegedly installed undisclosed
auxiliary emission control devices on 330,000 model year 2019 to
2023 RAM 2500 and 3500 pickup truck engines", revealing that the
Company engaged in malfeasance for years after it disclosed the
review of its compliance with emissions standards.
The Complaint further alleges that the DOJ Press Release noted that
the penalty agreed to with Cummins would be the "largest ever for a
clean air act violation and the second largest ever environmental
penalty."
According to the Complaint, on this news, the price of Cummins
stock fell by $7.01 per share, or 2.87%, to close at $236.99 on
December 22, 2023.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Cummins
should contact the Firm prior to the March 15, 2024 lead plaintiff
motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
DIGNITY HEALTH: Ghaemmaghami Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vafa Ghaemmaghami, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Dignity Health, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-00052-JJT (D. Ariz., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the
Arizona Paid Sick Time Act, the Arizona Wage Act, and the Arizona
Minimum Wage Act.
Plaintiff Ghaemmaghami is a board-certified medical doctor that
specializes in trauma surgery. On February 12, 2018, Dignity hired
Dr. Ghaemmaghami to provide healthcare services to its patients.
Although Dignity has a policy that recognizes the need for Dr.
Ghaemmaghami and Dignity's other Physicians to have time away from
work, Dignity does not provide its Physicians with time away from
work. The Defendant (1) failed to provide its Physicians paid sick
time mandated by Arizona law; and (2) failed to provide paid time
away required by its contracts with its Physicians. Even during the
COVID-19 pandemic, Dignity refused to grant paid sick time to its
Physicians who contracted COVID-19. Further, Dignity has required
its Physicians to work without compensation and has threatened
sanctions against its Physicians who objected to working without
compensation, says the suit.
Dignity Health controls several hospitals and medical groups in
Arizona.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alden A. Thomas, Esq.
Ian M. Fischer, Esq.
Michelle L. Hogan, Esq.
Corrinne R. Viola, Esq.
JABURG & WILK, P.C.
3200 N. Central Avenue, 20th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: (602) 248-1000
E-mail: aat@jaburgwilk.com
imf@jaburgwilk.com
mlh@jaburgwilk.com
crv@jaburgwilk.com
EDWARD JONES: Parties Seek to Amend Phase 1 Case Management Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATIE DIXON, et al., v.
EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P., et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00284-SEP
(E.D. Mo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order amending
the current
Phase 1 Case Management Order (CMO).
Deadline Current CMO Parties'
Proposal
Fact discovery deadline Jan. 8, 2024 May 10,
2024
Plaintiff to disclose phase 1 March 4, 2024 July 12,
2024
expert and provide Rule
26(a)(2) reports
Defendant to disclose phase 1 May 27, 2024 Sept. 30,
2024
experts and provide Rule
26(a)(2) reports
Deadline to file Class Nov. 18, 2024 Mar. 21,
2025
Certification under Rule 23
and Conditional Certification
and dispositive Phase I
summary judgment motions
On May 22, 2023, the Court entered the Phase 1 Case Management
Order. Under the CMO, Phase 1 fact discovery is set to close on
January 8, 2024. No trial date is set.
Due to certain disagreements about the scope of remaining discovery
that require the Court's guidance, the Parties agree that the time
required for the good faith negotiation and production of discovery
following resolution of those disagreements will exceed the
deadlines
currently set in the CMO.
The Parties agree that a four-month extension to the pending
deadlines in this case is necessary to allow the Parties to
complete Phase 1 fact and expert discovery in anticipation of class
and conditional certification motions.
Edward Jones is a financial services firm.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O8H94H at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jordan A. Kane, Esq.
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
Jordan A. Kane, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
kane@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Christi J. Hilker, Esq.
Amy M. Fowler, Esq.
HF LAW FIRM LLC
3101 W. 86th St.
Leawood, KS 66206
Telephone: (816) 739-0107
Facsimile: (913) 426-9181
E-mail: christi@hflawfirmllc.com
amy@hflawfirmllc.com
- and -
Adam T. Klein, Esq.
Nantiya Ruan, Esq.
Chauniqua D. Young, Esq.
Michael C. Danna, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com
nr@outtengolden.com
cyoung@outtengolden.com
mdanna@outtengolden.com
The Defendants are represented by:
James F. Bennett, Esq.
Michael J. Kuhn, Esq.
Philip A. Cantwell, Esq.
DOWD BENNETT LLP
7676 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1900
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 889-7300
Facsimile: (314) 863-2111
E-mail: jbennett@dowdbennett.com
mkuhn@dowdbennett.com
pcantwell@dowdbennett.com
- and -
Gregg M. Lemley, Esq.
Patrick F. Hulla, Esq.
Liz S. Washko, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
7700 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 650
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 802-3935
E-mail: gregg.lemley@ogletree.com
patrick.hulla@ogletree.com
liz.washko@ogletree.com
ENVIVA INC: Corporate Officers Liable to Losses, Williston Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DARRYL WILLISTON, derivatively on behalf of ENVIVA INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. RALPH ALEXANDER, JOHN C. BUMGARNER, JR., JANET S.
WONG, EVA T. ZLOTNICKA, MARTIN N. DAVIDSON, JIM H. DERRYBERRY, JOHN
KEPPLER, GERRITY LANSING, PIERRE F. LAPEYRE, JR., DAIVD M.
LEUSCHEN, THOMAS METH, JEFFREY W. UBBEN, GARY L. WHITLOCK, SHAI S.
EVEN, and MICHAEL A. JOHNSON, Defendants, and ENVIVA INC., Nominal
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-03403-JRR (D. Md., December 15, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and for breach of fiduciary duty, gross
mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Enviva's business, operations,
and compliance policies. Specifically, from 2019 to 2021, the
Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had
misrepresented the environmental sustainability of its wood pellet
production and procurement; (2) the Company had similarly
overstated the true measure of cash flow generated by the Company's
platform; and (3) accordingly, the Company had misrepresented its
business model and its ability to achieve the level of growth that
Defendants had represented to investors.
When the truth emerged, the Company's stock price fell $7.74 per
share, or 13.13 percent, to close at $51.23 per share on October
12, 2022. The stock price collapsed 67.2 percent, from $21.35 per
share on May 3, 2023 to $7.01 per share on May 4, 2023.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, which
caused the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Enviva has suffered significant losses and damages,
says the suit.
Enviva, Inc. is a renewable energy company, with principal
executive offices located at 7272 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1800,
Bethesda, Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cynthia L. Leppert, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA LEPPERT, LLC
1 West Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 980
Towson, MD 21204
Telephone: (410) 672-4022
Facsimile: (410) 672-4350
Email: cll@cynthialeppertlaw.com
- and –
Erica L. Stone, Esq.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
Email: estone@rosenlegal.com
ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Ristau Sues Over Eyewear Market Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jarred Ristau, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EssilorLuxottica S.A.; Luxottica Group
S.p.A.; Essilor International SAS; EssilorLuxottica USA Inc.;
Luxottica U.S. Holdings Corp.; Essilor of America Holding Company,
Inc.; Luxottica of America, Inc.; Essilor of America Inc.; EyeMed
Vision Care, LLC; and Vision Source, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
0:23-cv-03823 (D. Minn., December 15, 2023) accuses the Defendants
of violating the Clayton Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act.
According to the complaint, EssilorLuxottica has acquired leading
Eyewear retailers and brands, repeatedly and consistently,
including those that were tough competitors and leading market
participants before EssilorLuxottica acquired them.
EssilorLuxottica has also entered long-term, restrictive licensing
and sales agreements that are often up to 10-15 years in duration,
which excludes would-be rivals and entrants from being able to
meaningfully compete with EssilorLuxottica. These include exclusive
licensing agreements with well-known fashion houses, pursuant to
which only EssilorLuxottica may sell the Eyewear at wholesale and
can exercise control of retail sales through the chain of
distribution; sales agreements with competing Eyewear companies,
pursuant to which EssilorLuxottica pays competing Eyewear brands to
sell their Eyewear to consumers with terms such as royalties or
payment of a percentage of the sales that incentivizes those
competitors not to compete on price through other retail sales
outlets; and most favored nation agreements, pursuant to which
third parties may not sell EssilorLuxottica's owned or exclusively
licensed Eyewear brands at a lower price.
Through its own actions and those of its subsidiaries, as well as
its contracts with third parties, EssilorLuxottica controls the
manufacture, distribution, and pricing of the lion's share of
Eyewear purchased by consumers, says the suit.
EssilorLuxottica S.A. is a joint stock company incorporated under
the laws of France, with a registered office at 147 rue de Paris
94220, Charenton-Le-Pont, France. The company was formed from the
2018 merger of Luxottica Group S.p.A. and Essilor International
SAS. It owns GrandVision BV, a global optical retailer with more
than 7,200 stores worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
Jessica N. Servais, Esq.
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com
jnservais@locklaw.com
jcbourne@locklaw.com
- and -
Michelle C. Clerkin, Esq.
SPIRO HARRISON & NELSON
1111 Lincoln Road, Suite 500
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Telephone: (786) 841-1181
Facsimile: (973) 232-0887
E-mail: mclerkin@shnlegal.com
- and -
Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
RUPP PFALZGRAF LLC
111 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1100
Jamestown, NY 14701
Telephone: (716) 664-2967
Facsimile: (716) 664-2983
E-mail: bailey@rupppfalzgraf.com
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for Feb. 12
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peter Trauernicht, et al.,
v. Genworth Financial Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00532-REP (E.D. Va.),
the Hon. Judge Robert E. Payne entered an order that the hearing on
the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be scheduled
for Feb. 12, 2024 at 10:00 am.
Genworth provides life insurance, long-term care insurance,
mortgage insurance, and annuities.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/49dh6ld at no extra charge.[CC]
GOOGLE LLC: Court of Appeal Reverses Google Photos Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Azpiri of CBC reports that the B.C. Court of Appeal has
resurrected a man's attempt to bring a class-action lawsuit against
Google for allegedly breaching user privacy by using facial
recognition technology to collect and store biometric data.
The appeal says Yeremia Situmorang can head back to B.C. Supreme
Court in his bid to certify a class action against the technology
giant.
In a notice of civil claim, Situmorang said he used Android phones
to snap photos of himself and others, including his children, which
were automatically uploaded to Google Photos, the tech giant's
photo sharing and storage service. He said he did not give the
company consent to extract, collect, store, and use his facial
biometric data, or those of his children, who do not use Google
Photos.
Situmorang "alleges that facial biometric data is intrinsically
sensitive personal information, akin to an individual's DNA or
fingerprints," according to court documents.
He alleges the company's handling of the data "without adequately
disclosing this practice to class members or seeking their consent
constitutes a violation of their privacy."
Situmorang brought an action on behalf of users and non-users of
Google Photos whose facial biometric identifiers were extracted and
collected.
In its response to the civil claim, Google said its "face grouping"
feature uses algorithms to organize photos containing faces that
are similar.
"The algorithms used for face grouping do not attempt to identify a
person from a photo; rather their only function is to create a
'face template' that is then used to group photos," reads a summary
of the response to the civil claim.
The data used to create the face groups are private to a user's
account and only used within that account, the company said.
It also said the use of face grouping is disclosed to all Google
Photos users, who can opt out of the feature at any time.
In a November 2022 decision, a chambers judge dismissed the action,
saying it was "plain and obvious" that the allegations did not
establish that Google's "conduct was without lawful justification."
It also failed to establish that a reasonable person would consider
Google's use of biometrics for face grouping to be highly
offensive.
The chambers judge dismissed Situmorang's claims that facial
biometric data is accessible to third parties, and that Google uses
the data to gain a competitive advantage, calling the claims "vague
and speculative."
In his appeal, Situmorang argued that the chambers judge erred by
"fundamentally mischaracterizing" his claim.
In a judgment released on Jan. 11, Justice Karen Horsman agreed
with Situmorang. She wrote that his claim is not that Google
collected data for the face grouping function, but that the company
extracted, collected, stored, and used the data from photos
uploaded to Google Photos without the consent or knowledge of
affected individuals.
"Whether the facial biometric data collected from class members was
used, exclusively or otherwise, for the purpose of the face
grouping function is, as the appellant argues, largely irrelevant
to the viability of the pleaded causes of action," Horsman wrote.
"[Situmorang] pleads that each class member has a right to control
their own facial biometric identifiers, and that control was not
ceded by the act of uploading a photograph.
"In my view, the judge erred in assessing the elements of the
causes of action through the lens of a claim the appellant was not,
in fact, advancing."
She added that the fact Situmorang can't yet plead with precision
about Google's use of the data, or to what extent the company has
permitted others to access the information, does not make the
allegations "vague and speculative."
"The allegations may prove to be factually untrue, but that is a
matter for trial," Horsman wrote. "The pleaded facts must be
assumed to be true for the purpose of the cause of action
analysis."
CBC News has reached out to Google for comment. [GN]
GREYSTAR REAL: Faces Class Suit Over 'Junk Fees' for Basic Services
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Wilson of Colorado Newsline reports that a Colorado resident
brought a proposed class-action lawsuit against the corporate
apartment management company Greystar last week, alleging that the
company charges unnecessary hidden fees on top of monthly rent to
pad their bottom line.
The lawsuit alleges that these fees "operate as a hidden tax" on
tenants.
"Late disclosure of junk fees is particularly problematic in
apartment rental contracts, where tenants may not learn of the fees
(or see a copy of their lease) until shortly before move-in, after
they have given notice to a prior landlord or invested significant
moving expenses," the lawsuit reads.
It was filed in Denver District Court on behalf of Nichole Collins,
who lived in a Greystar building until April 2023, after they
doubled the rent of her unit.
"Greystar acquired management of Nichole's apartment complex after
she'd already moved in," Jason Legg, lead attorney from Justice for
the People Legal Center, said in a statement. "Greystar sent her a
lease renewal offer that only disclosed the headline rent, she
accepted the offer, then learned of the mandatory fees later when
they sent their form lease — analogous to the experience of new
tenants provided a 'welcome home letter' that doesn't include the
fees and then, after they're locked in, the form lease that imposes
them."
Justice for the People Legal Center and Towards Justice are
representing Collins.
The case focuses specifically on Greystar's pest control, valet
trash and billing fees, which can add nearly $40 per month to a
tenant's financial obligation on top of rent. It alleges that
tenants are often not aware of the fees until they are about to
move in and presented with the Form Lease, when it is often too
late to backtrack. At that point, a tenant has already paid
non-refundable application fees, administrative fees, security
deposits, pet deposits and at least the first month's rent.
The fees, the lawsuit contends, do not provide tenants with any
additional benefits beyond what Greystar is required to provide as
a landlord, and the actual costs of providing services like trash
pickup and pest control are much lower than the charged fees.
The fees shift the cost of complying with the warranty of
habitability — the law that requires landlords to maintain units
to basic standards — onto tenants, which the lawsuit claims is
illegal. In Colorado, for example, landlords are required to
provide pest control.
A Federal Trade Commission proposal would ban hidden junk fees,
which the agency says cost consumers in all sectors tens of
billions of dollars per year. Under the rule, businesses would have
to disclose all mandatory fees up front.
Greystar is the largest apartment management company in the country
and owns more than $45 billion in assets. It owns over 45,000 units
in Colorado.
"Greystar is the largest residential property management company in
Colorado. Its practices of charging junk fees significantly impact
how others behave in the market. Colorado renters face an
affordability crisis, and the Challenged Fees make leasing less
affordable for tens of thousands of Coloradans," the lawsuit
reads.
The lawsuit alleges a breach of the Colorado Consumer Protection
Act and breach of contract.
Greystar did not respond to multiple requests for comment. [GN]
HAMILTON COVE: Faces Class Suit Over Rental Contract Waivers
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Ebert of Bloomberg Law reports that Renters demanding a
full-time security guard at a luxury New Jersey apartment complex
overlooking Manhattan asked the New Jersey Supreme Court on January
16, 2024 to strike class action waivers from their rental
contracts.
The case has significant implications for New Jersey class actions
where public policy principles are conflicting.
Renters at Hamilton Cove in Weehawken -- a building with a
two-story fitness center, lap pool overlooking the Hudson River,
and an indoor theater -- leaned on the court's precedent saying
that class action waiver provisions should be struck from contracts
to favor "unsophisticated" plaintiffs bringing low-dollar claims.
The apartment building argued the court should elevate. [GN]
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Claims Immunity in Human Remains Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica H. Paulus and Akshaya Ravi, writing for The Harvard
Crimson, reports Harvard University moved Friday to dismiss a class
action lawsuit brought by families affected by the mishandling of
human remains at Harvard Medical School.
The University claimed immunity from legal action in nine
consolidated cases alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty,
and infliction of emotional distress.
The class action lawsuits were filed after former morgue manager
Cedric Lodge was indicted in June for stealing and transporting
human remains from the morgue at the Anatomical Gift Program.
Harvard cited the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, which governs how
anatomical gifts can be made, to argue that it acted in "good
faith" to comply with donors' wishes, granting it immunity under
the law.
Harvard lawyers did not respond to requests for comment.
Kenneth W. Salinger -- the judge hearing the case -- has not yet
ruled on the motion but raised questions about whether the immunity
clause extended to the use of the anatomical gifts or protected
only the donation process itself.
Lawyers representing the affected families argued that the law
protected only the donation and that Harvard's interpretation of
the clause was too broad.
"The statute does not go so far as to afford blanket immunity to
donees for anything that happens to the body after donation," the
lawyers wrote in the filing.
"We have alleged bad faith through Cedric Lodge. Cedric Lodge is
Harvard, whether they want to be married to him or not," said
Jeffrey N. Catalano, a lawyer representing the families. [GN]
HEMPSTEAD, NY: Faces Class Suit Over School Bus Camera Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jodi Goldberg of Fox 5 New York reports that drive past a school
bus with its stop arm out on Long Island and depending on the
location you can get hit with a $250 ticket.
Sergey Kadinsky paid a ticket he got over the summer but has since
filed a class-action lawsuit against the Town of Hempstead where it
was issued.
"I paid it," he said. "Thought that's all there is and now there's
more to it."
The original law makes it illegal to pass a school bus only when a
bus is either loading or unloading passengers, but Kadinsky argues
the angles of the video cameras currently on buses don't always
make it clear.
"The goal is to see that the law was applied as intended that when
a school bus stops it's discharging or picking up students it's not
just stopped with a paddle out to collect tickets from unsuspecting
drivers," Kadinsky said.
Kadinsky's lawsuit may rule in his favor after a Suffolk resident
challenged his ticket and won in the Supreme Court appellate term
using a similar argument.
Legal expert Paul Sabatino II says the decision could pave the way
for challenges in court.
The school bus camera safety program first introduced in Suffolk in
2021 brought in more than $20 million within its first year. While
there's no countywide effort in Nassau, towns have the option to
opt in individually.
"We want to see evidence of children going on and off the bus,"
Kadinsky said. "A camera alone isn't enough."
According to officials, there have been more than 131,000 notices
issued in the town of Hempstead since December 2022.
Kadinsky wants everyone who paid to be refunded and it says the
program should be modified.
"It's not about a pay off," he said.
While the Town of Hempstead says they don't comment on pending
litigation, they are due to respond to Kadinsky's lawsuit by the
end of the month. BusPatrol, the company that partners with local
governments to operate the safety camera program, says the lawsuit
lacks merit.
Their legal team is in the process of requesting the court dismiss
the case. [GN]
HESS CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Price-fixing Scheme
----------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that Hess (HES.N), opens new tab,
Pioneer Natural Resources (PXD.N)
Other oil and gas producers have been hit with a class action in
U.S. court accusing them of conspiring to curb output of shale oil,
raising consumer fuel prices.
Three residents of Nevada, Hawaii and Maine sued Hess and seven
other companies on January 12, 2024 in federal court in Las Vegas,
alleging they have constrained the production of shale oil, which
is sold to refineries and can be made into gasoline, diesel and
other commercial products.
The lawsuit, opens new tab said Hess, Occidental Petroleum (OXY.N)
Pioneer Natural Resources and other oil and gas producers for
several years "have collectively coordinated their production
decisions, leading to production growth rates lower than would be
seen in a competitive market."
The other defendants are Permian Resources (PR.N)
Chesapeake Energy (CHK.O), opens new tab, Continental Resources,
Diamondback Energy (FANG.O), opens new tab and EOG Resources
(EOG.N).
Representatives from the defendants on January 16, 2024 did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.
Plaintiffs' attorney Patrick Coughlin, representing the drivers who
filed the lawsuit, in a statement on January 16, 2024 said the
shale oil defendants in the face of record oil prices over the last
three years "all exercised production 'discipline,' ensuring
Americans paid more for gas at the pump."
Hydraulic fracturing, widely known as fracking, is used to produce
domestic shale oil from some rock formations in the United States.
The defendants are "independent" shale producers that are distinct
from energy companies such as Chevron and Exxon, the lawsuit said.
Formations in Texas, North Dakota and New Mexico include the three
top geographic areas for shale oil extraction in the United States,
the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit seeks nationwide class-action status and a court order
against alleged anti-competitive business practices on behalf of
all purchasers of retail gasoline from stations in the United
States since January 2021.
The complaint separately seeks unspecified triple monetary damages
for a class of gas purchasers in more than two dozen states,
including California, Colorado, Michigan and New York. The
plaintiffs' lawyers estimated "at least millions of members of both
Classes in the United States."
"Defendants' production restraint agreement worked," the lawsuit
said. "Defendants are reaping the rewards in the form of massive
revenue increases, while not reinvesting that additional revenue
into new production."
The case is Daniel Rosenbaum et al v. Permian Resources Corp et al,
U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, No. 2:24-cv-00103.
For plaintiffs: Patrick Coughlin and Carmen Medici of Scott + Scott
Attorneys at Law; Christopher Turtzo of Morris, Sullivan & Lemkul
For defendants: No appearances yet. [GN]
HOLLIS OPERATING: Smith Sues Nursing Home for Mismanagement
-----------------------------------------------------------
GLADYS SMITH, as Administrator of the Estate of CHARLES SMITH,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. HOLLIS OPERATING CO., LLC d/b/a HOLLISWOOD CENTER FOR
REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE, CENTERS FOR CARE LLC, KENNETH
ROZENBERG, JOHN and JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
700379/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for
repeatedly and persistently prioritizing unconscionable up-front
profit-taking by its owners, which left their nursing home with
insufficient staff to provide adequate care to their residents,
resulting in the neglect, abuse, and mistreatment of their elderly,
frail, and disabled residents to whom they had a duty of care, and
who tragically suffered life-altering consequences, including
injury, infection, pain, humiliation, loss of dignity, and death.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' grossly negligent --
and potentially criminal -- acts and omissions predated the
COVID-19 pandemic and continued throughout. Within the context of
COVID-19, their unconscious and illegal actions contributed to
HOLLISWOOD CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE's persistent
failures to maintain a system for preventing, identifying,
reporting, investigating, and controlling infections and
communicable diseases for all residents, staff, volunteers,
visitors, and other individuals, and their failure to adequately
care for and protect its elderly, frail, disabled, and vulnerable
residents, which led to the death of many of its residents,
including Plaintiff's decedent, CHARLES SMITH, from COVID-19
infection, says the suit.
Plaintiff, GLADYS SMITH, is the sister and next of kin of the
decedent, CHARLES SMITH, and is a resident of the State of
Virginia, Fairfax County. On January 6, 2022, Plaintiff's decedent,
CHARLES SMITH, died at HOLLISWOOD CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND
HEALTHCARE, in the County of Queens, State of New York.
Hollis Operating Co., LLC is the owner and operator of HOLLISWOOD
CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE, which is located at
195-44 Woodhull Avenue, Hollis, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph L. Ciaccio, Esq.
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC
400 Broadhollow Road, Suite 305
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (212) 397-1000
E-mail: jciaccio@napolilaw.com
HUNAN MANOR: Appeals Judgment in Chen Labor Suit to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
HUNAN MANOR ENTERPRISE, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a
court order in the lawsuit entitled Shi Ming Chen, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Hunan Manor Enterprise, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00802, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
filed suit against the Defendants for unpaid wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law
(NYLL).
On Aug. 29, 2023, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs Jixiang Wang and
Yong Kang Liu's claims with prejudice.
On Sept. 20, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration.
On Dec. 5, 2023, the Court entered judgment granting in part Hunan
Manor Defendants' motion as to its request to amend the damages
calculation and denied as to its other requests. Taste of Mao
Defendants' motion was also denied. The Plaintiffs' amended
damages, including liquidated damages and all applicable interest,
are as follows: (1) Shi Ming Chen, Total (before all applicable
interest), $369,910.80, with interest at 9% per annum, from
February 2, 2011-September 8, 2016, in the amount of $556.437.05;
(2) Lianhe Zhou, Total (before all applicable interest),
$33,706.44, with interest at 9% per annum, from June 15, 2014 -
June 12, 2016, in the amount of $39,756.98; (3) Wei Min Zhu, Total
(before all applicable interest), $69,440.42 with interest at 9%
per annum from March 1, 2015 - July 31, 2016, in the amount of
$78,309.75; (4) Baojun Tian, Total (before all applicable
interest), $7,514.40, with interest at 9% per annum, from May 16,
2015 - August 30, 2015, in the amount of $7,710.80; (5) Xinlong
Liu, Total (before all applicable interest), $11,267.00, with
interest at 9% per annum, from September 7, 2015 - April 19, 2017,
in the amount of $12,878.34; (6) Qifang Chen, Total (before all
applicable interest), $19,059.00, with interest at 9% per annum,
from July 27, 2014 - October 30, 2016, in the amount of $22,940.77;
and (7) Pingjin Fan, Total (before all applicable interest),
$100,237.06 with interest at 9% per annum, from March 1, 2015
November 12, 2017, in the amount of $124,631.74.
The appellate case is captioned Chen v. Hunan Manor Enterprise,
Inc., Case No. 24-56, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on January 5, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees SHI MING CHEN, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard
Flushing, NY 11355
Defendants-Appellants HUNAN MANOR ENTERPRISE, INC., et al. are
represented by:
Bingchen Li, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF Z. TAN PLLC
39-07 Prince Street, Suite 3b
Flushing, NY 11354
J-M MANUFACTURING: CLL Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMBRIDGE LANE, LLC, a
California limited liability company, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, v. J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., a
Delaware corporation d/b/a J-M PIPE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:10-cv-06638-GW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on March 14, 2024 to enter an order
certifying for class treatment the issues specified below for the
following Class and Subclasses.
The members of the proposed Class and Subclasses are as follows:
"All Original Owners in the thirty-one states identified below
of
installed PVC pipe manufactured by JM under the brand names "Big
Blue (AWWA C905)" or "Blue Brute (AWWA C900)" for use in potable
water systems that was purchased between January 1, 1997 and
February 8, 2010.
"Original Owners" means all persons or entities who:
(1) Own such pipe as a result of transfers from developers of
real
property to an entity (such as a public or private water
district) which provides water service to the public; or
(2) Owned the real property or a utility easement pertaining
thereto at the time the pipe was first installed; and
(3) Either now own the property or easement or are successors-in
interest by operation of law of such an owner.
The Class includes governmental entities (such as municipal
water
districts) who own such pipe as a result of transfers from third
parties in connection with the development of real property
under
the jurisdiction of such governmental entities.
The thirty-one states included in the Class are: Alabama,
Arizona,
California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North
Carolina,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South
Dakota,
Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Excluded from the Class are the United States, the States of
California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, New
Mexico, New York, and Tennessee, the Commonwealths of
Massachusetts
and Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the political
subdivisions and public water and sewer agencies thereof.
Subclass 1 (Negligent Misrepresentation): Class members in all
thirty-one states.
Subclass 2 (Breach of Express Warranty): Class members in all
thirty-one states.
Subclass 2A (states with a benefit of bargain requirement):
Class
members in twenty-three states: Alabama, California, Colorado,
Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North
Carolina,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington,
Wisconsin
Subclass 2B (states with reliance requirement): Class members in
eight states: Arizona, Florida, Mississippi, Nebraska, New
Jersey,
Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota Subclass 3 (Common Law
Fraud/Deceit):
Class members in all thirty-one states.
Subclass 3A (states with preponderance of the evidence
standard):
Class members in eight states: Alabama, California, Georgia,
Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota, Texas Subclass
3B
(states with clear and convincing standard): Class members in
twenty-three states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Nebraska, Washington,
Wisconsin
Subclass 4 (Consumer Fraud): Class members in all thirty-one
states.
The Plaintiff will seek monetary relief and an injunction against
representing compliance with applicable standards.
The Plaintiff will also move the Court for an order designating
Plaintiff Cambridge Lane, LLC as Class Representative and
appointing Birka-White Law Offices and Farella Braun + Martel LLP
as Class Counsel.
J-M is a manufacturer of grain handling equipment.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SfDd4B at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Birka-White, Esq.
BIRKA-WHITE LAW OFFICES
178 East Prospect Avenue
Danville, CA 94526
Telephone: (925) 362-9999
Facsimile: (925) 362-9970
E-mail: dbw@birka-white.com
- and -
John D. Green, Esq.
Karen P. Kimmey, Esq.
Vanessa K. Ing, Esq.
FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
One Bush Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 954-4400
Facsimile: (415) 954-4480
E-mail: jgreen@fbm.com
kkimmey@fbm.com
ving@fbm.com
KANSAS CITY, MO: Bid for Leave To Amend Pleadings Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS MELTON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. CITY OF
KANSAS CITY MISSOURI, Case No. 4:23-cv-00409-RK (W.D. Mo.), the
Court entered an order that:
-- The Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend pleadings is
granted in
part, in that Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his
pleadings
to clarify the nature of the class claims against the City of
Kansas City, Missouri, and to join Michael Collins as named
plaintiff and class representative, and
-- Denied in part, in that Michael Collins' claims under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) do not relate back to December 13,
2022, but rather are commenced as of the filing of his Consent
to
Sue, on September 11, 2023.
The Court finds Defendant only had notice that it would be called
on to defend claims asserted by Collins and those similarly
situated as of the filing of Collins' Consent to Sue on September
11, 2023.
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s amendment adding Collins as an
additional named plaintiff and class representative does not relate
back to the filing of the original complaint December 12, 2022. In
other words, any claim by Collins for violation of the FLSA that
was not willful is time barred, and the relevant time period for
Collins’ claims of willful violation of the FLSA can only
potentially cover September 11, 2020, to April 30, 2021.
The Plaintiff filed his complaint, styled a collective action under
Missouri Wage and Hour law and the FLSA, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, on December 13, 2022, in state court.
In his complaint, the Plaintiff claims Defendant failed to properly
calculate and pay overtime hours in violation of Missouri
Wage and Hour law and the FLSA based on the terms of a Collective
Bargaining Agreement effective from May 1, 2021, to present at the
time of filing.
Kansas City sits on Missouri's western edge, straddling the border
with Kansas. It's known for its barbecue, jazz heritage and
fountains.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tTq1cg at no extra charge.[CC]
KFB & ASSOCIATES: Booker et al. Sue Over Nonpayment of OT Premiums
------------------------------------------------------------------
YOLANDA BOOKER, DARNELL EDWARDS, CHAASAHN HUGHES, and RAYSHAWN
SHAW, individually and on behalf of themselves and all current and
former employees, Plaintiffs, vs. KFB & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING INC
d.b.a FLAGGERS AHEAD, ELECNOR HAWKEYE LLC, CONSOLIDATED EDISON
COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., KLAUS F. BROSCHEIT and VICKI BROSCHEIT,
Case No. 1:23-cv-10921 (S.D.N.Y., December 15, 2023) alleges that
the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs proper overtime rate under
the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
One of the Plaintiffs, Yolanda Booker, was employed by Defendants
as a flagger from August 2021 to March 6, 2023. Allegedly,
Plaintiffs were misclassified as 1099 independent contractors and
were denied of benefits normally afforded employees. Even though
the Plaintiffs did not satisfy any test for exemption, Defendants
engaged in a common scheme requiring, suffering, or permitting the
Plaintiffs and the Collective Members to work overtime and failed
to pay them appropriate overtime premiums, says the suit.
Headquartered in West Tisbury, MA, KFB & Associates Consulting,
Inc. d/b/a Flaggers Ahead is a utilities and construction services
consulting company that provides certified flaggers for public
construction, maintenance or utility work activities being
performed by general contractors in New York and Connecticut.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher Q. Davis, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS
80 Broad Street, Suite 703
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 430-7940
Facsimile: (646) 349-2504
E-mail: cdavis@workingsolutionsnyc.com
KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Lack of Engine Immobilizers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Record reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Kia and Hyundai, accusing the companies of not including
engine immobilizers in their vehicles.
Hailey Hurst is the named plaintiff in the potential class in the
federal complaint filed against Kia America Inc. and Hyundai Motor
America Inc.
The complaint alleges this lack of a crucial anti-theft feature has
led to a significant increase in thefts of Kia and Hyundai vehicles
across the United States.
It also claims both companies are aware of the issue but have
neither issued a recall nor offered to install vehicle immobilizers
in the affected vehicles. Hurst says she would not have purchased
her vehicle or would have paid less for it had she known about the
defect.
The lawsuit seeks compensation for consumers who have suffered
losses due to these alleged unfair, deceptive and fraudulent
business practices by Kia and Hyundai. [GN]
LEDGER SAS: Cabrera Balks at Misleading Cryptocurrency Wallet Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN CABRERA, KEVIN CAMORLINGA, AUSTIN RICHARD, ANDREW SKALAK, and
MARK SULLIVAN, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. LEDGER SAS and LEDGER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00182 (N.D. Ill.,
Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action arising out of false and misleading
statements that Ledger made about the cryptocurrency hardware
wallets, including the Ledger Nano S and Ledger Nano X, it
produces.
Hardware wallets, including Nano Wallets, are devices that hold
alphanumeric codes known as "private keys." A private key is like a
password to a cryptocurrency bank account; anyone who learns a
private key can transfer the cryptocurrencies it protects. These
private keys are frequent targets for bad actors. Criminals have
stolen billions of dollars in cryptocurrency online using hacking
and malware.
According to the complaint, Ledger marketed Nano Wallets as a
solution to these threats. Nano Wallets, ostensibly, permit users
to independently create and store private keys offline using a
"Secure Element" chip within the wallets' hardware. These claims
were allegedly false. In May 2023, Ledger announced a new Nano
Wallet feature called "Ledger Recover" or simply "Recover." Recover
backs up customers' private keys by extracting seed phrases from
Nano Wallets, over the Internet, via a firmware update. As news of
the Recover feature spread, Ledger admitted: "Technically speaking
it is and always has been possible to write firmware that
facilitates key extraction. You have always trusted Ledger not to
deploy such firmware whether you knew it or not." This provoked
outrage among Ledger’s customers and the cryptocurrency community
at large, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs in this case are among the cryptocurrency users that
Ledger hoodwinked. They each purchased Nano Wallets at prices
artificially inflated by Ledger's inaccurate statements about the
wallets' security features. Had they known those statements were
inaccurate or misleading, they would not have purchased the devices
at all, the suit contends.
Ledger SAS operates as a software company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
John J. Frawley, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
jfrawley@flsalaw.com
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Reschedule of Class Cert Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS JOHNSON, on behalf
of Himself and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, v. LEVEL
3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 9:22-cv-81066-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order Rescheduling the Zoom
hearing on Plaintiff's "Motion for Conditional Certification and
Court Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and
Class Certification Pursuant to Rule 23" for one of the following
dates: January 30 or February 1, 2, 6, or 7 of 2024.
On Dec. 14, 2023, the Court set a Zoom hearing on the Motion for
January 25, 2024.
Level 3 Communications was an American multinational
telecommunications and Internet service provider company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O65QyO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian M. McPherson, Esq.
Holly Griffin Goodman, Esq.
GUNSTER, YOAKLEY & STEWART, P.A.
777 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 500 East
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (231) 655-1980
Facsimile: (561) 655-5677
E-mail: bmcpherson@gunter.com
hgoodman@gunster.com
- and -
Timothy M. Threadgill, Esq.
Lott Warren, Esq.
BUTLER SNOW LLP
1020 Highland Colony Parkway, Suite 1400
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Telephone: (601) 948-5711
Facsimile: (601) 985-4500
E-mail: tim.threadgill@butlersnow.com
lott.warren@butlersnow.com
LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Refrigerators
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Callaway, writing for ABC Action News, reports the Eric
Schleich's Kenmore refrigerator stopped working after just four
years.
First, the ice maker stopped working. Then, the freezer died. A day
later, the entire fridge stopped cooling.
Schleich scrambled to save a unit full of food.
"Put some ice in the sink, put everything in there, had some
coolers from the garage, and just kind of lived out of coolers for
a few days," he said.
His story echoes those of nearly 100 consumers named in a class
action suit against LG and Kenmore's parent company, along with
multiple retailers that sell refrigerators with LG linear
compressors.
The lawsuit states LG knew the compressors were defective.
The Beverly Hills attorney who filed the case, Azar Mouzari, said
LG has been sued over faulty units in the past. The appliance giant
settled one case in 2020.
In court filings, LG called the defendant's alleged defect in LG
and Kenmore refrigerators a scattershot, unfocused complaint.
In Schleich's case, the 10-year warranty covered the compressor but
not the labor. It cost him $525 to have the new part put in.
Schleich said he now worries whether the second LG compressor will
last.
The lawsuit seeks compensation for consumers and the extension of
the warranty on the compressors. We asked LG and Kenmore's parent
company for a comment but so far have not heard back. [GN]
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Bid to Preclude from Submitting Evidence Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA CORTINAS, ADELINE
CLARKE FOSS, TERESA MCINTYRE, KASANDRA VITACCA-MITCHELL,
CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, MARCUS ODOM, and CASSANDRA ODOM, v. LIBERTY
MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION,
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIANA, and LM INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Case No. 5:22-cv-00544-OLG-HJB (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Henry J.
Bemporad entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
motion to preclude Defendants from submitting any evidence based
upon, derived from, or relating to Liberty's claims management
system "Navigator" in opposition to class certification or, in the
alternative, to compel production of navigator for review &
testing:
-- Denial of the request for preclusion is without prejudice to
reconsideration by way of a subsequent motion to strike
evidence
or briefing on the issue of class certification under Federal
Rule
of Civil Procedure 23; and
-- Denial of the request to compel production is without prejudice
to
reconsideration at later stages of the case, should relevant
issues arise concerning Defendants’ claims management
system(s).
Liberty Mutual offers car, motorcycle, boat, life, property,
landlord, and flood insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tX9q7x at no extra charge.[CC]
LIDO DAO: Markets Unregistered LDO Tokens, Samuels Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW SAMUELS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIDO DAO, a general partnership; AH CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, LLC; PARADIGM OPERATIONS LP; DRAGONFLY DIGITAL
MANAGEMENT LLC; and ROBOT VENTURES LP, Defendants, Case No.
4:23-cv-06492-DMR (N.D. Cal., December 17, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for unregistered offer and sale of
securities in violation of Sections 5 and 12(a)(1) of the
Securities Act of 1933.
The case arises from the Defendants' design, creation, marketing,
and selling of a security called LDO to the public without
registering it first to the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission. As part of Lido's efforts to solicit secondary-market
purchases of LDO, Lido caused LDO to be listed for trading on
U.S.-based crypto exchanges, which Lido candidly admitted
Defendants venture capital firms would want to do because it is in
their own best interests. As a result, the Plaintiffs who bought
LDO tokens on those U.S.-based crypto exchanges suffered losses,
says the suit.
Lido DAO is a general partnership governed by the holders of LDO.
AH Capital Management, LLC, doing business as Andreesen Horowitz,
is a venture-capital and investment firm headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.
Paradigm Operations LP is an investment firm headquartered in San
Francisco, California.
Dragonfly Digital Management LLC is a venture-capital and
investment firm headquartered in San Francisco, California and
Beijing, China.
Robot Ventures LP is a venture company headquartered in San
Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Harrow, Esq.
GERSTEIN HARROW LLP
12100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 800
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (323) 744-5293
E-mail: jason@gerstein-harrow.com
- and -
Charles Gerstein, Esq.
Emily Gerrick, Esq.
GERSTEIN HARROW LLP
810 7th Street NE, Suite 301
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 670-4809
E-mail: charlie@gerstein-harrow.com
- and -
James Crooks, Esq.
Michael Lieberman, Esq.
FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP
1001 G. Street NW, Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (619) 507-4182
E-mail: jamie@fairmarklaw.com
LITTLETON AUTO: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Mechanics
----------------------------------------------------------------
CODY SCHUCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LITTLETON AUTO REPAIR, LLC D/B/A LITTLETON
AUTO REPAIR, KEN SCHOLL, SHANNON SCHOLL, and DAVID GARLICK,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03303 (D. Colo., December 15, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado
Minimum and Pay Standards Order, and the Colorado Wage Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Littleton Auto as a mechanic and was
later promoted to foreman. He worked from approximately June 2022
to March 2023.
Littleton Auto Repair, LLC, doing business as Littleton Auto
Repair, is a provider of vehicle repair and maintenance services
located in Littleton, Colorado. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
John William Billhorn, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
7900 E. Union Ave., Suite 1100
Denver, CO 80237
Telephone: (720)-386-9006
LUXURY CLEANING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chanchavac Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO E. CHANCHAVAC, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUXURY CLEANING SERVICES 305 INC.;
PACIFIC VIEW INC.; and SILDA D. CHAVEZ, Defendants, Case No.
6:24-cv-00075 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 12, 2024) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Chanchavac was employed by the Defendants as a janitorial
employee.
LUXURY CLEANING SERVICES 305 INC. provides commercial cleaning,
house cleaning, and home organizing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
MAC COSMETICS: More Time to File Class Certification Bids Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IGNACIO MACIEL, RUTH
TORRES, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
persons, v. M.A.C. COSMETICS INC., a New York corporation; and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-03718-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending discovery and
class certification deadlines:
1. Amended Complaint or Motion to Amend currently due by January
8,
2024, be extended to March 8, 2024.
2. Close of Fact Discovery currently due by February 8, 2024 be
extended to April 8, 2024.
3. The Plaintiffs' Expert Reports currently due by April 4, 2024
be
extended to May 5, 2024.
4. The Defendants' Expert Reports currently due by May 2, 2024
be
extended to June 4, 2024.
5. The Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Reports currently due by May
30,
2024 be extended to June 29, 2024.
6. Close of Expert Discovery currently due by June 20, 2024 be
extended to July 19, 2024.
7. Daubert Motions and Motion for Class Certification currently
due
by July 18, 2024 be extended to August 8, 2024.
8. Oppositions to Daubert Motions and Motion for Class
Certification, currently due by August 29, 2024 be extended
to
September 10, 2024.
9. Replies re: Daubert Motions and Motion for Class
Certification,
currently due by September 19, 2024 be extended to October 4,
2024.
10. Daubert Motions and Motion for Class Certification Hearing
currently set for October 24, 2024 at 02:00 p.m. be continued
to
October 29, 2024 at 2:00 p.m.
MAC offers a large selection of professional quality makeup
must-haves for All Ages, All Races, All Sexes.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TWRrsv at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew Righetti, Esq.
John Glugoski, Esq.
RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
2001 Union Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 983-0900
E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com
jglugoski@righettilaw.com
- and -
Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Telephone: (949) 270-2798
Facsimile: (949) 209-0303
E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Allison S. Wallin, Esq.
Susan T. Ye, Esq.
Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 553-0308
Facsimile: (800) 715-1330
E-mail: awallin@littler.com
sye@littler.com
njenkins@littler.com
MAGIC CLEANING: Quinones Seeks Final Nod of Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARISELI QUINONES and
MIGUELINA CEPEDA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. MAGIC CLEANING SOLUTIONS LLC, and DIAZ CONSULTING
GROUP LIMITED d/b/a BLUE MOON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, BMM MANAGEMENT
CORP., and FRANNYS PEREZ, individually, and ORIAN DIAZ,
individually, and SANDY PEREZ, individually Case No.
1:22-cv-00197-HG (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:
1) Granting final approval of the settlement for the Rule 23 and
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) settlement classes in
accordance
with the parties' Settlement Agreement;
2) Authorizing the distribution of settlement checks to all
Class
Members who timely submitted a valid Claim Form and Release,
representing their respective shares of the class
settlement;
3) Awarding attorneys' fees in the amount of $285,000.00, for
legal
services performed in prosecuting and settling the claims in
this action, to Stevenson Marino LLP as Class Counsel;
4) Awarding $4,883.44 for costs and out-of-pocket expenses to
Class
Counsel;
5) Awarding $20,000.00 for claims administration fees and costs
to
Arden Claims Service LLC, the court-appointed Claims
Administrator in this matter;
6) Providing for the release of all claims as specified in the
Settlement Agreement by all Class Members who did not
properly
and timely opt-out of the settlement; and
7) Dismissing this action against Defendants with prejudice, but
with the Court's continued jurisdiction over the
construction,
interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the
parties'
settlement, as well as over the administration and
distribution
of the settlement fund.
Magic Cleaning provides Commercial Cleaning, House Cleaning
service.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vzJNtP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
STEVENSON MARINO LLP
445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1500
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (212) 939-7229
E-mail: jmaguire@stevensonmarino.com
MONTANA: Faces Class Suit Over Advisors' Racial Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Ehrlick of Daily Inter Lake reports that a Montana attorney
has filed a class-action lawsuit against the state, the Montana
Department of Revenue and the state auditor's office for what they
say is an illegal, unconstitutional fee charged to more than
100,000 investment advisers and representatives who live outside
the Treasure State.
Even more, the lawsuit, filed in Lewis and Clark County on January
12, 2024, says that the 2019 Legislature knew that the law likely
violated the privileges and immunities clause of the United States
Constitution, but passed it anyway.
That constitutional clause prohibits treating residents from other
states differently than residents in-state, and House Bill 694
sought to increase the licensing fees for out-of-state residents to
$100 while keeping the fees for Montana-based investment advisers
at $50.
Rep. Jim Hamilton, D-Bozeman, told fellow lawmakers in 2019 that,
"the reason for raising this fee is that we have a group of people
who are not contributing to the economy they are taking advantage
of with their businesses, and therefore, I think it appropriate
that we not sell Montana so cheaply. "
He said that because those same advisers don't pay income tax or
property tax in Montana, they should be charged more.
Different lawmakers and witnesses who testified in 2019 raised
issues of legality with the bill, and it was even stopped in the
Montana Senate because of constitutional concerns.
However, in 2019, Sen. Steve Fitzpatrick, now the Senate Majority
Leader and a Republican from Great Falls, brought it back to life
when it was eventually passed as part of the overall budget.
Because licensing fees are handled in a uniform way with a payment
portal that's consistent throughout the states, and because no
other state differentiated between resident and non-resident
licensees, Montana also developed a system where Montana resident
licensees could apply for a $50 refund, while out-of-state
licensees were ineligible.
In 2019, the state estimated that around 2,200 of the 108,000
financial adviser licensees were Montana-based, meaning that more
than 97% of financial advisers registered in the Big Sky State do
not live in-state.
The class-action challenge is being brought by Thomas Strobhar, who
has challenged laws and business practices in several different
states on different topics. He is being represented by former state
lawmaker and attorney Matthew Monforton.
"The committee knew that the discriminatory fee structure in HB 694
was unconstitutional, yet approved it anyway," the lawsuit said.
The Montana Supreme Court has upheld the privileges and immunities
clause of the U.S. Constitution, and said in 1981 that the "rights
of nonresidents to ' ‘ply their trade, practice their occupation,
or pursue a common calling in the state'" is something that shall
be "free from discrimination based upon state residency."
Even though lawmakers pointed out that Montana and other states may
charge non-residents fees for recreational licenses, like hunting,
that is limited to recreational, not occupational licenses.
"Montana's policy of imposing discriminatory fees upon nonresident
investment adviser representatives and securities salesperson (does
not) bear a substantial relationship to any important state
interest," the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit asks that the courts declare the measure
unconstitutional and issue an injunction prohibiting the state from
charging a different fee for non-resident advisers as Montana-based
advisers.
The lawsuit also seeks an award of damages to Strobhar and other
class members.
If Strobhar and the class-action suit was successful, it would mean
the state would have to disgorge as much as $25 million that
Montana has collected from these fees since 2019.
Strobhar, a resident of Ohio, is no stranger to being in the middle
of controversy.
Strobhar has authored more than 70 shareholder resolutions to ban
corporate support for pornography, religious bigotry, fetal tissue
research, abortifacients, Planned Parenthood, and policies he
considers hostile to marriage. His resolutions have changed the way
several large businesses operate, including American Express, AT&T,
Berkshire Hathaway, General Mills and Target.
Last year, Strobhar also led an initiative that would force The
Walt Disney Company to disclose charitable contributions of more
than $10,000. Though Disney fought against that, arguing that
Strobhar was attempting micromanagement of the company, the
Securities and Exchange Commission ultimately allowed the vote on
the resolution. [GN]
MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Doe Suit Over Illegal Background Check
------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MORGAN STANLEY & CO., LLC, Defendant, Case No. _____
(Mass. Sup., Suffolk Cty., December 15, 2023) alleges that Morgan
Stanley's hiring practices violate Massachusetts General Laws by
requesting applicants to disclose information about protected
criminal history information, by keeping records of such
information, and by using application forms that request such
information.
On or about August 12, 2022, the Plaintiff received a call from the
Morgan Stanley, who told her that her May 25, 2022 job offer for
senior registered service associate position had been rescinded
because of her criminal history information.
Morgan Stanley & Co. is a Delaware limited liability company. It
has an office in Boston, MA, as well as offices throughout the
United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen S. Churchill, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 607-6230
E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com
MOTORO CARS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flores Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
ALVARO FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOTORO CARS INC.; MOTORO CARS I, LLC; MOTORO
CARS II LLC; MOTORO CARS III, LLC; MOTORO CARS IV, LLC; and FELIX
DIAZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-20130-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 12,
2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Flores was employed by the Defendants as a service
clerk.
MOTORO CARS is a full-service preventive maintenance and automotive
repair center. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Court Certifies Suit Over Sunday Ticket Package
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Keys of StreamTV Insider reports that a federal judge last
week gave the green-light for a class-action lawsuit to proceed
against the National Football League (NFL) over its years-long
practice of allowing DirecTV to distribute its Sunday Ticket
package on an exclusive basis.
Last January 11, 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Philip Gutierrez
rejected a request by the NFL to dismiss the case, which was
brought by residential and business subscribers of DirecTV in
2015.
The case centers on the NFL's earlier decision to afford DirecTV
the exclusive rights to the NFL Sunday Ticket package, which is now
carried by Google's YouTube and offers access to out-of-market
Sunday afternoon games. DirecTV and Google are not defendants in
the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs in the case claim the NFL's agreement with DirecTV
substantially reduced the number of available games that football
fans could watch for free on CBS and Fox unless they purchased the
NFL Sunday Ticket package via satellite.
"The contracts require that [CBS and Fox]...does not make available
more than one [NFL] game in any one market in the territory at a
particular time, subject to market overlap consistent with current
practice," the judge wrote in his opinion, apparently citing a
portion of the contract the NFL entered into with the networks.
"Thus, if CBS and FOX are only able to each broadcast a football
game on one channel in a given area, then necessarily there are
many games not being broadcast in that area," the judge continued.
"And most consumers will only be able to watch three of the ten to
thirteen games being played on a Sunday via free, over-the-air
broadcasts."
While the plaintiffs in the case are largely focusing their
attention on the NFL, the judge found that DirecTV could not escape
blame over the alleged scheme, because "a reasonable trier of fact
could find that these interlocking provisions show DirecTV was
aware and participating in the overall scheme to limit output of
paid telecasts."
The judge's order allows the case to proceed to a trial, which is
tentatively set for February 22. The NFL, the defendant in the
case, could be forced to pay upwards of $6 billion in alleged
damages, according to some estimates.
Officials with the NFL and DirecTV declined to comment.
The lawsuit received class-action status nearly two years ago,
despite the objection of the NFL. It could involve as many as 2.4
million DirecTV subscribers who purchased the NFL Sunday Ticket
between 2011 and 2023. The plaintiffs in the case allege the NFL
and DirecTV's arrangement artificially inflated the price of Sunday
Ticket by not making the games available on broadcast TV or through
other avenues.
When sold through DirecTV, NFL Sunday Ticket generally required a
customer to purchase a base subscription package to DirecTV's
satellite television service, though a streaming-only version of
NFL Sunday Ticket was available to residential customers who lived
in a home where installing a satellite dish was not possible.
The NFL Sunday Ticket moved to Google-owned YouTube with the start
of the 2023-2024 football season. Sports fans have the option to
purchase the NFL Sunday Ticket as part of a bundle with the
$73-per-month streaming cable replacement YouTube TV, or a la carte
through YouTube's streaming marketplace, Primetime Channels. [GN]
NAVVIS & COMPANY: Fails to Protect Confidential Info, Burns Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Burns, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Navvis & Company, LLC d/b/a Navvis,
Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00039 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 8, 2024) is a
data breach class action against Defendant for its failure to
adequately secure and safeguard confidential and sensitive
information held throughout the typical course of business of
Plaintiff and the Class.
Over the course of two days -- occurring on or about July 12 and
July 25, 2023 -- an unauthorized third party actor gained access to
the Defendant's network and computer systems and obtained
unauthorized access to Defendant's files.
The Plaintiff's and Class' personal identifying information and
protected health information was compromised due to Defendant's
negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to
protect Plaintiff's and Class' PII/PHI. The Defendant not only
failed to prevent the data breach, but after discovering the data
breach in July 2023, Defendant waited until December 29, 2023 to
notify state Attorney Generals, and to affected individuals such as
Plaintiff and members of the Class, says the suit.
The Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief,
monetary damages, and all other relief as authorized in equity by
law, or any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate.
Navvis & Company, LLC provides healthcare management consulting
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tiffany Marko Yiatras, Esq.
Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq.
CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC
308 Hutchinson Road
Ellisville, MO 63011-2029
Telephone: (314) 541-0317
E-mail: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com
casey@consumerprotectionlegal.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
NAVY FEDERAL: Oliver and Jacob Sue Over Lending Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAQUITA OLIVER and CHERELLE JACOB, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01731 (E.D. Va., December 15,
2023) alleges violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and
the Fair Housing Act, and racial discrimination under the Title 42
of the U.S. Code Section 1981.
A recently released CNN report has shown that Navy Federal Credit
Union, the country's largest and most important credit union,
systematically discriminates against would-be borrowers by race.
Accordingly, a White person in 2022 who applied for a conventional
home loan purchase with Navy Federal had a 75% chance of being
approved for the mortgage, while Black borrowers had less than a
50% chance of success. Plaintiffs Laquita Oliver and Cherelle Jacob
are African Americans, who sought and were denied approvals for
their mortgage applications with Navy Federal Credit Union, says
the suit.
Navy Federal Credit Union is a global credit union headquartered in
Vienna, VA. It is the largest retail credit union in the United
States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John P. Pierce
LILES PARKER PLLC
2305 Calvert Street, NW
Washington, DC 20008
Telephone: (202) 567-2050
E-mail: jpierce@lilesparker.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Daniel R. Schwartz
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
dschwartz@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Diandra Debrosse Zimmermann, Esq.
Eli Hare, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
505 20th Street North, 15th Floor
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 855-5700
E-mail: fu@dicellolevitt.com
ehare@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Eviealle Dawkins, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
1101 17th Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 975-2288
E-mail: edawkins@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Ben Crump, Esq.
Sue-Ann Robinson, Esq.
Chris O'Neal, Esq.
Natalie Jackson, Esq.
Nabeha Shaer, Esq.
Desiree Austin-Holliday, Esq.
BEN CRUMP LAW PLLC
122 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Telephone: (850) 224-2020
E-mail: ben@bencrump.com
sueann@bencrump.com
chris@bencrump.com
natalie@bencrump.com
nabeha@bencrump.com
desiree@bencrump.com
NEW HOPE BROOKLYN: Faces Chavez Suit Over Cooks' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALFONSO CHAVEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class, Plaintiff v. NEW HOPE BROOKLYN LLC d/b/a TEN HOPE,
and WILLIAM ZAFIROS a/k/a BILL ZAFIROS, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00150 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action brought by
the Plaintiff seeking to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid wages,
including overtime, due to timeshaving, (2) unpaid wages, including
overtime, due to bounced checks, (3) statutory penalties, (4)
liquidated damages, and (5) attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a cook from May
2023 until August 6, 2023. He asserts that Defendants knowingly and
willingly failed to pay him, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the
Class members regular and overtime wages for all hours worked due
Defendants' timeshaving practices.
New Hope Brooklyn LLC owns and operates a restaurant under the
trade name "TEN HOPE" located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
NEW YORK: Ruling in Allen Civil Rights Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------
CAROL MOORES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled Peter Allen, et al., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Carl Koenigsmann, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08173-LAP, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
The nature of the suit is stated as 550 Prisoner Petitions - Habeas
Corpus - Civil Rights.
The appellate case is captioned Allen v. New York State Department
of Corrections and Community Supervision, Case No. 24-30, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on
January 3, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees PETER ALLEN, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Amy Jane Agnew, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF AMY JANE AGNEW, PC
5th Avenue, Suite 1701
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (973) 600-1724
Defendants-Appellants CAROL MOORES, et al. are represented by:
Oriana L. Kiley, Esq.
WHITEMAN OSTERMAN & HANNA LLP
One Commerce Plaza
Albany, NY 12260
NOBLE ENERGY: Phelps Oil Appeals Final Judgment to 10th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
PHELPS OIL AND GAS, LLC is taking an appeal from court orders in
the lawsuit entitled Phelps Oil and Gas, LLC, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Noble Energy,
Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-CV-02637-RM-SKC, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in August
2014, the Plaintiff filed its original class action Complaint in
state court, asserting claims against Defendants Noble Energy, Inc.
and DCP Midstream, LP for, inter alia, breach of contract and
unjust enrichment. Central to its case is the allegation that the
DCP Settlement shortchanged the Holman Settlement class out of
royalties which they were owed.
The following month, DCP removed the case to the District Court
based on diversity jurisdiction, where it was assigned to now
Senior United States District Judge Robert E. Blackburn. The
Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, arguing that the $75,000
amount-in-controversy requirement was not met but Judge Blackburn
denied the motion.
The litigation proceeded for about five years, during which the
Plaintiff filed its Revised First Amended Class Action Complaint
and Judge Blackburn dismissed or granted summary judgment on all
the Plaintiff's claims except its breach of contract claim against
Noble and its unjust enrichment claim against DCP. In September
2019, Judge Blackburn granted summary judgment in the Defendants'
favor on those remaining claims and entered final judgment.
On remand, Judge Blackburn vacated several orders and the final
judgment and remanded the matter to the District Court for the City
and County of Denver, Colorado.
In October 2022, DCP removed the case a second time, this time
based on the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d). The new case was assigned to a different district judge.
The Plaintiff has again moved to remand the matter to state court.
The Defendants have moved to have the Court re-enter judgment in
their favor based on the Court's prior orders or, alternatively, to
have their dispositive motions from the previous case re-filed in
the case, subject to any necessary supplemental briefing.
Judge Moore first examined the Motion to Remand. The Plaintiff
contends that the operative complaint, following the remand to
state court, is the original Complaint it filed in August 2014, not
the Amended Complaint it filed in December 2015 after removal.
Without the civil theft and conversion claims that were added in
the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff contends that Defendants
cannot meet CAFA's $5 million threshold.
Judge Moore disagreed that the original Complaint is the operative
complaint and held that that even if it were treated as such, the
CAFA amount-in-controversy requirement would be satisfied in any
event. First, he said the Amended Complaint was the operative
complaint at the time of the removal pursuant to the Defendants'
Notice of Second Removal. Second, the Amended Complaint was the
operative complaint at the time of the removal pursuant to
Defendants' Notice of Second Removal.
On June 13, 2023, Judge Moore entered an Order denying the
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and directed the Clerk to re-file the
case. On same day, Defendant DCP Midstream filed a motion to
dismiss the Revised First Amended Complaint, Defendant Noble Energy
filed a correction motion for summary judgment, and the Plaintiff
filed a motion to amend or clarify Court's Order on corrected
motion for summary judgment and a revised motion for partial
summary judgment. Moreover, the Defendants filed motions for
summary judgment.
On Dec. 15, 2023, the Court entered Orders granting in part and
denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Revised
Amended Complaint, granting in part and denying in part the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment, granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiff's motion to clarify, denying the
Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, and granting the
Defendants' motions for summary judgment. The Orders and final
judgment were entered by Judge Raymond P. Moore.
The appellate case is captioned Phelps Oil and Gas v. Noble Energy,
et al., Case No. 24-1005, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit, filed on January 5, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Docketing statement, transcript order form, notice
of appearance and disclosure statement were due on January 19,
2024; and
-- Appellees Notice of appearance and disclosure statement were
due on January 19, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant PHELPS OIL AND GAS, LLC, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, is represented by:
George Barton, Esq.
Stacy Ann Burrows, Esq.
BARTON AND BURROWS
5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110
Mission, KS 66205
Telephone: (913) 563-6250
(913) 563-6253
Defendants-Appellees NOBLE ENERGY INC., et al. are represented by:
James Robert Henderson, Esq.
Molly J. Kokesh, Esq.
Jonathan William Rauchway, Esq.
DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS
1550 Seventeenth Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 892-7533
- and -
Francisco J. Escobar-Calderon, Esq.
Daniel Mead McClure, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT
1301 McKinney Street, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 651-5151
NORTON HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Aldridge Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LOGAN ALDRIDGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTON HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00025-BJB (W.D. Ky., Jan. 12, 2024) is an action against
the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and to safeguard
personally identifiable information ("PII"), including the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, contact information, Social
Security numbers, and dates of birth, (collectively, "Private
Information" or "PII") and health information, medical
identification numbers, and insurance information, which is
protected health information ("protected health information" or
"PHI", and collectively with PII, "Private Information") as defined
by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996.
According to the complaint, on May 9, 2023, Norton became aware
that it was experiencing a cybersecurity incident. Norton
investigated the nature and scope of the incident and through its
investigation, Norton determined that between May 7, 2023, and May
9, 2023 its network and servers were accessed by unauthorized third
parties, resulting in information on its network being accessed
without authorization. Amongst the information accessed by the
unauthorized third parties was the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
Private Information.
As a result, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information
has been compromised, and they now face an ongoing risk of identity
theft, which is heightened here by the loss of Social Security
numbers - the gold standard for identity thieves. The exposed
Private Information of the Plaintiff and Class Members can, and
likely will, be sold repeatedly on the dark web, says the suit.
NORTON HEALTHCARE INC. operates as a non profit health care
organization. The Hospital offers services in the areas of cardiac
care, pulmonary and gastrointestinal programs, neurology,
orthopedic surgery, vascular surgery and obstetrics, physical
medicine, and gynecology. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew T. Lockaby, Esq.
Amanda M. Lockaby, Esq.
John M. Ghaelian, Esq.
LOCKABY PLLC
476 East High Street, Suite 200
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (859) 263-7884
Facsimile: (859) 406-3333
Email: mlockaby@lockabylaw.com
alockaby@lockabylaw.com
jghaelian@lockabylaw.com
- and -
David S. Almeida, Esq.
Matthew J. Langley, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (312) 576-3024
Email: david@almeidalawgroup.com
matt@almeidalawgroup.com
NOVANT HEALTH: Settles Class Suit Over Info Disclosures for $6.6M
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jill McKeon of Health IT Security reports that Novant Health agreed
to pay $6.6 million to settle a class action lawsuit surrounding
improper disclosures of (PHI) due to the health system's use of
third-party tracking tech.
In August 2022, North Carolina-based Novant Health notified 1.3
million individuals that its use of Meta pixel code had potentially
led to the unauthorized disclosure of PHI.
In its initial notice to patients, Novant Health explained that it
launched a promotional campaign in May 2020 to connect more
patients to its Novant Health MyChart patient portal.
"This campaign involved Facebook advertisements and a Meta
(Facebook parent company) tracking pixel placed on the Novant
Health website to help understand the success of those efforts on
Facebook," the notice explained.
"A pixel is a piece of code that organizations commonly use to
measure activity and experiences on their website. In this case,
the pixel was configured incorrectly and may have allowed certain
private information to be transmitted to Meta from the Novant
Health website and MyChart portal."
The impacted information potentially included contact information,
appointment details, computer IP addresses, information entered
into free text boxes, and button and menu selections.
Novant Health said it disabled the pixel as soon as it became aware
that the pixel code could have been improperly transmitting
information to third parties.
A subsequent class action lawsuit claimed that Novant Health's
unauthorized PHI disclosures were "intentional, reckless, and
negligent."
"At all times that Plaintiffs and Class Members visited and
utilized Defendant's website and MyChart portal, they had a
reasonable expectation of privacy that Private Information
collected through Defendant's website and contained within the
MyChart portal would remain secure and protected and only utilized
for medical purposes" the complaint stated.
"Plaintiffs and Class Members provided Private Information to
Defendant in order to receive medical services rendered and with
the reasonable expectation that Defendant would protect their
Private Information. Plaintiffs and Class Members relied on
Defendant to secure and protect the Private Information and not
disclose it to unauthorized third parties without their knowledge
or consent."
Novant Health denied all claims but both parties agreed to the
settlement to avoid continuing litigation. Novant Health is not the
first to reach a settlement over its use of third-party tracking
tech. Advocate Aurora Health reached a $12.25 million settlement to
resolve similar allegations in August 2023.
As pixel fallout continues, healthcare organizations may continue
to face lawsuits over their use of third-party tracking tools. [GN]
OKLAHOMA STUDENT: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Carr Due Jan. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN CARR, KEEGAN
KILLORY, and KELSIE POWELL, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons, v. OKLAHOMA STUDENT LOAN AUTHORITY; and
NELNET SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-00099-R (W.D. Okla.), the
Hon. Judge David L. Russell entered an order setting the following
scheduling order deadlines:
Amendments to the Pleadings or Joinder Aug. 3, 2024
of Parties
Plaintiffs' Expert Reports in Support of Sept. 3, 2024
Class Certification
Defendants' Expert Reports in Opposition Oct. 15, 2024
to Class Certification
Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Reports on Nov. 3, 2024
Class Certification
Defendants' Rebuttal and/or Reply Expert Nov. 15, 2024
Reports on Class Certification
Completion of Class Certification Expert Dec. 30, 2024
Depositions/Close of Expert Discovery
Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion Jan. 31, 2025
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Feb. 28, 2025
Class Certification Motion
Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' March 21, 2025
Opposition to Plaintiff' Class
Certification Motion
OSLA is a student loan servicer that handles loans for federal
student loan borrowers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48RbaOs at no extra charge.[CC]
PHARMA-NATURAL INC: Diaz Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO DIAZ, Plaintiff v. PHARMA-NATURAL, INC., CARLOS FERREIRO,
Defendants, Case No. 189275075 (Fla. Cir., 11th Judicial, Miami
Dade Cty., Jan. 8, 2024) seeks to recover Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals' unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal
amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs, and for retaliation for termination from complaints of
unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an employee from
approximately June 6, 2022 through July 18, 2022, as a vitamin
mixer. He asserts that he worked approximately 52 hours a week for
Defendants and was not paid overtime for any hours in excess of 40
weekly.
Pharma-Natural, Inc. manufactures health care products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Remer, Esq.
REMER, GEORGES-PIERRE, & HOOGERWOERD, PLLC
2745 Ponce De Leon Blvd
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 416-5000
Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
E-mail: Jremer@rgph.law
PHILIPS RESPIRONICS: CPAP Suit Continues Despite $479M Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Legal Examiner Staffer reports that the litigation nightmare
that has plagued medical device giant Philips Respironics for
nearly two years isn't over, despite a settlement agreement of at
least $479 million finalized in September 2023.
Philips recalled more than five million of its CPAP (continuous
positive airway pressure) and BiPAP machines and ventilators in
June 2021 after reports that the sound-abating foam used to keep
them running quietly was breaking apart and being inhaled. Inhaling
the foam or its gasses exposes users to toxic chemicals, including
known carcinogens. CPAP machines are intended to treat
sleep-related respiratory disorders, especially sleep apnea; most
patients cannot sleep safely without them.
The recall was labeled Class 1, only assigned to products with the
potential for serious injury or death. The agency has continued to
discourage the public from using Philips CPAP machines and ordered
the company to conduct additional testing multiple times.
Since the initial recall, the FDA has received over 100,000
complaints, including 385 reported deaths. Reports linked the
machines to issues beyond respiratory failure, such as pneumonia,
chest pain, kidney problems, dizziness, infection, and cancer.
In April 2022, the FDA added the Class 1 designation to other
active Philips recalls, including three models of ventilators in
which an electrical circuit problem put the machines at risk of
stopping operating suddenly.
In November 2023, the Philips DreamStation 2 CPAP machine, which
was not involved in the first recall, was reported by the FDA as
having issues such as burns, victims smelling smoke, and machines
catching fire.
The company continues to deny any wrongdoing even though machines
they attempted to repair were also recalled. When reprogrammed, the
repaired machines were given an incorrect or duplicate serial
number, potentially sending the wrong prescription to users.
The settlement agreement will compensate users who bought the
recalled devices; additionally, Philips and its Netherlands-based
parent company, Koninklijke Philips N.V., set aside another $15
million for those wishing to replace their machines.
Eligible users are entitled to a device payment award for each
device they rented, leased, or purchased and a device return award
of $100 for each machine returned by August 9, 2024. Users who
spent their own money on a device to replace their recalled device
will receive a device replacement award.
CPAP Personal Injury Lawsuits
While Philips stated at the time of the settlement that it has
fixed approximately 4.6 million devices globally -- 2.5 million in
the U.S. -- many users have been waiting almost two years for safe
replacement machines. They must choose between a good night's sleep
and further endangering their health by using recalled devices.
Most insurers will not replace the machines until they are five
years old.
As a result, affected sleep apnea patients have been filing CPAP
lawsuits against Philips with no end in sight. So many claims
surfaced that the lawsuits were consolidated in October 2022 into
multidistrict litigation (MDL) under one court and judge in
Pennsylvania to streamline pre-trial discovery proceedings.
During the settlement announcement, lawyers representing injured
CPAP users noted that the funds cover only customers' economic
losses from purchasing faulty products, not any personal injury
damages.
Plaintiffs allege that Philips knew of the dangers posed by the
foam and marketed them as safe anyway.
The company's problems don't stop at the millions they stand to
lose in personal injury litigation.
In July 2022, Philips CEO Frans van Houten revealed during a
scheduled earnings call that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
had proposed a consent decree to resolve concerns about the recall
after subpoenaing the company for more information. This came on
behalf of the FDA following their 2021 inspection of Philips
facilities. A consent decree can occur when the DOJ opens an
investigation into an unjust practice or pattern.
So long as this consent decree is in place, Philips will remain
"effectively out of the respiratory devices market" until all the
recalled machines have been adequately repaired.
To make matters even worse for Philips, an investigation released
in late September 2023 by ProPublica and the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette revealed that the company purposely withheld more than
3,700 complaints from the FDA about contaminants in the machines,
the earliest of which was received in 2010.
Shortly after that investigation was released, two U.S. senators
wrote a letter to Congress and the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) demanding they reexamine the FDA's oversight of the recalls.
Sens. Richard Durbin (D-Ill) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) wrote,
"It now appears that FDA missed several opportunities to mitigate
the harm done to the millions of patients who have used these
recalled medical devices."
The letter also noted that adverse event reports to the FDA have
climbed more than 500 percent over the past ten years, while
medical device recalls have more than doubled.
Sleep apnea patients who used or are still using a recalled Philips
device and have suffered injuries should seek out a qualified
personal injury attorney, preferably one with experience in CPAP
lawsuits. A competent CPAP lawyer will tell you if you have a
strong enough case to receive financial compensation for your
injuries and only charge for their services if you win. [GN]
POLY VINYL: Spettel Suit Seeks Warehouse Associates' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL SPETTEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POLY VINYL CO., INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-01681-NJ (E.D. Wis., December 15, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for unpaid overtime and unpaid regular wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.
The Defendant hired the Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non-exempt
employee in the position of warehouse associate from approximately
March 2023 until approximately October 2023.
Poly Vinyl Co., Inc. is a plastic fabrication company,
headquartered in Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
PRECISION IMAGING: Sharfman TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC IRWIN SHARFMAN, M.D.,
P.A., a Florida corporation, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarlysituated persons, v. PRECISION IMAGING ST.
AUGUSTINE LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and HALO DX,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 6:22-cv-00642-WWB-DC (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
-- Certifying Class A, or the alternative Class B;
-- Appointing Plaintiff as the class representative; and
-- Appointing his counsel class counsel.
The Plaintiff moves the Court for class certification pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), and states the following in
support:
1. In violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
("TCPA"), the Defendants through retained faxbroadcaster jBlast,
successfully sent 14,303 unsolicited fax advertisements to 4,922
unique fax numbers in broadcasts conducted on February 9, 2022,
February 15, 2022, and February 17, 2022, advertising the
commercial availability and quality of their imaging services. The
Faxes have no opt out notice.
Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil
Procedure, the Plaintiff seeks an Order from this Court certifying
the following classes:
-- Class A
"All persons or entities who were successfully sent a Fax by
Defendants (1) on or about February 9, 2022, offering reduced
pricing for heart scans, (2) on or about February 15, 2022,
that
states "Join Us for Mammos and Mimosas this Weekend," or (iii)
on
or about February 17, 2022, that announces new members of
Precision Imaging Centers, and which advises of Saturday
hours."
The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following alternative class in
the event the Court finds there are individual issues as to 970
recipients from whom Precision claims it obtained permission to
send promotional/informational communications during "in person
visits":
-- Class B
"All persons or entities who were successfully sent a Fax (1)
on
or about February 9, 2022, offering reduced pricing for heart
scans, (2) on or about February 15, 2022, that states "Join Us
for
Mammos and Mimosas this Weekend," or (iii) on or about February
17, 2022, that announces new members of Precision Imaging
Centers,
and which advises of Saturday hours."
Excluded from Class B are the 970 "referral sources" listed in
Exhibit A to Precision's Supplemental Interrogatory Responses
whom
Defendants claim provided permission to send "promotional and
information communications" during "in person visits" by
Precision.
Excluded from both proposed Classes are Defendants' employees
and
agents.
The Plaintiff also seeks an Order from the Court appointing
Plaintiff as class representative and appointing the law firm of
Anderson + Wanca as class counsel.
Precision is a Florida-based medical services provider that offers
imaging and radiology services in Northeast Florida.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O5Rrmh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
Wallace C. Solberg, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
wsolberg@andersonwanca.com
PREMERA BLUE: Filing for Class Cert Bids Amended to August 6
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.B. and M.B.,
individually and on behalf of their minor child A.B., and on behalf
of others similarly situated, v. PREMERA BLUE CROSS, Case No.
2:23-cv-00953-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Zilly
entered an order amending case scheduling order as follows:
Trial and Pre-Trial Deadlines Current New
Deadline Deadline
Disclosure of expert testimony Feb. 15, 2024 April 15, 2024
under FRCP 26(a)(2)
All motions related to Apr. 25, 2024 June 25, 2024
discovery must be filed by
Discovery completed by May 31, 2024 July 31, 2024
Any motions related to class June 6, 2024 Aug. 6, 2024
certification must be filed by
All dispositive motions must be Sept. 5, 2024 Nov. 5, 2024
filed by and noted on the
motion calendar no later than
the fourth Friday thereafter
(see LCR 7(d))
Pretrial conference Jan. 24, 2025 Mar. 24, 2025
Trial (7 days) Feb. 3, 2025 Apr. 3, 2025
Premera is a not-for-profit Blue Cross Blue Shield licensed health
insurance company based in Mountlake Terrace, Washington
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48y0rc5 at no extra charge.[CC]
R&G BRENNER: Cinar Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVE CINAR, CELESTE
DRAYTON, NICOLE ADOLPHUS, DARLENE RIERA, and STUART BARON,
individually on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. R&G BRENNER INCOME TAX, LLC, SUMMIT
CONSULTANTS, INC., APEX PLANNING INC., and BENJAMIN K. BRENNER,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01362-RPK-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:
1. Certifying a Rule 23 class consisting of all income tax
preparers who worked for Defendants, R&G BRENNER INCOME TAX,
LLC, SUMMIT CONSULTANTS, INC., APEX PLANNING INC., and
BENJAMIN
K. BRENNER from March 13, 2014 until the present;
2. Appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;
3. Appointing The NHG Law Group, P.C. as Class Counsel; and
4. Approving the Proposed Notice of Class Action submitted
herewith
and directing that such notice be distributed to the Class
Members.
R&G Brenner provides expert tax preparation services in the New
York Metropolitan area.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41X4Rqr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Keith E. Williams, Esq.
NHG LAW GROUP P.C.
4242 Merrick Road
Massapequa, NY 11758
Telephone: (516) 228-5100
E-mail: keith@nhglaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
John K. Diviney, Esq.
RIVKIN RADLER LLP
926 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556
Telephone: (516) 357-3000
E-mail: John.diviney@rivkin.com
REPSOL SA: Faces Class Suit Over Oil Spill in Peru
--------------------------------------------------
Marco Aquino of XM reports that Spanish energy giant Repsol REP.MC
faces a class action lawsuit with 30,000 alleged victims in Peru
stemming from a major oil spill in 2022, the law firm representing
the class said on January 15, 2024, as a small protest marked two
years since the incident.
The class action lawsuit is asking for a $1 billion judgment, local
media reported.
The oil spill is deemed one of Peru's worst-ever ecological
disasters, after over 10,000 barrels of oil were dumped into the
Pacific Ocean and on beaches by the Repsol-owned La Pampilla
refinery.
The spill sullied some 66 miles (106 km) of Peru's central Pacific
coastline, according to Repsol's own tally, while causing
significant damage to local fishing and tourist businesses as well
as killing off scores of birds and marine life.
The company is also facing an existing $4.5 billion civil lawsuit
filed in Peru.
The new class action suit is managed by London-based law firm
Pogust Goodhead, which said in a statement that the lawsuit was
filed in The Hague last week.
The statement did not give the sum being demanded and the lawsuit
is not public.
Repsol's Peruvian subsidiary has previously said that it completed
all cleaning and remediation tasks and allocated around $270
million in compensation to victims identified by the Peruvian
government.
"We consider that this lawsuit has no basis," Repsol said in a
statement late on January 12, 2024, referring to the new class
action.
Several dozen protesters visited the areas affected by the
disaster, including Ancon beach north of the capital Lima,
according to images from local television station Canal N, where
people were seen waving large Peruvian flags and banners
criticizing Repsol.
"This is one of Peru's worst environmental disasters and we will
fight for justice for the victims," said Tom Goodhead, CEO and
global managing partner of Pogust Goodhead, in a statement. [GN]
RINOWA CONSTRUCTION: Martinez and Gonzalez Sue Over Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
JANOY MARTINEZ; and JULIO GONZALEZ, and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs v. RINOWA CONSTRUCTION LLC., a Florida
limited liability company, and ADRIAN PEREZ, an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-62363-XXXX (S.D. Fla., December 15,
2023) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Martinez worked from June 3, 2023, through on or about October
20, 2023, and Mr. Gonzalez, worked from on or about July 3, 2023,
through on or about September 6, 2023. While employed by Rinowa,
each Plaintiff worked approximately an average of 43 hours per week
without being compensated at the rate of not less than one- and
one-half times the regular rate at which they were employed. The
Plaintiffs were employed as construction workers performing the
same or similar duties as that of those other similarly situated
whom Plaintiffs observed working in excess of 40 hours per week
without overtime compensation, says the suit.
Headquartered in Broward County, Florida, Rinowa Construction LLC
is a Florida limited liability corporation engaged in construction
business.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Julisse Jimenez, Esq.
THE SAENZ LAW FIRM
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL, 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: julisse@legalopinionusa.com
RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Fox Loses Renewed Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL FOX, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE RITZ-CARLTON
HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C., Case No. 1:17-cv-24284-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order denying the Plaintiff's
renewed motion for class certification.
The Court further ordered and adjudged that the Clerk of Court
shall close this case. Any pending motions are denied as moot and
all deadlines and hearings are cancelled.
In 2017, Mr. Fox filed a class action lawsuit against Ritz-Carlton
Hotel Company alleging violations of The Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA").
In his lawsuit, Fox claims that Ritz-Carlton owned restaurants
throughout the state of Florida either provided no-notice or
inadequate notice that it was automatically adding an 18% gratuity
charge to each customer’s bill. Fox asserts that Ritz-Carlton’s
practice violates FDUTPA and seeks damages on behalf of himself and
all other individuals who were subjected to this practice.
Ritz-Carlton is an American multinational company that operates the
luxury hotel chain known as The Ritz-Carlton.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SjlkSv at no extra charge.[CC]
SAINT ELIZABETH: York Seeks to Certify Class of Patients
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sarah York, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SAINT ELIZABETH
MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00125-DLB-CJS (E.D. Ky.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion
for class certification:
"Plaintiff and all current and former patients of St. Elizabeth
Medical Center, Inc., who were private payers or whose bills
were
paid in full or in part by a private insurance payor, whose
bills
were inflated, by the addition of variable charge so as to match
a
selected reimbursement rated for Diagnosis-Related Groups
("DRG") through "All-Inclusive Billing" (excluding members of
the Court and its staff, and Counsel for Plaintiffs and their
staffs, Counsel for Defendant and its staff, and Board members,
Officers, and Employees of Defendant)."
St. Elizabeth is a Boston University teaching hospital.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SiEDv7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert F. Croskery, Esq.
CROSKERY LAW OFFICES
Fayetteville, OH 45118
Telephone: (513) 232-5297
E-mail: rcroskery@croskerylaw.com
- and -
Alan J. Statman, Esq.
STATMAN HARRIS, LLC
35 East 7th Street, Suite 315
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 621-2666
E-mail: ajstatman@statmanharris.com
SAN ALLEN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gilmore Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE GILMORE, Plaintiff v. SAN ALLEN, INC. d/b/a CORKY &
LENNY’S and AMANDA KURLAND and KENNETH KURLAND, Defendants, Case
No. 1:23-cv-02391-JPC (N.D. Ohio, December 15, 2023) alleges that
the Defendants have violated Section 34a, Article II of the Ohio
Constitution, the Ohio Revised Code Section 4111.14, and the Fair
Labor Standards Act by not paying Gilmore and similarly situated
employees at least minimum wages for all hours worked.
Plaintiff Gilmore began working for Defendants as a server more
than three years ago. Allegedly, Defendants made automatic lunch
breaks deductions regardless of whether Gilmore and similarly
situated employees actually took a lunch break. As a result,
Gilmore was not paid at proper minimum wage for all hours worked.
In addition, Gilmore was not also paid at least time-and-a-half
their regular rate of pay minus any applicable tip credit for hours
that she worked over 40 in a workweek, says the suit.
San Allen, Inc. operates a restaurant under the name Corky and
Lenny, which is located in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher M. Sams, Esq.
Stephan I. Voudris, Esq.
Christopher M. Sams, Esq.
VOUDRIS LAW LLC
8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8
Chagrin Falls, OH 44023
Telephone: (440) 543-0670
Facsimile: (440) 543-0721
E-mail: svoudris@voudrislaw.com
csams@voudrislaw.com
SANDTRAP MANAGEMENT: Couri Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSMILK COURI, Plaintiff v. SANDTRAP MANAGEMENT, INC d/b/a COLONY
WEST GOLF CLUB, Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-000223 (Fla. Cir., 17th
Judicial, Broward Cty., Jan. 8, 2024) is an action brought by the
Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
arising from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a cook from
approximately September 15, 2021 until September 30, 2022. She
asserts that Defendant failed/refused pay her proper overtime wages
as required by the FLSA of time and one half of her regular wage.
The Plaintiff also brings this suit for Defendant's retaliatory
conduct in violation of the federal law.
Sandtrap Management, Inc. is a golf club in Tamarac, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Henry Hernandez, Esq.
GARCIA HERNANDEZ, P.A.
2655 S. LeJeune Road, Suite 802
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 771-3374
E-mail: Henry@HHLAWFLORIDA.com
SANTA ANA, CA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cante Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL CANTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF SANTA ANA; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-00081 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 12,
2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Cante was employed by the Defendants as a communication
services officer.
SANTA ANA is a city in Orange County, California. It's home to the
Santa Ana Zoo, with its monkeys, mini-train and walk-through
aviary. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq.
Demetrius X. Lambrinos, Esq.
COUNSELONE, PC
9301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 277-9945
Facsimile: (424) 277-3727
Email: anthony@counselonegroup.com
demetrius@counselonegroup.com
SPRUCE POWER: Proposed Settlement in Class Suit Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spruce Power Holding Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 18,
2023, that on December 6, 2023, the lead plaintiff and the
defendants in a class action litigation consolidated as "In re XL
Fleet Corp. Securities Litigation," Case No. 1:21-cv-02171 entered
into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement.
On January 18, 2024, the court preliminarily approved the proposed
settlement as being fair, reasonable, and adequate, and scheduled a
telephonic hearing for April 30, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time,
to, among other things, consider whether to approve the proposed
settlement.
Following negotiations with a mediator, in September 2023, the
company and the plaintiffs agreed on a settlement in principle in
the amount of $19.5 million, which is subject to an agreement on
documentation and approval by the federal district court for the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On March 8, 2021, two putative securities class action complaints
were filed against the company, and certain of its current and
former officers and directors in the federal district court for the
Southern District of New York. Those cases were ultimately
consolidated. On July 20, 2021, an amended complaint was filed
alleging that certain public statements made by the defendants
between October 2, 2020, and March 2, 2021, violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
Spruce Power Holding Corporation and its subsidiaries is an owner
and operator of distributed solar energy assets across the United
States, offering subscription-based services to approximately
75,000 home solar assets and contracts, making renewable energy
more accessible to everyone.
STATE FARM: Filing for Class Certification Bid Amended to April 12
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULA GULICK, and SHARON
SCHLEHUBER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Case No.
2:21-cv-02573-TC-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Teresa J. James
entered a second amended Phase I Scheduling Order as follows:
n order
Event Deadline/Setting
Plaintiffs' expert disclosures for Oct. 20, 2023
class certification due
Defendant to serve supplemental Rule Jan. 17, 2024
26(a)(1) disclosures, to include
Plaintiff Schlehuber's claim files
Defendant's deadline to answer or Jan. 24, 2024
otherwise respond to Plaintiffs'
Second Amended Class Action Complaint
Defendant's expert disclosures for March 15, 2024
class certification due
Motion for class certification, April 12, 2024
Defendant's motion for summary
judgment on individual claims or
issues, and any motions to exclude
expert testimony under Rule 702
to be filed by:
Response to motions to be filed by: May 10, 2024
Replies to responses to motions to be June 7, 2024
filed by:
All Phase I discovery completed June 7, 2024
State Farm is a group of mutual insurance companies throughout the
United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tVRABQ at no extra charge.[CC]
STICKY RICE: Miranda Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Cooks
---------------------------------------------------------------
YOALIN AGUILAR MIRANDA, HERMITANO ALMARAZ CARDONA, and MISAEL
ALMARAZ CARDONA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. STICKY RICE, INC. and KRITSANA MOUNGKEOW,,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-16857 (N.D. Ill., December 16, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance
and Paid Sick Leave Ordinance.
The Plaintiff worked as a cook at the Defendants' restaurant from
approximately 2010 through December 1, 2023.
Sticky Rice, Inc. is an operator of a restaurant under the name
Sticky Rice in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
NOLAN LAW OFFICE
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 322-1100
E-mail: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com
SWEET LADY JANE: Faces Class Suit Over Wage Theft
-------------------------------------------------
ABC 7 reports that when the beloved L.A.-area bakery Sweet Lady
Jane announced the shutdown of its six locations on New Year's Day,
the company's public statement cited a lack of sales that left it
unable to pay its employees.
But Sweet Lady Jane is also the subject of a class-action lawsuit
that was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on June 30.
The lawsuit, filed by a former employee as the plaintiff, accuses
the company of wage theft and mismanagement.
Sweet Lady Jane has denied the allegations, saying the complaint is
unverified.
Before the closure earlier this month, the bakery had locations in
Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Calabasas, Encino, West Hollywood and
San Fernando. Two others had been planned to open in Larchmont and
Marina del Rey.
"We did not come to this decision lightly nor quickly," the company
said in a statement on Jan. 1. "While the support and loyalty of
our customers has been strong, sales are not enough to continue
doing business in the state of California, allowing us to service
our lease obligations and pay our treasured employees a living wage
without passing those costs directly on to you." [GN]
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Goldsmith Seeks Refund for Tuition and Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN GOLDSMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-01582-TJM-TWD (N.D.N.Y., December 15, 2023) asserts claims
against the Defendant for breach of contract as to fees, breach of
implied contract, and unjust enrichment in connection with the
Defendant's failure to provide reimbursements for tuition and fees
dispute the diminished services it provided and the reduced
benefits associated with the tuition and fees.
The Plaintiff seeks for himself and the other Class members
Syracuse University's disgorgement of the tuition and mandatory
fees proportionate to the amount of time that remained in the
Spring 2020 semester when the campus closed and corresponding
campus services were curtailed or ceased being provided and
Plaintiff seeks return of those amounts on behalf of himself and
the Class members.
Syracuse University is a private research university, founded in
1813, with campuses located in Syracuse, NY, and its principal
place of business at 900 South Crouse Ave. Syracuse, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented:
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Anthony M. Alesandro, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile. (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
TABLE AT REDEYE: Cordero Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Cordero, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. The Table at
Redeye Inc., Peter Cecere, Otis Banks, and Marni Halasa,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00144 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2024) seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover Plaintiff's unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the
NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.
The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide wage notices, failure to furnish wage
statements, and unlawful retaliation by terminating Plaintiff's
employment immediately after he complained about his wages on or
around December 2023.
Plaintiff Cordero was employed by the Defendants as a chef from
August 2023 until October 2, 2023.
The Table at Redeye Inc. owns and operates restaurant known as "The
Purple Tongue" located in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0048
E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com
TD BANK: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 19
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABDUL MAJID KAMARA, et
al., v. TD Bank, N.A., Case No. 2:22-cv-05039-AB (E.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Anita B. Brody entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) disclosures are Jan. 19, 2024
due on or before:
-- Initial written discovery requests Jan. 19, 2024
shall be served on or before:
-- The motion for class certification July 19, 2024
shall be filed on or before:
-- All fact discovery must be completed Oct. 11, 2024.
on or before:
-- All expert discovery must be Jan. 31, 2025
completed on or before:
-- Plaintiff's expert reports must be Nov. 15, 2024
served on or before:
-- The Defendant's expert reports must Dec. 16, 2024
be served on or before:
-- Plaintiff's rebuttal expert report, Jan. 10, 2025
if any, must be served or before:
-- Depositions of experts must be Jan. 31, 2025
completed on or before:
-- All dispositive motions must be Feb. 28, 2025
filed on or before:
TD Bank is an American national bank and the United States
subsidiary of the multinational TD Bank Group.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3U3SarM at no extra charge.[CC]
TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Agrees to Settle Common Stock Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
GlobeNewswire reports that Pomerantz LLP announces that the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California has
approved the following announcement of a proposed class action
settlement that would benefit purchasers of TerraVia Holdings, Inc.
common stock (NASDAQ: TVIA):
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON
STOCK TERRAVIA HOLDINGS, INC. ("TERRAVIA") BETWEEN MAY 4, 2016, AND
NOVEMBER 6, 2016, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, that a
hearing will be held on June 13, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom
11, 19th Floor before the Honorable James Donato, United States
District Judge of the Northern District of California, 450 Golden
Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102 (the "Settlement Hearing"):
(1) to determine whether the Settlement, consisting of the sum
of $2,500,000.00 (Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars and
Zero Cents) in cash should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate;
(2) to determine whether the Order and Judgment as provided
under the Amended Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation") should
be entered, dismissing the Amended Complaint on the merits and with
prejudice, and to determine whether the release by the Settlement
Class of the Released Persons, as set forth in the Stipulation,
should be ordered, along with a permanent injunction barring
efforts to bring any Released Claims extinguished by the Settlement
against any Released Persons;
(3) to determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund is fair, reasonable,
and adequate;
(4) to consider the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for an
award of expenses of not more than $150,000, for a Plaintiffs'
Award to the two proposed Class Representatives not to exceed
$2,500.00 each, and for a Plaintiffs' Award to the four remaining
Lead Plaintiffs not to exceed $1,000.00 each;
(5) to determine whether the Settlement Class should be
certified;
(6) to consider any Settlement Class Members' objections to
the Settlement, whether submitted previously in writing or
presented orally at the Settlement Hearing by Settlement Class
Members (or by counsel on their behalf); and
(7) to rule upon such other matters as the Court may deem
appropriate.
If you purchased common stock of TerraVia between May 4, 2016, and
November 6, 2016, both dates inclusive, your rights may be affected
by the Settlement of this Action. If you have not received a copy
of the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and a copy of the
Proof of Claim Form, you may obtain copies by writing to the Claims
Administrator at: TerraVia Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic
Claims Services, P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205 Media,
PA 19063, info@strategicclaims.net; by calling the Claims
Administrator at (866) 274-4004; or by visiting the Claims
Administrator's website at www.terraviasettlement.com.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Proof of Claim Form to the Claims Administrator either postmarked
no later than May 23, 2024 or online at www.terraviasettlement.com
by 11:59 p.m. EST no later than May 23, 2024. Unless you submit a
written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Action whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim
Form.
If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion to the Claims Administrator, so that it is
postmarked no later than May 23, 2024, in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice of Proposed Class Action
Settlement.
Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, Plaintiffs'
Counsel's request for an award of Expenses, or any request for
Plaintiffs' Award must be in the manner and form as described in
the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and received no
later than May 23, 2024 by the Court at:
Clerk of the Clerk
United States District Court
Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Plaintiffs' Counsel:
Joshua B. Silverman, Esq.
Louis C. Ludwig, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South LaSalle St., Ste. 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel.: 312-377-1181
Email: jbsilverman@pomlaw.com
lcludwig@pomlaw.com [GN]
TRIDENT RESTORATION: Must Produce Written Responses in Ortega
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL ORTEGA, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated individuals, v. TRIDENT
RESTORATION, INC., et al. Case No. 1:23-cv-01927-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke, entered an order directing the
Defendants to produce written responses and objections to the
Plaintiffs' discovery requests by January 5, 2024.
The Court further entered an order:
-- Directing the Defendants to produce wage and hour documents for
the putative class members and unredacted versions of the
documents already produced by January 24, 2024.
-- Directing all parties appear for a conference with the Court on
February 14, 2024 at 3:00 p.m. The conference will be held
remotely via Microsoft Teams. The parties shall file a status
letter regarding discovery by February 7, 2024.
Trident offers 24/7 Emergency Services for water, fire, mold and
storm damage.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tQrMHl at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED DEBT: Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice to Re-Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miller, et al., v. United
Debt Settlement LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02210 (S.D. Ohio,
Filed May 17, 2022), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered an
order denying to without prejudice to re-filing. The Plaintiff
Angel Miller and Steven VanNess's motion to certify class and
motion for discovery is to proceed with class discovery.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
United Debt is a debt relief company offering a variety of
solutions for dealing with debt.[CC]
VANGUARD GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Truong Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICCI TRUONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situatd, Plaintiff v. THE VANGUARD GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-23-022524 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., December
15, 2024) alleges that the Defendant has violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to proper overtime wages to Plaintiff and
its all current and former non-exempt employees working in
positions primarily involving answering phone calls.
The Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours in a workweek for
Vanguard's benefit during her employment. However, she was not paid
proper compensation for all hours worked, including overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 while employed by
Vanguard.
Vanguard is a national asset management firm that offers a broad
selection of investments, advice, retirement services, and insights
to individual investors, institutions, and financial professionals.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
Tamra C. Givens, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Disapprove $100M Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that lawyers for
nearly 10,000 Verizon wireless customers have just complicated a
proposed $100 million class action settlement of claims that the
company deceptively added fees to their monthly bills, arguing that
their clients should instead be allowed to arbitrate en masse
against the company.
I told you last week about Verizon's class action settlement, which
quietly squelched a pair of appeals that would have tested the
legitimacy of a recent corporate strategy to combat mass
arbitration.
Rather than proceed with appeals at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals and in New Jersey's Supreme Court to determine whether
companies can avert multimillion-dollar arbitration initiation fees
by requiring customers to arbitrate their claims in small batches
of "bellwether" arbitrations, Verizon (VZ.N), opens new tab chose
to strike a $100 million deal with plaintiffs' lawyers from
DeNittis, Osefchen, Prince and Hattis & Lukacs. Those firms had
asserted arbitration demands for about 2,700 Verizon customers, in
addition to filing class actions in California and New Jersey that
raised similar accusations.
But it turns out that a different set of plaintiffs' lawyers is not
happy about the proposed settlement, which received preliminary
approval, opens new tab from a New Jersey state judge last
December.
Last week, Murphy Advocates and Goldstein, Russell & Woofter filed
both a motion to intervene, opens new tab in the class action and a
motion to compel, opens new tab arbitration on behalf of the Murphy
firm's 9,970 Verizon clients. The firms, which said Murphy had
advanced almost $3.8 million in arbitration initiation fees to the
American Arbitration Association, said their clients should not be
subjected to the class action's injunction barring Verizon
customers from moving forward with arbitration demands.
Murphy and Goldstein Russell argued that their clients -- only 10
of whom have said they want to participate in the settlement --
will be saddled with onerous requirements to opt out unless the
court stays the class action to allow them to proceed with their
arbitrations.
But their right to arbitrate all of their clients' cases is a
tricky proposition. As I told you last week, the big unanswered
question in the Verizon litigation is whether the company can
require customers to arbitrate claims in batches of 10 cases at a
time, with all other claimants forced to wait for the outcome of
each successive tranche of 10-case bellwethers.
Verizon -- which denies the premise that it deceived customers
about so-called administrative fees -- has always said that the
batching process is actually a boon for consumers: If companies
lose early cases, Verizon contends, they will be incentivized to
make global deals that deliver money to customers instead of
wasting millions on fees for arbitrators.
But courts in California, opens new tab and New Jersey, opens new
tab concluded last year that Verizon's arbitration contract was
unenforceable, mostly because the batching process would require
claimants to wait years to arbitrate their cases. An AAA arbitrator
similarly ruled, opens new tab last year, in a case brought by the
DeNittis and Hattis firms, that Verizon's bellwether process
violate AAA's due process requirements.
Murphy and Goldstein Russell are also contesting Verizon's
bellwether system, both at the AAA and before the New Jersey judge
overseeing the proposed $100 million settlement. The AAA challenge
is stayed until the New Jersey judge decides whether to grant final
approval to the settlement, but the firms have asked the judge to
declare the bellwether regimen unconscionable so they can resume
arguments at the AAA.
In an email statement, Evan Murphy said he is not trying to disrupt
Verizon's $100 million settlement but wants to protect his clients'
right to choose their own strategy and lawyers. He said it is
"particularly troubling" that neither Verizon nor class counsel
told the court about his 10,000 clients before asking for
preliminary approval of the settlement and an injunction to halt
other claims.
The DeNittis and Hattis firms did not respond to my email query.
Verizon, which is represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
and Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, has suggested publicly, in a
Dec. 4 letter, opens new tab to the New Jersey court overseeing the
class action settlement, that the Murphy firm's mass arbitration
demands did not influence its decision to make a deal with the
DeNittis and Hattis firms. (Notably, the settlement came days
before Verizon was set to defend its batching rules at the 9th
Circuit.)
Mass arbitration critics, as you surely recall, have long carped
about plaintiffs' lawyers abusing the leverage of arbitration fees,
which typically exceed $1,000 per case for companies. But fees in
the Murphy cases were not a consideration at the time of Verizon's
settlement: The company was defending just 10 of Murphy's cases
while an AAA arbitrator weighed arguments that Verizon's bellwether
scheme violates AAA rules. (AAA's previous decision criticizing
Verizon's process was in a case brought by the DeNittis and Hattis
firms and AAA said it was not binding.) The arbitration provider
returned Murphy's filing fees in all of his other cases.
Moreover, according to Verizon, Murphy has lost all of the
deceptive fee cases he has arbitrated to a conclusion against the
company. That includes at least four cases, according to Verizon's
Dec. 4 letter.
Murphy said via email that those results are "not particularly
informative" because they represent only a sliver of his cases
against Verizon. He also said that he has settled claims against
the company for more than customers are slated to receive in the
class action settlement.
"Our objection is not to what prompted the settlement, but to
Verizon's attempt to use the settlement to eliminate our
arbitrations," he said. "Whether Verizon (or plaintiffs' counsel)
agrees with our strategy is irrelevant."
Murphy also pointed out the fundamental irony of the Verizon
settlement, in which the company is trying to use a class action to
settle claims by customers who are precluded under their wireless
contracts from bringing class action claims.
Verizon, for its part, has accused Murphy of trying to interfere
with a deal that will deliver "significant benefits" to its
customers.
Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Ana Viscomi will hear
arguments on Murphy's motion to intervene next month. [GN]
VISION SOLAR: Bid to Amend Complaint Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Solide v. Vision Solar FL,
LLC, et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-01932 (M.D. Fla., Filed Oct. 6,
2023), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order granting in
part and denying without prejudice in part motion to amend class
action complaint and to extend deadline to move for default
judgment.
-- On or before Jan. 9, 2024, the Plaintiffs may file an amended
pleading and must serve that amended pleading on or before Feb.
9,
2024.
-- The Plaintiffs may conduct limited discovery related to class
certification.
-- On or before Jan. 18, 2024, the Plaintiff's must file a renewed
motion proposing (and justifying) specific deadlines for
conducting discovery, moving for class certification, and
moving
for default judgment.
-- In the meantime, the deadline for Plaintiffs to seek default
judgment is stayed.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product
Liability.
Vision Solar is a residential solar panel provider.[CC]
WELCH FOODS: Winkelbauer Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW SINATRO and SHANE
WINKELBAUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. WELCH FOODS, INC., A Cooperative, and PROMOTION IN
MOTION, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-07028-JD (N.D. Cal.), Shane
Winkelbauer will move the Court on March 28, 2024 to enter an order
granting motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(2) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), on behalf of the following
Class:
"All persons who purchased the Products in the State of
California,
for personal use and not for resale, during the time period of
four
years prior to the filing of the Complaint through the
present."
Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants, their assigns,
successors, and legal representatives; (ii) any entities in
which
Defendants have controlling interests; (iii) federal, state,
and/or
local governments, including, but not limited to, their
departments, agencies, divisions, bureaus, boards, sections,
groups, counsels, and/or subdivisions; and (iv) any judicial
officer presiding over this matter and person within the third
degree of consanguinity to such judicial officer."
The Plaintiff also seeks an order that:
-- Appointing her as Class Representative; and
-- Appointing Ryan J. Clarkson, Bahar Sodaify, Kelsey Elling,
Alan
Gudino, and Ryan D. Ardi of Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. as Class
Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
Welch offers refrigerated juices, juice cocktails, jams and
jellies, and snacks.
A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 4, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48WsrpE at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
Alan Gudino, Esq.
Kelsey J. Elling, Esq.
Ryan D. Ardi, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com
agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com
kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com
rardi@clarksonlawfirm.com
WELLTOK INC: Fails to Safeguard Patients' Info, Salcedo Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER SALCEDO, on behalf of her minor child, L.S., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLTOK,
INC. and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-13097-ADB (D. Mass., December 15, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard personally identifiable information (PII) and protected
health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
patients stored within the Defendants' MOVEit software technology
following a data breach on or about May 30, 2023. The Defendants
also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
patients about the data breach. As a result, the private
information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Welltok, Inc. is a Software as a Service (SaaS) company based in
Colorado.
Progress Software Corporation is a technology company based in
Burlington, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Amanda M. Rolon, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-4478
E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
arolon@scott-scott.com
- and -
Erin Green Comite, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW
156 S. Main Street, P.O. Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
Telephone: (860) 537-5537
E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
KARON LLC
700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 622-1851
E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 234.6486
E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
WHITEFISH, MT: Court OK's Proposed Class Notice in Beck Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF BECK, individually;
AMY WEINBERG, individually; ZAC WEINBERG, individually; ALTA VIEWS,
LLC; and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons and
entities, v. CITY OF WHITEFISH, a Montana municipality, and DOES
1-10, Case No. 9:22-cv-00044-KLD (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge
Kathleen L. Desoto entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion to adopt proposed class notice and procedures:
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' proposed class notice and
opt-out procedures comply with the notice requirements for Rule
23(b)(3) classes set forth in Rule 23(c)(2)(B), F.R.Civ.P.
On Sept. 29, 2023, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), F.R.Civ.P., the
Montana Fed. Court certified in this action a class of:
"All persons or entities who bore the cost of impact fees for
water
and wastewater services to the City of Whitefish from January 1,
2019, to the present."
The class claims and issues certified are: All claims advanced in
the Plaintiffs' Complaint involving the City's allegedly unlawful
assessment of impact fees for water and wastewater services from
January 1, 2019, to the present.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RYctV0 at no extra charge.[CC]
[*] District Court Dismisses FDCPA Suit for Lack of Standing
------------------------------------------------------------
JD Supra reports that recently, the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York dismissed a class action lawsuit
alleging that a debt collector's (defendant) collection notice
violated the FDCPA by including two different balances absent any
explanation, leaving plaintiff confused and unable to pay the debt.
Plaintiff also alleged she suffered emotional harm and expended
time and money as a consequence of defendant's letter.
The district court held that plaintiff's "mere" allegations of
wasted time, resources, and efforts after receiving the collection
letter do not establish injury-in-fact. Furthermore, the
allegations do not support standing because "the burdens of
bringing a lawsuit cannot be the sole basis for standing."
Additionally, in response to claims of emotional harms, the
district court found that the allegations are "virtually identical
to those that have been rejected in other similar FDCPA cases."
Ultimately, the district court found that "plaintiff does not
clearly allege facts that demonstrate standing to pursue her claims
in federal court, and the Court consequently lacks jurisdiction
over this action." [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 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 ***