/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240223.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, February 23, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 40 Headlines 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Allison Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Buchanan Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Burch Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Carson Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Dennis Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Elisee Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Favors Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Garrido Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Kussman Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Lizarraga Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Moses Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Murray Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Robinson Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Smith Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Tillery Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Turner Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Willis Class Suit Alleges 3RD AVENUE: General Pretrial Management Entered in Yepez Class Suit ABC CORP: Xia Appeals Judgment in Bi FLSA Suit ALIBABA GROUP: Bid for Oral Argument Granted in Ciccarello Suit AMAZON.COM INC: June 12 Class Cert Filing Extension Sought AMAZON.COM INC: Mahone Loses Bid to Seal Documents AMAZON.COM INC: May 7 Class Cert Filing Extension Sought AMAZON.COM INC: Nov. 8 Class Cert Filing Extension Sought AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek OK of Class Cert. Briefing Schedule AMAZON.COM INC: Ramos Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal. AMAZON.COM INC: Suit Questions Added Charges for Ad-Free Video AMC NETWORKS: Kovacas Sues Over Ticket Service Fee Scheme AMPLITUDE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 15 AMYLYX PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Bids Deadline Set on Apr 9 APPLE INC: Parris Law Files Class Suit Over Defective MacBook Pro ATHIRA PHARMA: Court Preliminary Approved $10M Class Settlement ATLAS INSTALLERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chaney Alleges AXOS BANK: Blosser Sues over Bait and Switch Scheme BEST BUY: Faces Dean Class Suit Over Defective Pressure Cookers BHP GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over 2015 Samarco Dam Disaster BLACKSTONE CONSULTING: Class Settlement in Scott Gets Final Nod CAMPBELL SOUP: V8 Splash's Natural Label "False," Serrano Claims CARDINAL HEALTH: Drug Price-Rigging Suit Ongoing in PA Court CHILDHELP INC: Credit Card Suit May Proceed as Individual Claims COLUMBIA BANKING: Rhodes Suit Moved From W.D. Wash. to D. Mass. COMMUNITY CARE: Plaintiffs' Bid to Dismiss 11th Defense Tossed ENOVIX CORP: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Lithium-Ion Battery ENTREPRENEUR MEDIA: Faces Sancruzado Suit Over Collection Letter ESSA BANCORP: Continues to Defend RESPA Class Suit ESSA BANCORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit EXTRACTION OIL: C & M Suit Removed From State Ct. to D. Colo. FIDELITY NATIONAL: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Kettlewood Says FIRSTENERGY: Discovery in Consolidated Securities Suits Pending HEALTHEC LLC: Faces Schroeder Class Suit Over Breach of Contract HESS CORPORATION: Liable to 401(k) Plan Losses, Wagner Alleges HICKAM COMMUNITIES: Jabour Suit Removed from Cir. Ct. to D. Hawaii HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Faces Anti-Poaching Raps in Virginia Court INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL: Court Revives Suit on Fiduciary Duties ISLAND PALM: Martin Class Suit Removed from Cir. Ct. to D. Hawaii KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Blackstone Law Appointed as Class Counsel L.I. ADVENTURELAND: Leighley Sues Over Ticket Fee Scheme LEDGER SAS: Faces Banai Class Action Lawsuit in S.D. New York LEHIGH VALLEY: Faces Class Suit From 12 Families Over Child Abuse LESLIES POOLMART: Rodriguez Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal. LITIGATION PRACTICE: Beech Seeks OK of Amended Class Certification LITTLE CAESAR: Bid for Class Certification Modified to Sept. 9 LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON, KY: Class Cert Hearing Set for Feb. 21 LUXURBAN HOTELS: Pack Sues Over Continuous Drop of Stock Price MASTERCARD INC: Continues to Defend US Liability Shift Class Suit MASTERCARD INC: Summary Judgment Briefs Submitted MATCH GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Addictive Dating Platform MEDNAX SERVICES: Class Cert. Oral Argument Cancelled META PLATFORMS: Certifies Class Suit Over Market Dominance META PLATFORMS: Court Certifies Gormsen Privacy Class Suit META PLATFORMS: Lakeland, Indiana Joins Class Suit NEWTON TEACHERS: Faces Class Suit Over Lengthy Teachers' Strike NEWTON TEACHERS: Parents File Class Suit Over Teachers' Strike NOVO NORDISK: Plaintiffs Lose Bid to Certify Class in Chaires Suit NURX INC: Faces Simmons Suit Over Telephone Use Restrictions ONTARIO: Faces Class Suit Over Safe Injection Site PAYCOM SOFTWARE: Faces Schoenrock Suit Over Common Stock Prices PELHAM PHARMACY: Court Approves Class Settlement in Lopez Suit PELOTON INTERACTIVE: EDNY Dismisses Securities Suit PELOTON INTERACTIVE: SDNY Consolidates Two Securities Suits PELOTON INTERACTIVE: To Settle Securities Suit for $14M PEP BOYS: Campos Class Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal. PERRY JOHNSON: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Abdaljalil Says PHYSICIANS REALTY: Faces Frascarelli Class Action Suit in S.D.N.Y. PLURALSIGHT INC: Seeks to Clarify Class Certification Order PORT WASHINGTON: Faces Khan Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination POSTMEDS INC: Cohen Class Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to N.D. Cal. ROWDY BEVERAGE: Faces Cave $1M Class Action Lawsuit in M.D. Fla. SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Meal Breaks SCIENCE 37: Monteverde & Associates Investigates eMed Merger SIKA AG: Artificially Inflated CCAs' Prices, Park Construction Says SOLFI GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chavarria Alleges SULLIVAN & CROMWELL: Faces Class Action Suit Over FTX Fraud SYSCO SACRAMENTO: Fite Allowed Leave to File TAC by April 30 TD BANK: Ontario Court OKs $15.9-M Deal in NSF Fees Class Suit TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Settles NSF Fee Class Suit for $15.9M TWITTER INC: Frederick-Osborn Sues Over Sex and Age Discrimination UNITED STATES: All Pending Dates in Jimenez Stayed Until March 8 WAYNE BANK: Fails to Safeguard Clients' Info, Werkmeister Alleges WYNDHAM VACATION: Class Settlement in Bennett Gets Final Nod ZAC PRINCE: Elas' Bid for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff Nixed ZILLOW INC: Shofet Class Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal. [*] Port Moody Council to Join Suit Against Fossil Fuel Companies Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has $271MM Total Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $8.9MM Net Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l. Has $1.49BB Asbestos Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: UCC Has 6,367 Unresolved Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Reports $867MM Liability at Dec. 31 ********* 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Allison Class Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- LONNIE ALLISON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00085-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 5, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The complaint alleges Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff Lonnie Allison is a resident and citizen of Eagle Point, Jackson County, Oregon. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during the Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with liver cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; 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; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; 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.); and WILLFIRE HC LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Hendler, Esq. HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC 901 S. MoPac Expressway, Bldg. 1, STE 300 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 439-3202 Facsimile: (512) 439-3201 E-mail: shendler@hendlerlaw.com 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Buchanan Class Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- RUSSELL BUCHANAN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00087-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 5, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The complaint alleges that Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff Russell Buchanan is a resident and citizen of The Villages, Sumter County, Florida. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during the Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Ulcerative Colitis as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; 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; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; 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.); and WILLFIRE HC LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Hendler, Esq. HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC 901 S. MoPac Expressway, Bldg. 1, STE 300 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 439-3202 Facsimile: (512) 439-3201 E-mail: shendler@hendlerlaw.com 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Burch Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Burch v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00051-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 4, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The complaint alleges that the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Mr. Larry Burch is a resident and citizen of Covington, Kentucky. He was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting career. He was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a direct result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' products. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER 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.); and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 N. Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com - and - John E. Lichtenstein, Esq. LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC 347 Highland Avenue, Roanoke, VA 24016 Telephone: (540)343-9711 E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Carson Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Calvin James Carson, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00096-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action seeking 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). The complaint alleges that Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS 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. Mr. Calvin James Carson is a resident and citizen of Vicksburg, Mississippi. He was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting career. He was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer as a direct result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER 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.); and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 N. Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Dennis Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ALLEN DENNIS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00089-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 5, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The complaint alleges that Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff Allen Dennis is a resident and citizen of Reno, Washoe County, Nevada. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during the Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; 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; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; 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.); and WILLFIRE HC LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Hendler, Esq. HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC 901 S. MoPac Expressway, Bldg. 1, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 439-3202 Facsimile: (512) 439-3201 E-mail: shendler@hendlerlaw.com 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Elisee Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- THEODORE ELISEE v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00086-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 5, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff Theodore Elisee is a resident and citizen of Salinas, Monterey County, California. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during the Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian. The Plaintiff was allegedly diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; 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; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; 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.); and WILLFIRE HC LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Hendler, Esq. HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC 901 S. MoPac Expressway, Bldg. 1, STE 300 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 439-3202 Facsimile: (512) 439-3201 E-mail: shendler@hendlerlaw.com 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Favors Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH FAVORS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00088-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 5, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The complaint alleges that Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff Kenneth Favors is a resident and citizen of Elkton, Cecil County, Maryland. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during the Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian. He was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; 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; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; 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.); and WILLFIRE HC LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Hendler, Esq. HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC 901 S. MoPac Expressway, Bldg. 1, STE 300 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 439-3202 Facsimile: (512) 439-3201 E-mail: shendler@hendlerlaw.com 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Garrido Class Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anselmo John Garrido, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00092-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action seeking 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). The complaint alleges that Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS 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. Mr. Anselmo John Garrido is a resident and citizen of Oak Park, California. He was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and through his duties maintaining and cleaning exhaust pipes and aircraft during his working career in the military. He was allegedly diagnosed with Prostate Cancer as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER 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.); and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 N. Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Kussman Class Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Barry Kussman, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00129-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action seeking 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). The complaint alleges that Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS 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. Mr. Barry Kussman is a resident and citizen of Omaha, Nebraska. He was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting career. He was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a direct result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER 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.); and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 N. Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Lizarraga Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eugene Lizarraga v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00041-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 4, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. The complaint alleges that Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. The 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, says the suit. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff Eugene Lizarraga is a resident and citizen of Tucson, Arizona. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Testicular Cancer as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' products. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER 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.); and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 N. Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com - and - John E. Lichtenstein, Esq. LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC 347 Highland Avenue, Roanoke, VA 24016 Telephone: (540)343-9711 E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.co 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Moses Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Moses v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00138-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action seeking 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). The complaint alleges that Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS 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. Mr. Charles Moses is a resident and citizen of Houston, Texas. He was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting career. He was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer as a direct result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER 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.); and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 N. Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Murray Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Murray v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00108-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action seeking 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). The complaint alleges that Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS 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. Mr. Daniel Murray is a resident and citizen of Gaithersburg, Maryland. He was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting career. He was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer as a direct result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER 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.); and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 N. Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Robinson Class Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Keith Robinson v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00094-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action seeking 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). The complaint alleges that Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS 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. Mr. Brian Keith Robinson is a resident and citizen of Las Vegas, Nevada. He was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting career. He was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer as a direct result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER 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.); and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 N. Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Smith Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Francis A. Smith v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00044-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 4, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The complaint alleges that the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Mr. Francis A. Smith is a resident and citizen of Keystone Heights, Florida. He was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting career. He was diagnosed with Bladder Cancer as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' products. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER 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.); and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 N. Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com - and - John E. Lichtenstein, Esq. LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC 347 Highland Avenue, Roanoke, VA 24016 Telephone: (540)343-9711 E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Tillery Class Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Tillery v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00052-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 4, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The complaint alleges that the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Mr. Gary Tillery is a resident and citizen of Greeneville, Tennessee. He was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting career. He was diagnosed with Ulcerative Colitis as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' products. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER 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.); and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 N. Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com - and - John E. Lichtenstein, Esq. LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC 347 Highland Avenue, Roanoke, VA 24016 Telephone: (540)343-9711 E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Turner Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Andre Turner v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00097-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action seeking 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). The complaint asserts that Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting, says the suit. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. 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. Mr. Andre Turner is a resident and citizen of Webster, Texas. He was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and through his duties maintaining and cleaning exhaust pipes and aircraft during his working career in the military. He was diagnosed with Testicular Cancer as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER 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.); and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 N. Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Willis Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Douglas Willis v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00040-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 29, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. The complaint alleges that the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. The Defendants further designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. 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 Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Mr. Steven Douglas Willis is a resident and citizen of Connelly Springs, North Carolina. He was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting career. He was diagnosed with Bladder Cancer as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' products. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER 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.); and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 N. Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 E-mail: GregC@eglaw.com 3RD AVENUE: General Pretrial Management Entered in Yepez Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS YEPEZ, v. 3RD AVENUE DOLLAR LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00430-PAE-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows: -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. -- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. -- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. -- Counsel for the plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order on any defendant previously served with the summons and complaint, must serve this Order along with the summons and complaint on all defendants served hereafter, and must file proof of such service with the Court. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 24, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wgsT34 at no extra charge.[CC] ABC CORP: Xia Appeals Judgment in Bi FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------- Defendant Qin Ju Xia filed an appeal from the District Court's dated January 3, 2024 entered in the lawsuit entitled Jin Zhi Bi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. ABC Corp. (d/b/a Kung Fu Massage) and Qin Ju Xia (a.k.a Qiu Ju Xia or Lili), Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00023, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 1, 2018, the suit seeks unpaid wages, overtime, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, costs, interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a massage therapist at Kung Fu Massage inside the Connecticut Post Mall at 1201 Boston Post Rd. #2014, Milford, CT 06460. Jin seeks to recover wages for all hours worked and overtime compensation at rates not less than one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek. On January 3, 2024, the Court entered an Order signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer granting with modification Plaintiff's supplemental motion for default judgment and an award of damages and attorney fees and costs against Defendant. The Clerk of Court entered Judgment on January 4 in favor of Plaintiff Bi. Specifically, (1) Bi is awarded $51,644.30 (consisting of $3,720.76 in unpaid regular wages and $22,101.39 in overtime wages, plus liquidated damages of $25,822.15); and (2) Bi is further awarded attorney fees and costs of $48,290.75 (consisting of $47,220.75 in attorney fees and $1,070 in costs). The appellate case is captioned as ABC Corp., et al. v. Jin Zhi Bi, Case No. 24-234, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on Jan. 26, 2024.[BN] Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant QIN JU XIA, of Milford, CT, appears pro se. ALIBABA GROUP: Bid for Oral Argument Granted in Ciccarello Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ciccarello v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited et al. (ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 1:20-cv-09568-GBD-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge George B. Daniels entered an order granting both the Plaintiffs' motion for oral argument and the Defendants' motion for oral argument on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel. The oral argument is scheduled for April 24, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the Letter Motions for oral argument at ECF 102 and 109. Alibaba is a Chinese multinational technology company specializing in e-commerce, retail, Internet, and technology. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 24, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vw6bqI at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: June 12 Class Cert Filing Extension Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order that: 1. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their June 12, 2024 class certification motion is extended to: 2. The deadline for Amazon to respond to Sept. 11, 2024 Plaintiffs' motion is: 3. The deadline for Plaintiffs' reply Nov. 11, 2024 brief is: Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V4L67p at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com - and - Zina G. Bash, Esq. Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. Daniel Backman, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com Daniel.Backman@kellerpostman.com - and - Derek W. Loeser, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: Dloeser@kellerrohrback.com - and - Alicia Cobb, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. David D. LeRay, Esq. Nic V. Siebert, Esq. Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com davidleray@quinnemanuel.com nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 E-mail: JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Martha L. Goodman, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com mgoodman@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com AMAZON.COM INC: Mahone Loses Bid to Seal Documents -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YASMINE MAHONE and BRANDON TOLE, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00594-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Marsha J. Pechman entered an order denying motions to seal. -- The Clerk is directed to unseal Exhibits 1 through 14 of the Declaration of Brian Lawler and Exhibits 2 through 9 of the Declaration of Gene Stonebarger. -- The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel -- There are no grounds to allow the materials to remain under seal. Defendants have failed to file any response to the Motions to Seal, leaving the Court without any argument as to why the documents should be sealed. Even if they had, argument alone is not be sufficient. -- There is no evidence before the Court that the documents at issue contain trade secrets or other confidential information or that public access to the documents would cause Defendants an identifiable, significant harm. The Plaintiffs have filed both Motions to Seal in order to comply with the Stipulated Protective Order and to enable them to file on the docket documents and testimony Defendants have marked as confidential. Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mlklCm at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: May 7 Class Cert Filing Extension Sought -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH DE COSTER et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00693-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order regarding class certification briefing schedule as follows: 1. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their May 7, 2024 class certification motion is extended to: 2. The deadline for Amazon to respond to Aug. 7, 2024 Plaintiffs' motion is: 3. The deadline for Plaintiffs' reply brief is: Oct. 7, 2024 Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YAHEfN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com - and - Zina G. Bash, Esq. Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. Daniel Backman, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com Daniel.Backman@kellerpostman.com - and - Derek W. Loeser, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: Dloeser@kellerrohrback.com - and - Alicia Cobb, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. David D. LeRay, Esq. Nic V. Siebert, Esq. Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com davidleray@quinnemanuel.com nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 E-mail: JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Martha L. Goodman, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com mgoodman@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com AMAZON.COM INC: Nov. 8 Class Cert Filing Extension Sought --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BROWN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00965-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties asks the Court to enter an order that: 1. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Nov. 18, 2024 class certification motion is extended to: 2. The deadline for Amazon to respond to Feb. 18, 2025 Plaintiffs' motion is: 3. The deadline for Plaintiffs' reply brief is: May 27, 2025 Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o5CE6h at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com - and - Zina G. Bash, Esq. Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. Daniel Backman, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com Daniel.Backman@kellerpostman.com - and - Alicia Cobb, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. David D. LeRay, Esq. Nic V. Siebert, Esq. Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com davidleray@quinnemanuel.com nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 E-mail: JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Martha L. Goodman, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com mgoodman@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek OK of Class Cert. Briefing Schedule ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BROWN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00965-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties file stipulated motion and order regarding class certification briefing schedule as follows: The parties agree that good cause justifies an extension of the Court's current class certification briefing schedule, including to allow sufficient time to coordinate depositions with other litigation, including the appropriate depositions before a class certification motion. The parties agreed to "coordinate depositions of Amazon witnesses and minimize duplicative discovery in this matter and the People of California actions, as well as overlapping discovery in other litigation, including the Frame-Wilson and De Coster litigations." The parties seek an adjustment of the class certification briefing schedule to make coordinated depositions more feasible. The parties propose an interim modification of the schedule as follows: Current Schedule Proposed Schedule Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Sept. 16, 2024 Nov. 18, 2024 motion for class certification Opposition to Motion to Certify Dec. 16, 2024 Feb. 18, 2025 Class Reply in Support of Motion to March 27, 2025 May 27, 2025 Certify Class Hearing on Motion to To be set by To be set by Certify Class the Court the Court after briefing after briefing completed completed Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A0uypl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com - and - Zina G. Bash, Esq. Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. Daniel Backman, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com Daniel.Backman@kellerpostman.com - and - Alicia Cobb, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. David D. LeRay, Esq. Nic V. Siebert, Esq. Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com davidleray@quinnemanuel.com nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 E-mail: JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Martha L. Goodman, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com mgoodman@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com AMAZON.COM INC: Ramos Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazon.com, Inc. et al. The class action lawsuit captioned as Marcos Ramos et al v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., Case No. 23STCV28733 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 4, 2024. The Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00089-HDV-E to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Hernan D. Vera. Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher Ross Rodriguez, Esq. Andrew Daniel Bluth, Esq. John Richard Ternieden, Esq. Trent James Nelson, Esq. YuQing Min, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER LLP 1414 K Street Suite 470 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 248-8478 Facsimile: (619) 255-1515 E-mail: crodriguez@singletonschreiber.com abluth@singletonschreiber.com jternieden@singletonschreiber.com tnelson@singletonschreiber.com - and - Thomas Anthony Leary, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS LEARY, APC 3023 First Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 291-1900 Facsimile: (619) 291-2500 E-mail: tleary@learylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Erwin A. Reschke, Esq. John A. Goldmark, Esq. Heather Fay Canner, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 757-8064 Facsimile: (206) 757-7064 E-mail: erwinreschke@dwt.com johngoldmark@dwt.com heathercanner@dwt.com AMAZON.COM INC: Suit Questions Added Charges for Ad-Free Video -------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Syf, writing for Top Class Action, reports that a class action lawsuit claims Amazon added an unlawful $2.99 monthly charge for ad-free video for customers who had already paid for commercial-free service in an annual Prime membership. The changes came after Amazon had included ad-free video with its Prime memberships for more than a decade. Consumers who purchased the annual memberships should have reasonably believed that the video service would remain ad-free throughout their membership, the lawsuit argues. "This is not fair, because these subscribers already paid for the ad-free version; these subscribers should not have to pay an additional $2.99/month for something that they already paid for," the class action says. Amazon introduced the new Amazon Prime charge despite advertising "unlimited, commercial-free, instant streaming" for more than a decade until 2023, when class members paid for annual memberships, the class action says. Prime class action has 'millions or tens of millions' of potential class members There are 160 million Amazon Prime subscribers in the United States and likely "millions or tens of millions" have purchased annual subscriptions, the class action says. The plaintiffs are asking for restitution and an injunction against the fees, as well at attorneys' fees and costs. "Legal remedies here are not adequate because they would not stop defendant from continuing to engage in the deceptive practices," the class action claims. A pair of customers have voluntarily dropped a separate class action lawsuit against Amazon after accusing the company of failing to follow its Amazon Prime two-day shipping guarantee.[GN] AMC NETWORKS: Kovacas Sues Over Ticket Service Fee Scheme --------------------------------------------------------- NATALIE KOVACS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMC NETWORKS INC. d/b/a IFC CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 650700/2024 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Feb. 8, 2024) in an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly disclose the total cost for the purchase of tickets in violation of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to disclose a per-ticket $1.95 "Service Fee" which increases the total cost of the ticket during the purchase process but is only disclosed after the ticket is selected for purchase. The Service Fee is added to the total cost of the ticket price regardless of the delivery method of the ticket. AMC NETWORKS INC. operates as a holding company which produces independent films and original programming through its subsidiaries. The Company broadcasts and distributes its content on television, through online streaming services and on mobile platforms. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Edelsberg, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 3331 Sunset Avenue Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (917) 456-9603 Email: rachel@dapeer.com AMPLITUDE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 15 --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Amplitude, Inc. ("Amplitude" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:AMPL). Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. The class action concerns whether Amplitude and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until April 15, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Amplitude securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. On February 16, 2022, Amplitude reported its fourth quarter 2021 results and revised downward its 2022 fiscal guidance. Among other items, the Company revealed that its vaunted land-and-expand strategy, which Amplitude had claimed had already proven successful, was in fact poised to "take a few years" before it was expected to accelerate results and that despite prior assurances of sustainable growth, Amplitude management "really [did not] know" when this impact would occur. On this news, Amplitude's stock price fell $24.51 per share, or 58.9%, to close at $17.10 per share on February 17, 2022. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] AMYLYX PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Bids Deadline Set on Apr 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until April 9, 2024 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NasdaqGS: AMLX), if they purchased the Company's securities between November 11, 2022 and November 8, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. What You May Do If you purchased securities of Amylyx as above and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-amlx/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by April 9, 2024. About the Lawsuit Amylyx and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include, but are not limited to, that: (i) the Company had overstated the commercial prospects of its product, RELYVRIO, a treatment used for ALS; (ii) patients were discontinuing RELYVRIO treatment after six months; (iii) the rate at which new patients were starting treatment with RELYVRIO was decreasing; (iv) the Company had also overstated RELYVRIO's prescription rate; (v) the Company attempted to hide the foregoing negative trends from investors and the market by blocking analysts from viewing its prescription data; and (vi) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The case is Shih v. Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-00988. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients – including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, Delaware, California, Louisiana and New Jersey. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 960 New Orleans, LA 70163[GN] APPLE INC: Parris Law Files Class Suit Over Defective MacBook Pro ----------------------------------------------------------------- PARRIS Law Firm has filed a class action against Apple Inc. on behalf of MacBook Pro owners in the United States who have experienced a MacBook Pro display defect occurring after normal use. This is due to a failure of the laptop's display flex cable. Apple's MacBook Pro Display Flex Cable The Plaintiff alleges that in order to make the MacBook Pros thinner and sleeker, Apple used thin flexible ribbon cables to connect the display screen to the display controller board. The cables will function normally for year or two. However, over time, with the normal activity of simply opening and closing the laptop, the display cable wears down. It tears or becomes damaged since the cable is too short and rubs against the display board. This issue, colloquially known as "flexgate," causes the display screen to begin to have a "stage-lighting" effect, in which the screen will display alternating patches of light and darkness on the bottom of the display. Eventually, the screen will completely fail, causing the laptop to be entirely unusable. Unfortunately, this defect tends to become a problem outside of Apple's standard one-year warranty period. APPLE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE DEFECTIVE DISPLAY SCREENS Plaintiff alleges that the defective MacBook Pro screens are caused by Apple's poor design of the display flex cables; they are particularly thin and short in order to fit within the sleek MacBook Pro design. Apple could have designed a longer display flex cable. The company also could have designed the laptop so that the display flex cables aren't connected to the display screen, which causes the entire expensive display screen to require replacement in the event of a cable failure. Apple acknowledges that this problem occurs in some 13-inch 2016 MacBook Pros and has created a repair program just for those models. It will perform the display screen repair for free, or reimburse the cost of the repair for those select models. It refuses to repair or cover the cost of repair of other affected MacBook Pros, despite other models experiencing the exact same problem from the same defective design. Do You OWN A DEFECTIVE MACBOOK PRO? If you've experienced a failure of your MacBook Pro's display screen and would like updates on the status of the class action or are interested in getting in touch with us, please submit your information here or call (310) 824-5600. PARRIS Law Firm and the Plaintiff want Apple to disclose the defective nature of the display cables, refund consumers' MacBook Pro repair and replacement costs, and expand AppleCare and the display repair program service to other affected MacBook Pro models. [GN] ATHIRA PHARMA: Court Preliminary Approved $10M Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Vilensky of Bloomberg Law reports that Athira Pharma Inc. and investors who had alleged claims against the company in a class action lawsuit persuaded a federal judge to preliminarily approve a roughly $10 million settlement, bringing the litigation closer to an end. Investors alleging the biopharmaceutical company failed to disclose altered images in its Alzheimer's research sued in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Judge Thomas S. Zilly denied preliminary approval of a settlement last year, citing concerns that the lead plaintiffs could not bring claims that other members of the class could. [GN] ATLAS INSTALLERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chaney Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JERRY LEE CHANEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATLAS INSTALLERS L.L.C.; and TRENT COLLINS, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00126 (W.D. Mich., Feb. 8, 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 Chaney was employed by the Defendants as window treatment laborer. ATLAS INSTALLERS L.L.C. is a window installation service company. The company specializes in installing blinds, shades, shutters, draperies, artwork, TV's, and closet organization systems. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq. Victor M. Jimenez, Esq. AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC 600 28th St. SW Wyoming, MI 49509 Telephone: (616) 257-6807 Email: ralvarez@avantilaw.com AXOS BANK: Blosser Sues over Bait and Switch Scheme --------------------------------------------------- MARK BLOSSER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AXOS BANK, d/b/a/ UFB DIRECT; and DOES 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00259-WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal., Feb. 8, 2024) alleges violation of the Unfair Competition Law. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, unknown to the Plaintiff and thousands of other unwitting consumers nationwide who were induced by UFB's aggressive marketing into opening what UFB represented were its "variable," and "highest yielding savings accounts we offer," they were victims of a deceptive and malicious bait and switch. Without notice, UFB continually reclassified their "highest yielding" accounts as "legacy" accounts, meaning they were no longer offering them to new customers. and froze and decreased their APY, while simultaneously slapping a new name on the "highest-yielding" savings accounts and offering them to new customers with a higher annual percentage yield, says the suit. AXOS BANK, d/b/a/ UFB DIRECT is a full-service bank. The Bank offers savings accounts, personal and business loans, debit and credit cards, letter of credit, certificate of deposits, mortgages, and other related products and services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Helen I. Zeldes, Esq. Joshua A. Fields, Esq. Aya Dardari, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-4990 Email: hzeldes@sshhzlaw.com jfields@sshhzlaw.com adardari@sshhzlaw.com BEST BUY: Faces Dean Class Suit Over Defective Pressure Cookers --------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE DEAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BEST BUY CO., INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-00030-SRN-ECW (D. Minn., Jan. 5, 2024) alleges that the Defendant's Insignia Pressure Cookers, with model numbers NS-MC60SS8, NS-MC60SS9, NS-MC80SS9, NS-MCRP6NS9 and NS-MCRP6SS9, suffer from serious and dangerous defects. On October 26, 2023, the Defendant recalled nearly 930,000 of the above-referenced Recalled Pressure Cookers. Specifically, these Recalled Pressure Cookers have dangerously defective and/or incorrect volume markings on the inner pot. The Defect can cause consumers to overfill the pot resulting in hot food and liquids being ejected when the pressure cooker is vented using the quick release method or opened while its contents are pressurized, posing a burn hazard to consumers, the suit asserts. The Defendant breached express warranties as to the Recalled Pressure Cookers and their abilities and qualities because the Defendant's Recalled Pressure Cookers contained defects rendering them unsafe for their intended use. Thus, the Recalled Pressure Cookers do not conform to the Defendant's affirmations and promises. Due to the Defendant's breach of warranty, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered and continue to suffer financial damage and injury, and are entitled to all damages, in addition to costs, interest, and fees, including attorneys' fees, as allowed by law. The Plaintiff suffered injury through the Defendant's conduct because he suffered economic loss and purchased a pressure cooker that is now worthless and unsafe, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff purchased the Pressure Cooker, with the Model Number of NS-MC80SS9, from the Defendant Best Buy online in 2021 based on the representations made by the Defendant. The Defendant designs, manufactures, markets, imports, distributes and sells consumer electronics and kitchen products, including the subject "Insignia Multi-Function Pressure Cooker."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad C. Alexander, Esq. SIEBEN POLK, P.A. Eagan Woods Office Center 2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 50 Eagan, MN 55121-1170 Telephone: (651) 437-3148 E-mail: CAlexander@siebenpolklaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 1 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com BHP GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over 2015 Samarco Dam Disaster ---------------------------------------------------------- Ben Edwards of The Global Legal Post reports that class action specialist Pogust Goodhead is opening an office in Sydney as the firm looks to step up the pressure on Australian mining giant BHP, which it is pursuing a multi-billion dollar class action claim against. Pogust Goodhead is leading a $70bn class action against BHP over the 2015 Samarco dam disaster in Brazil, which killed 19 people and flooded and destroyed entire villages with a deluge of toxic waste. The firm said the new Sydney office will serve as a local base to launch claims against Australian companies that are failing to meet their social and environmental obligations. Tom Goodhead, global managing partner of Pogust Goodhead, said: "We are establishing a base in BHP's backyard to ensure we explore every avenue in our fight for justice for the victims of one the world's worst environmental disasters." "The mining sector in Australia plays a vital role in ensuring the availability of increasingly important rare and critical minerals, which makes it a major driver of economic growth and wellbeing. However, with this enormous wealth and influence comes a responsibility to the communities in which they operate – a responsibility premised on basic decency and fairness." The Sydney office will be led by partner and Australia head Amie Crichton alongside partner Joshua Carton. Crichton arrives at Pogust Goodhead having spent the past six years running her own firm, Crichton & Co. Prior to that she spent eight years at Norton Rose Fulbright in Sydney, latterly as a special counsel. Carton, a commercial litigator and class action specialist, moves over with Crichton from Crichton & Co, which he joined back in 2021. Crichton said: "Pogust Goodhead's arrival in Australia is more than just another player in the legal field. What sets the firm apart is its global reputation and extensive network. In bringing their resources, knowledge and invaluable strategic partnerships to Australian shores, the firm is empowering individuals to seek justice on an unprecedented scale." The multi-billion dollar BHP class action is due to go to trial in London in October, though Goodhead already has his sights set on other potential cases. "We are investigating a number of new cases against Australian multinational corporations, such as BHP, in which their commitment to [the communities they operate in] has been seriously thrown into question. With the launch of our Sydney office, we are putting Australian corporations on notice that we are ready to hold them to account."  Last month, HFW added a four-lawyer disputes team from Clyde & Co in Australia, including partner Maurice Thompson who will lead the firm's global litigation funding team. [GN] BLACKSTONE CONSULTING: Class Settlement in Scott Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PENNY A. SCOTT, on behalf of herself and other aggrieved and similarlysituated employees, et al., v. BLACKSTONE CONSULTING, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-01470-MMA-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Anello entered an order granting motion for final approval of class action settlement. -- The Court certifies the Settlement Class for the purposes of the Settlement. -- The Court approves the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). -- The Court orders the parties to undertake the obligations set forth in the Settlement Agreement that arise out of this Order. -- The Court awards attorneys' fees to Class Counsel in the amount of $333,333.33 and costs in the amount of $15,204.08. -- The Court awards to the Settlement Administrator CPT Group Inc. administration costs in the amount of $14,750. -- The Court further awards to Plaintiffs an incentive payment for work performed as the class representatives in the amount of $5,000 each. -- The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter a separate judgment of dismissal in accordance herewith, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), and to close the case. The Plaintiff Scott was employed by BCI as a non-exempt Security Officer at the Kaiser Permanente Zion Medical Center from December 2017 through March 2021. He initiated this putative class action on August 18, 2021. On Dec. 1, 2022, Scott and BCI participated in an all-day mediation, along with four other aggrieved individuals: Kawana Anderson, Tiffany Lockett, Tocashema Williams, and Ahmir Ringo. The Defendant hires, employs, manages, and provides service employees to hospitals, schools, universities, and industrial sites throughout California. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 24, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ljb2rS at no extra charge.[CC] CAMPBELL SOUP: V8 Splash's Natural Label "False," Serrano Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- MONIC SERRANO and DEBRA SHAW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01176 (C.D. Cal., February 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Unfair Competition Law, California False Advertising Law, New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraud by omission, and fraud in the inducement. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of a line of beverages called "V8 Splash." The Defendants labeled and advertised the V8 Splash products as if they were solely naturally-flavored beverages, with the names of fruits and berries and photo-realistic images of fresh, ripe, natural fruits and berries. In reality, the products are predominantly water and sweeteners, artificially flavored to mimic the taste of fruit. The Plaintiffs and the Class would not have purchased the products in the absence of the Defendant's affirmative misrepresentations and omissions. Campbell Soup Company is a food company headquartered in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc L. Godino, Esq. Keven F. Ruf, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: mgodino@glancylaw.com kruf@glancylaw.com CARDINAL HEALTH: Drug Price-Rigging Suit Ongoing in PA Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Cardinal Health, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended December 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2024, that since December 2019, pharmaceutical distributors including Cardinal were added as defendants in a civil class action lawsuit filed by indirect purchasers of generic drugs, such as hospitals and retail pharmacies. The indirect purchaser case is part of a multidistrict litigation consisting of multiple individual class action matters consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The indirect purchaser plaintiffs allege that pharmaceutical distributors encouraged manufacturers to increase prices, provided anti-competitive pricing information to manufacturers and improperly engaged in customer allocation. In May 2020, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss. In July 2022, the indirect purchasers filed an amended complaint and in August 2022, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Cardinal Health, Inc. is a global healthcare services and products company providing customized solutions for hospitals, healthcare systems, pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, physician offices and patients in the home. CHILDHELP INC: Credit Card Suit May Proceed as Individual Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Karlik of Colorado Politics reports that Colorado's second-highest court clarified on February 15, 2024 that lawsuits filed as class actions may still proceed for the individual named plaintiffs in the event a judge declines to authorize the class portion. A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals noted the U.S. Supreme Court, for federal cases, has ruled the lack of a class does not terminate an entire class action lawsuit. Instead, plaintiffs may continue to litigate only their own claim. "These same principles apply here," wrote Judge Timothy J. Schutz on Feb. 15, addressing the issue for the first time in a precedent-setting decision. Christopher Thomas filed a class action lawsuit in state court on behalf of himself and those whose alleged injuries were similar to his. Specifically, Thomas claimed a street solicitor for the nonprofit Childhelp asked Thomas for a donation. Thomas donated $10 by credit card, but Childhelp continued to charge him $10 monthly until Thomas canceled his card. Thomas, representing himself, alleged Childhelp violated the Colorado Consumer Protection Act by deceptively signing him up for recurring donations without Thomas' consent. He claimed other people were similarly misled and that Childhelp's executives enriched themselves through donations. Thomas pursued the relief provided under Colorado law for himself and all other class members: either $500 per person or the actual damages incurred, whichever is greater. However, Thomas failed to seek a judge's certification of the class by the deadline. The process requires judges to evaluate certain criteria and determine if a class action is appropriate. In January 2023, Denver District Court Judge A. Bruce Jones sided with Childhelp, citing the "belated evolution" of Thomas' lawsuit from a class action to an individual claim. "Plaintiff filed a class action complaint, and only a class action complaint. He did not separately allege an individual claim," Jones wrote, adding that he was "not condoning Defendant's fund raising activities, which the record strongly suggests are indeed deceptive." Thomas turned to the Court of Appeals, arguing his complaint included a claim for the class and a claim for himself that was still viable. Otherwise, Jones could have thrown out the case the day after the deadline for class certification, which he did not. "Thomas wasted an extraordinary amount of Childhelp's time and money and the trial court's resources in litigation," responded Childhelp's lawyers, "all over $20. That Thomas would even appeal the trial court's ruling over $20 is the very definition of frivolous." The appellate panel, however, disagreed that the appeal lacked merit. "A class action claim is made by an individual who alleges that they suffered injuries caused by a defendant's wrongful conduct, and that other persons similarly situated to the individual have suffered similar injuries," Schutz explained. "Ultimately, Thomas failed to obtain certification and the class action aspect of his claim fails. But his individual claim for deceptive trade practices remains unadjudicated." The panel also disagreed with Jones' second conclusion that Thomas, having been reimbursed the $20 by his credit card company, had not sustained any damages from Childhelp's alleged deception. Under Colorado law, Childhelp could still be held liable if Thomas' reimbursement was the result of a contract with his credit card company. Because Childhelp had not presented evidence to dispute Thomas' reimbursement as contract-based -- and Jones had not addressed that question in his ruling -- the appellate panel determined Thomas' individual claim was viable. The case is Thomas v. Childhelp, Inc. [GN] COLUMBIA BANKING: Rhodes Suit Moved From W.D. Wash. to D. Mass. --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT RHODES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COLUMBIA BANKING SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a UMPQUA BANK, Case No. 1:24-cv-10036-ADB (Sept. 22, 2023) is transferred from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Jan. 4, 2024. The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-05753-DGE to the proceedings. Columbia Bank is a full-service Northwest community bank.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jessica M. Andrade, Esq. POLSINELLI PC 1000 2nd Avenue, Suite 3500 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 393-5400 Facsimile: (206) 393-5401 E-mail: jessica.andrade@polsinelli.com COMMUNITY CARE: Plaintiffs' Bid to Dismiss 11th Defense Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORETHA BEH, RUBY CASON, BRIANA KINCANNON, and KIMBERLY BALKUM, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. COMMUNITY CARE COMPANIONS INC., ALEXANDER J. CARO, MARK GATIEN, INTERIM HEALHCARE OF ROCHESTER, INC., and JAMES WATSON, Case No. 1:19-cv-01417-JLS-MJR (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Michael J. Romer entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss and/or strike defenses. The Plaintiffs seeks dismissal of Defendants' 11th defense, which asserts that the defendants are not subject to liability because they acted in good faith and in reliance on U.S. Department of Labor and New York State Department of Labor administrative regulations, orders, rulings, interpretations, practices, and policies. Community Care is a home care and nurse staffing agency specializing in hourly and live-in care. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 24, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K9Sl7w at no extra charge.[CC] ENOVIX CORP: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Lithium-Ion Battery ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP of JDSupra reports that on January 30, 2024, Judge Susan Illston of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted with leave to amend a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a battery company and its directors and officers. In Re Enovix Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 23-cv-00071-SI (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2024). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5(b) promulgated thereunder by failing to disclose that the Company overlooked critical testing of its manufacturing equipment, which led to equipment failure that caused the Company to miss its performance targets. According to the complaint, the Company has been developing its lithium-ion ("li-ion") technology since 2007 and began manufacturing in 2012. Plaintiffs alleged that in February 2021, the Company announced plans to go public through a de-SPAC merger and announced its "ambitious goal" to develop its own U.S.-based manufacturing line and begin delivering products to customers by the second quarter 2022. According to plaintiffs, the Company released an investor presentation on February 22, 2021, projecting its production line would be able to manufacture one battery every two seconds and produce 500 units per hour, and claiming that the manufacturing equipment used to produce those batteries was already at the "factory acceptance testing" ("FAT") stage and that all manufacturing equipment would be subject to "site acceptance testing" ("SAT") and FAT. Plaintiffs alleged that due to COVID-related supply chain and travel issues—and in order to speed up delivery of the equipment from China to the U.S.—the Company waived FAT of equipment leaving a facility in China, and that once the equipment arrived in the U.S., the Company did not conduct SAT, none of which was allegedly disclosed to investors. Plaintiffs further alleged that the Company opted against—but did not disclose—sending its U.S. vendors to China to conduct inspections or to bring China-based engineers to the U.S. to conduct testing. Plaintiffs alleged that, in total, between February 22, 2021, and March 25, 2022, defendants made thirteen false or misleading statements or omissions regarding the qualification of its manufacturing equipment, including misrepresentations regarding the FAT and SAT conducted on the manufacturing equipment. Plaintiffs alleged that subsequently, in the second half of 2022, the Company began to gradually reveal that the risks, concealed by defendants' failure to disclose that they had bypassed the FAT and SAT, were materializing. Between 2022 and January 2023, plaintiffs alleged that defendants made various statements indicating that the Company would significantly miss revenue and production projections, that it had terminated its CEO, that the first production line was "nonfunctional from an automation point of view," and that the second production line was only half-built. Plaintiffs alleged that these statements caused a progressive decline in the Company's share price from a close of $17.99 per share on November 1, 2022, to a close of $7.15 on January 4, 2023. The Court turned first to the alleged affirmative statements regarding the Company's implementation of FAT and SAT. The Court found that the allegations that the Company waived FAT and SAT completely were conclusory at best, noting that the complaint did not assert that the Company "conducted no testing at all." According to the Court, defendants only admitted that, in the midst of a global pandemic, they did not send their vendor-engineers to China, that they did not bring their China-based engineers to the U.S. to conduct testing and that plaintiffs failed to identify any statements that stated or implied the Company would send its engineers to China or bring the engineers from China to California to conduct testing. Turning next to the alleged omissions, the Court held that these were not actionable, as plaintiffs' theory relied on the Company having waived FAT and SAT entirely, which was not sufficiently alleged in the complaint. The Court held that, contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the PSLRA did not require that every reference to installation of equipment, supply chain constraints and vendor support must contain a caveat that the Company had otherwise waived FAT and SAT. The Court further held that several of the challenged statements constituted risk disclosures that were not actionable because plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that they contained misstatements or omissions of any material information. For example, the Court noted that the risk disclosures did not state or imply that engineers would travel to the vendor's factory in China or that the vendor's engineers would travel to the Company. The Court further noted that "[n]owhere [did] the complaint allege that the risks warned of were beginning to materialize as of . . . the latest date of the various challenged statements" and thus "even taking as true plaintiffs' allegations that the manufacturing problems were materializing in the second half of 2022, and that defendants knew of these problems, this would not have rendered any prior risk disclosures false. Finally, the Court found that plaintiffs' scienter theory depended entirely on an admission that the complaint did not actually allege defendants made. The Court noted that the complaint alleged that the CEO admitted only to waiving the milestones that involved sending the Company's engineers to the vendor's factory in China and having the vendor's engineers travel to the U.S. to install the manufacturing equipment—not waiving all milestones for the testing of the testing for the first production line. The Court further held that the complaint did not allege with particularity what defendants knew and when, and therefore was insufficient to show that any individual defendant knew any of the challenged statements were false or misleading when made. Having found that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege a primary violation of Section 10(b), the Court also dismissed plaintiffs' derivative claim for control person liability under Section 20(a). [GN] ENTREPRENEUR MEDIA: Faces Sancruzado Suit Over Collection Letter ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD SANCRUZADO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. ENTREPRENEUR MEDIA LLC, Case No. 189082179 (Fla. Cir., Jan. 4, 2024) sues the Defendant for violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. On December 22, 2023, the Defendant sent an electronic mail communication to the Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt. The Communication advised: " $5.00 payment to Entrepreneur Media LLC was unsuccessful[.] We were unable to charge your Visa ending in [redacted] for your Entrepreneur Media LLC subscription. Please update your billing information to continue your subscription." According to the complaint, the communication was sent by the Defendant to Plaintiff at 1:18 AM in the Plaintiff's time zone, and was received by the Plaintiff at 1:18 AM in the Plaintiff's time zone. The Defendant did not have the consent of the Plaintiff to communicate with the Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM, the suit adds. The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Florida, residing in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Entrepreneur Media operates as a publishing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com ESSA BANCORP: Continues to Defend RESPA Class Suit -------------------------------------------------- ESSA Bancorp Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2024, that Company continues to defend itself from the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act class suit. The Company and its subsidiary, ESSA Bank and Trust ("ESSA B&T") were named as defendants, among others, in an action commenced on December 8, 2016 by one plaintiff who sought to pursue the suit as a class action on behalf of the entire class of people similarly situated. The plaintiff alleged that a bank previously acquired by the Company received unearned fees and kickbacks in the process of making loans, in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. In an order dated January 29, 2018, the district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiff appealed the court's ruling. In an opinion and order dated April 26, 2019, the appellate court reversed the district court's order dismissing the plaintiff's case against the Company and remanded the case to the district court in order to continue the litigation. The litigation is now proceeding before the district court. On December 9, 2019, the court permitted an amendment to the complaint to add two new plaintiffs to the case asserting similar claims. On May 21, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Fact and expert discovery is now complete, and the Company and ESSA B&T filed motions seeking to have the case dismissed (in whole or in part) and/or the class de-certified, as well as for other relief. Plaintiffs opposed the motions. On August 18, 2023 the Court granted the motions to dismiss as to the Company and ESSA B&T, with the result that the only remaining defendant is a now-dissolved former wholly-owned subsidiary of a previously-acquired company. The Court also amended its class certification order. Plaintiffs sought permission to appeal from these and other related rulings but the court denied their request. The Company and ESSA B&T will continue to vigorously defend against plaintiffs' allegations. ESSA Bancorp, Inc. is a holding company of ESSA Bank & Trust based in Pennsylvania. ESSA BANCORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------- ESSA Bancorp Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and Sherman Act class suit. On May 29, 2020, the Company and ESSA B&T were named as defendants in a second action commenced by three plaintiffs who also seek to pursue this action as a class action on behalf of the entire class of people similarly situated. The plaintiffs allege that a bank previously acquired by the Company received unearned fees and kickbacks from a different title company than the one involved in the previously discussed litigation in the process of making loans. The original complaint alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Sherman Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). The plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on September 30, 2020 that dropped the RICO claim, but they are continuing to pursue the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and Sherman Act claims. The defendants moved to dismiss the Sherman Act claim on October 14, 2020, and that motion was denied on April 2, 2021. On March 13, 2023 the court granted plaintiff' motion for class certification. The case is currently in the discovery phase. The Company and ESSA B&T intend to vigorously defend against plaintiffs' allegations. ESSA Bancorp, Inc. is a holding company of ESSA Bank & Trust based in Pennsylvania. EXTRACTION OIL: C & M Suit Removed From State Ct. to D. Colo. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Extraction Oil & Gas, Inc. The class action lawsuit captioned as C & M Resources, LLC et al. v. Extraction Oil & Gas, Inc., Case No. 2019CV034705, was removed from the Denver County District Court to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on Jan. 5, 2024. The Colorado District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00037-MEH to the proceeding. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael E. Hegarty. Extraction Oil is an independent energy exploration and development company focused on exploring, developing and producing crude oil, natural gas and NGL primarily in the Wattenberg Field in the Denver-Julesburg Basin of Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George A. Barton, Esq. Stacy Ann Burrows, Esq. BARTON & BURROWS, LLC 5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110 Mission, KS 66205 Telephone: (913) 563-6250 E-mail: george@bartonburrows.com stacy@bartonburrows.com The Defendant is represented by: Craig Maxwell Finger, Esq. Justin L. Cohen, Esq. Matthew C. Arentsen, Esq. BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK LLP 675 15th Street, Suite 2900 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 223-1100 Facsimile: (303) 223-1111 E-mail: cfinger@bhfs.com jcohen@bhfs.com marentsen@bhfs.com FIDELITY NATIONAL: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Kettlewood Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- CODY KETTLEWOOD and RICHARD FREIRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC., and LOANCARE, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00012-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla., Jan. 5, 2024) sues the Defendants for failing to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On November 19, 2023, the Defendants became aware of a successful attack on FNF's information technology network. Over 1.3 million consumers' information was affected by the Data Breach, including names, Social Security numbers and loan numbers. The sensitive nature of the data exposed through the Data Breach, including Social Security numbers, signifies that the Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered irreparable harm. The Plaintiffs and Class members have lost the ability to control their private information and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft, the lawsuit asserts. The Defendants also inexcusably delayed disclosing and providing notice of the Data Breach to their customers. Despite FNF's public disclosure on November 19th, 2023, LoanCare customers were not notified until December 22, 2023, the lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Kettlewood obtained his mortgage in Delaware. As a consequence of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff has been forced to and will continue to invest significant time monitoring his accounts to detect and reduce the consequences of likely identity fraud. Plaintiff Freire received a notice of data breach letter -- dated December 22, 2023 -- from LoanCare informing him that PII was compromised in the Data Breach. Since the Data Breach, the Plaintiff Freire has been notified of fraudulent attempts to login to several of his accounts, including Microsoft and Paypal. FNF is a leading provider of title insurance and transaction services to the real estate and mortgage industries.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan M. Stein, Esq. STEINLAW FLORIDA, PLLC 1825 NW Corporate Blvd., Suite 110 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 834-2699 E-mail: jon@SteinLawFlorida.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Courtney Maccarone, Esq. Gary I. Ishimoto, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com cmaccarone@zlk.com gishimoto@zlk.com FIRSTENERGY: Discovery in Consolidated Securities Suits Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- FirstEnergy Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2024, that all discovery in the consolidated securities class suits are stayed during district court motion pendency. In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation (S.D. Ohio); on July 28, 2020 and August 21, 2020, purported stockholders of FE filed putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Those actions have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff, the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, has been appointed by the court. A consolidated complaint was filed on February 26, 2021. The consolidated complaint alleges, on behalf of a proposed class of persons who purchased FE securities between February 21, 2017 and July 21, 2020, that FE and certain current or former FE officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing misrepresentations or omissions concerning FE's business and results of operations. The consolidated complaint also alleges that FE, certain current or former FE officers and directors, and a group of underwriters violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 as a result of alleged misrepresentations or omissions in connection with offerings of senior notes by FE in February and June 2020. On March 30, 2023, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On April 14, 2023, FE filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit seeking to appeal that order, which the Sixth Circuit granted on November 16, 2023. On November 30, 2023, FE filed a motion with the S.D. Ohio to stay all proceedings pending the circuit court appeal. All discovery is stayed during the pendency of the district court motion. FE believes that it is probable that it will incur a loss in connection with the resolution of this lawsuit. Given the ongoing nature and complexity of such litigation, FE cannot yet reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss. FirstEnergy is an electric utility headquartered in Akron, Ohio. It was established when Ohio Edison acquired Centerior Energy in 1997. HEALTHEC LLC: Faces Schroeder Class Suit Over Breach of Contract ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HEALTHEC, LLC. The case is captioned as SCHROEDER v. HEALTHEC, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00096-JKS-ESK (D.N.J., Jan. 5, 2024). The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jamel K. Semper. HealthEC develops and delivers end-to-end technology solutions for exchanging healthcare information and managing population health.[BN] Plaintiff JESSICA SCHROEDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com HESS CORPORATION: Liable to 401(k) Plan Losses, Wagner Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA WAGNER, individually and on behalf of the HESS CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' SAVINGS PLAN, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HESS CORPORATION, HESS CORPORATION EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE, BRENT L.SCHWARTZ, and JOHN AND JANE DOE DEFENDANTS 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 6:24-cv-00004-H (N.D. Tex., February 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties and failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, the Defendants, as fiduciaries of the Hess Corporation Employees' Savings Plan, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiff, and to other participants and beneficiaries of the Plan during the Class Period by failing to adequately monitor and control fees, expenses, and costs, allowing service providers to charge excessive fees, expenses, and costs. Moreover, the Defendants failed to perform their fiduciary monitoring duties. As a result of the Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan and breaches of their duty to monitor, the Plan and its participants suffered millions of dollars in losses, says the suit. Hess Corporation is a global independent energy company, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew C. Whitaker, Esq. Parker D. Young, Esq. FIGARI + DAVENPORT, LLP 901 Main Street, Suite 3400 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 939-2000 Facsimile: (214) 939-2090 E-mail: andrew.whitaker@figdav.com parker.young@figdav.com - and - Scott Nehrbass, Esq. FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP 7500 College Boulevard, Suite 1400 Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: (913) 253-2144 Facsimile: (913) 498-2101 E-mail: snehrbass@foulston.com HICKAM COMMUNITIES: Jabour Suit Removed from Cir. Ct. to D. Hawaii ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hickam Communities, LLC. The class action lawsuit captioned as Jabour et al., v. Hickam Communities, LLC, Case No. 1CCV-23-0001488 was removed from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit to the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii on Jan. 4, 2024. The Hawaii District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00001-LEK-KJM to the proceeding. The nature of suit states Contract related issues. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi. Hickam provides military housing experience for the community.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bridget G. Morgan-Bickerton, Esq. James J. Bickerton, Esq. BICKERTON LAW GROUP LLLP 745 Fort St Ste 801 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 599-3811 Facsimile: (808) 694-6030 E-mail: morgan@bsds.com bickerton@bsds.com - and - Wayne D. Parsons, Esq. WAYNE PARSONS LAW OFFICES 1406 Colburn St Ste 201C Honolulu, HI 96817 Telephone: 845-2211 Facsimile: 843-0100 E-mail: wparsons@Alohano.com Defendant Hickam Communities, LLC is represented by: Bruce D. Voss, Esq. Jai W. Keep-Barnes, Esq. Matthew C. Shannon, Esq. BAYS ROSE LUNG & WAGNILD Topa Financial Center 700 Bishop St Ste 900 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: 523-9000 E-mail: bvoss@legalhawaii.com jkeep-barnes@legalhawaii.com mshannon@legalhawaii.com HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Faces Anti-Poaching Raps in Virginia Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2024, that on October 6, 2023, a class action antitrust lawsuit was filed against the company and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The lawsuit names several HII companies, among other companies, as defendants. The named plaintiffs generally allege that the defendant companies have adhered to a "gentlemen's agreement" that prohibits any defendant from actively recruiting naval engineers from other defendants. The complaint seeks class certification, treble damages, and any other relief to which the plaintiffs are entitled. Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. is a global, all-domain defense partner, building and delivering survivable naval ships and technologies. Its Ingalls Shipbuilding segment in Mississippi and Newport News Shipbuilding segment in Virginia have built more ships in more ship classes than any other U.S. naval shipbuilder, making it the largest shipbuilder in US. INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL: Court Revives Suit on Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------- that A recent decision by the Court of Appeal for Ontario has revived a proposed class action alleging breach of fiduciary duty by investment advisors who failed to disclose a significant conflict of interest. In Boal v. International Capital Management, the Divisional Court had concluded that regulatory "best interest" standards -- such as those found in the rules of the Mutual Fund Dealers Association ("MFDA") -- do not automatically create a fiduciary relationship between investment advisors and their clients. As a result, the Divisional Court dismissed a proposed class action because it found that the plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty was based solely on an alleged breach of the MFDA rules. We covered the Divisional Court's decision in a previous post, available here. That decision was recently overturned by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found that the plaintiff had pleaded other facts that, if true, could give rise to a fiduciary duty between the advisors and client. The Court of Appeal did not specifically address the issue of whether professional rules alone can give rise to a fiduciary relationship; instead, it affirmed longstanding case law that holds that the existence of a fiduciary relationship depends on several factors. Background The plaintiff, a client of the CIRO-registered defendants, started a class action for investment losses relating to investments in promissory notes in Invoice Payment Systems Corp. ("IPS"). The defendants and their immediate family members owned 75% of the IPS shares, but did not disclose this information to their clients before recommending the notes. The plaintiff brought a claim for breach of fiduciary duty and later sought to have it certified as a class action. Court of Appeal Decision The Court of Appeal held that the claim did disclose a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. In its reasons, the Court of Appeal highlighted the interrelated factors that must be considered when determining whether a professional investment advisor owes a fiduciary duty to a client. Those factors include the client's vulnerability, the client's reliance on and trust in the advisor, the extent to which the advisor has power or discretion over the client's account, and any professional rules or codes of conduct applicable to the advisor. The Court of Appeal found that the plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty did not rest solely on the defendants' breach of the former MFDA rules and bylaws in selling the promissory notes. Instead, taken as a whole, the claim also pleaded other facts that, if true, could give rise to a fiduciary duty. The Court of Appeal noted, for example, that the claim pleads that the relationship between the plaintiff and defendants with respect to the promissory notes was "one of vulnerability, trust, and reliance" in which the defendants "undertook to act in their clients' best interests." The claim also pleads that the defendants "unilaterally exercised their discretion" with respect to the proposed class members by reviewing the members' financial plans and choosing to whom to recommend the investments in promissory notes. Although the Court of Appeal observed that "the existence of industry standards is an important factor in determining whether there is an ad hoc fiduciary relationship" between advisors and clients, it did not address the question of whether professional rules requiring investment advisors to act in clients' "best interest" could by themselves create a fiduciary relationship. Up Next: Should the Claim be Certified as a Class Action? The Court of Appeal's decision addresses only the issue of whether the plaintiff had properly pleaded a recognized cause of action, which is the first criterion for the certification of a class proceeding. The Court of Appeal sent the claim back to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to consider whether the plaintiff's claim satisfies the other criteria for class certification. Due to the individual nature of the analysis that usually must be conducted with respect to breaches of fiduciary duty owed by advisors to clients, the plaintiff will likely face an uphill battle in attempting to persuade the court that the claims of breach of fiduciary duty are suitable for resolution on a class-wide basis. [GN] ISLAND PALM: Martin Class Suit Removed from Cir. Ct. to D. Hawaii ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Island Palm Communities, LLC. The class action lawsuit captioned as Martin, et al. v. Island Palm Communities, LLC, Case No. 1CCV-23-0001484 was removed from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit to the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii on Jan. 4, 2024. The Hawaii District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00006-LEK-KJM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi Island Palm provides real estate services. The Company offers renting, buying, selling and appraising real estate services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bridget G. Morgan-Bickerton, Esq. James J. Bickerton, Esq. BICKERTON LAW GROUP LLLP 745 Fort St Ste 801 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 599-3811 Facsimile: (808) 694-6030 E-mail: morgan@bsds.com bickerton@bsds.com Wayne D. Parsons, Esq. WAYNE PARSONS LAW OFFICES 1406 Colburn St Ste 201C Honolulu, HI 96817 Telephone: 845-2211 Facsimile: 843-0100 E-mail: wparsons@Alohano.com The Defendants are represented by: Bruce D. Voss, Esq. Jai W. Keep-Barnes, Esq. Matthew C. Shannon, Esq. BAYS ROSE LUNG & WAGNILD Topa Financial Center 700 Bishop St Ste 900 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: 523-9000 E-mail: bvoss@legalhawaii.com jkeep-barnes@legalhawaii.com mshannon@legalhawaii.com KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Blackstone Law Appointed as Class Counsel ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patrick LaCross, et al., v. Knight Transportation Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00990-JJT (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge John J. Tuchi entered an order: -- granting in part and denying in part Blackstone Law's Motion and Application for an Order Substituting Blackstone Law as Counsel of Record for Representative Plaintiffs Robert Lira and Matthew Lofton, -- Appointing Blackstone Law as Class Counsel, -- Compelling Marlin & Saltzman to Transmit a Copy of its Entire Case File to Blackstone Law, and -- Granting a Continuance of all Deadlines. Blackstone Law may represent any or all of the five Plaintiffs who have filed Substitution of Attorney forms and who elect to remain with Blackstone Law, but its Motion is otherwise denied. This lawsuit began almost ten years ago, on March 3, 2014, when the Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint in the Superior Court of California. The Plaintiffs seek damages against the companies for which they operated trucks, Knight Transportation, Inc. and Knight Truck and Trailer Sales, LLC, for what they claim are multiple wage and hour violations. Knight is a truckload carrier offering dry van, refrigerated, intermodal and brokerage services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lw2dHK at no extra charge.[CC] L.I. ADVENTURELAND: Leighley Sues Over Ticket Fee Scheme -------------------------------------------------------- DANIELLE LEIGHLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L.I. ADVENTURELAND, INC., Defendant, Case No. 602340/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., Feb. 8, 2024) in an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly disclose the total cost for the purchase of tickets in violation of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to disclose a per-ticket $2.66 "Processing Fee" which increases the total cost of the ticket during the purchase process but is only disclosed after the ticket is selected for purchase. The Processing Fee is added to the total cost of the ticket price regardless of the delivery method of the ticket. L.I. ADVENTURELAND, INC. is in the Amusement Parks business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Edelsberg, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 3331 Sunset Avenue Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (917) 456-9603 Email: rachel@dapeer.com LEDGER SAS: Faces Banai Class Action Lawsuit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ledger SAS et al. The case is captioned as Banai, et al. v. Ledger SAS et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-00132-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2024). The nature of suit states Contract -- Diversity Action. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken. Ledger operates as a software company. The Company develops security and infrastructure solutions for cryptocurrencies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Frawley, Esq. Sally Jasmine Abrahamson, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: jfrawley@flsalaw.com sabrahamson@flsalaw.com LEHIGH VALLEY: Faces Class Suit From 12 Families Over Child Abuse ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia Marble of LehighValleyNews.com reports that a class action lawsuit that says 12 families were falsely accused of child abuse by Lehigh Valley Health Network doctors is officially underway. Francis Malofiy of law firm Francis Alexander on February 13, 2024 filed the complaint on behalf of the families in Philadelphia County Court. The parents say they temporarily lost custody of their children because of the false allegations, and some served prison time. Among the claims in the suit are that doctors conducted sexual assault examinations on the children, even though in several cases, there was no evidence of sexual abuse. It also claims false imprisonment and arrest because some of the parents who are defendants served jail time based on allegedly false reports of child abuse. It also says LVHN doctors kept children at the hospital after suspecting child abuse, amounting to false imprisonment. And it alleges LVHN doctors coached one child on how to accuse his parents of medical child abuse. A class action suit uses a plaintiff or plaintiffs to collectively represent a group of people who it says were harmed by defendants in the suit. If the suit is successful, all members of the group, or "class," are compensated with monetary awards or actions by the defendants. Dr. Debra Esernio-Jenssen, who has been a central figure in the controversy, and LVHN's John Van Brakle Child Advocacy Center, or CAC, are defendants in the case. Also listed as defendants are The Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania because of its affiliation with LVHN and alleged involvement with some of the cases. St. Christopher's Hospital For Children is another defendant, also because of its alleged involvement. "Early recognition of abuse can be lifesaving and our clinicians remain committed to caring for and protecting our patients." - LVHN Media Relations Director Brian Downs Several other lawsuits have recently been filed against LVHN and others with similar claims of false accusations of child abuse. LVHN Media Relations Director Brian Downs said the health network does not comment on ongoing litigation, but emailed a statement saying the health network is responsible for reviewing and reporting suspicions of child abuse and neglect. "Like all healthcare providers and caregivers in Pennsylvania, we are required by law to report suspected child abuse and we take this responsibility seriously," the statement read. "Early recognition of abuse can be lifesaving and our clinicians remain committed to caring for and protecting our patients." LVHN likely will respond to specific claims during testimony. A case management conference, or an initial meeting with the judge and attorneys to discuss the case, is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Feb. 22 in Philadelphia City Hall. It likely will not include testimony. The complaint is available online for a fee. A months-long controversy Several plaintiffs are members of the Greater Lehigh Valley Parents' Medical Rights Group, or PMRG, which has protested and called for changes in the local child welfare system. Their protests followed a report released in late August by Lehigh County Controller Mark Pinsley, who is running for state Auditor General. The report alleges "systemic overdiagnosis" of medical and other types of child abuse in the county. Formerly known as Munchausen syndrome by proxy, medical child abuse happens when a caregiver deliberately fabricates or induces an illness in someone under his or her care, often to gain attention or sympathy. In a statement, Pinsley said the complaint is a "powerful and eye-opening indictment" of both LVHN and what he said was a "disappointing level of inaction" from Lehigh County Executive Phillips Armstrong and Lehigh County commissioners. In October, commissioners began to look into actions they could take to reform the county's Office of Children and Youth Services, but later delayed the investigation because of the threat of legal action. "I believe they understood the extent of the allegations brought forth and chose to ignore them." - Lehigh County Controller Mark Pinsley Pinsley said he will call for a third-party investigation into the county for what he said was an attempted cover-up of his report. He previously alleged that Lehigh County Executive Phillips Armstrong threatened to reduce funding to his department if he published the report. "I believe they understood the extent of the allegations brought forth and chose to ignore them," the statement read. PMRG's members previously endorsed Malofiy's firm to lead a lawsuit against LVHN. Malofiy donated $50,000 to Pinsley's recent re-election campaign, causing some to raise ethics questions. Malofiy is well-known for leading a lawsuit accusing rock band Led Zeppelin of stealing the opening riff of "Stairway to Heaven" from an obscure band. He also earned a multi-million dollar settlement from the car rental service Hertz for allegedly falsely reporting its customers stole their cars. PMRG released a statement saying the group was "pleased litigation has commenced to establish accountability for the widespread harm caused to families and children stemming from false accusations of child abuse." "We support and applaud the brave families including the 24 children who are using their voices to ensure this harm in our community never happens again. No more silence," the statement read. The statement encouraged families with similar stories to share them at childinterrupted.com The claims The 233-page legal document summarizes the 12 families' allegations and outlines the basis of the claims being brought against defendants. It includes 17 claims, including negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, interference with parental rights, false report of child abuse, defamation, invasion of privacy and assault and battery. The claim of assault and battery was based on alleged sexual assault examinations conducted by doctors in the CAC. The complaint claims that in several cases there was no evidence of sexual abuse, so the exam was unnecessary. In one case, the suit alleges the exam was not documented in medical records and that photographs were taken of the child. Another claim was false imprisonment and arrest. Some of the parents who were named as defendants served jail time, and the complaint alleges their imprisonment was based on false reports of child abuse. The complaint also alleges that when LVHN doctors kept children at the hospital after suspecting child abuse, that constituted false imprisonment. It says some parents were told they would lose custody of their children if they took them out of the hospital. The invasion of privacy claim was based on a Facebook comment that appeared to share private medical information related to one of the cases. Under a post of a news outlet's article about one of the cases, anonymous profile "Mugs Sadler" asked a parent repeatedly whether the child had blood infection and sepsis during their hospital stay. [GN] LESLIES POOLMART: Rodriguez Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leslies Poolmart, Inc. The class action lawsuit captioned as Rebeka Rodriguez v. Leslies Poolmart, Inc., Case No. 23STCV28907 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 4, 2024. The California Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00100-SVW-BFM to the proceeding. The nature of suit states consumer credit The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson. Leslie's supplies swimming pool products. [BN] LITIGATION PRACTICE: Beech Seeks OK of Amended Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carolyn Beech, on behalf of herself and the class members described below, v. The Litigation Practice Group, PC; Tony M. Diab; Daniel Marsh; Validation Partners, LLC; Russ Squires; Wes Thomas; Vulcan Consulting Group LLC; Jayde Trinh; Oakstone Law Group PC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00057-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her amended motion for class certification with respect to the Defendants other than the Litigation Practice Group, PC. If the Court considers it necessary, the Plaintiff further requests leave to amend the complaint to conform to the class definition. The class consists of all persons who, on or after March 17, 2017 (five years prior to the filing of this action), entered into contracts with The Litigation Group, PC ("LPG"), which contracts were not cancelled within three business days. Residents of Georgia are excluded from the class (a separate action was filled for Georgia residents by other counsel). There are approximately 67,000 class members. Litigation was a firm that specialized in debt relief, bankruptcy, and litigation manners. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 24, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EY8Aze at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Tara L. Goodwin, Esq. 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603-1824 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com LITTLE CAESAR: Bid for Class Certification Modified to Sept. 9 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE CUEVAS, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.; and DOES through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-03166-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order granting joint stipulation modifying class certification schedule as follows: -- The Motion for Class Certification hearing, previously scheduled for Sept. 19, 2024, will be conducted via Zoom at 1:30 p.m. on Dec. 3, 2024. -- Motion for Class Certification is due by Sept. 9, 2024. -- Responses to Motion for Class Certification are due by Oct. 7, 2024. -- Replies in support of Motion for Class Certification are due by Oct. 28, 2024. Little Caesar is an American multinational chain of pizza restaurants. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 24, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JxoDC0 at no extra charge.[CC] LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON, KY: Class Cert Hearing Set for Feb. 21 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Scott, et al., v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00535 (W.D. Ky., Filed July 30, 2020), the Hon. Judge Benjamin Beaton entered a scheduling order setting in-person hearing at the Louisville Courthouse on Feb. 21, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. ET regarding Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court also orders the parties to file by Feb. 12, 2024, supplemental briefs addressing standing, specifically the nature of the Plaintiffs' past and potential future injuries, the causal connection between those injuries and the challenged actions, and the redressability of those injuries by the requested forms of injunctive relief. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC] LUXURBAN HOTELS: Pack Sues Over Continuous Drop of Stock Price -------------------------------------------------------------- JANICE PACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUXURBAN HOTELS INC., BRIAN FERDINAND, and SHANOOP KOTHARI, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01030 (S.D.N.Y., February 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding LuxUrban's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade LuxUrban securities at artificially inflated prices between November 8, 2023 and February 2, 2024. Specifically, the Defendants misstated and/or failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the company had not signed a lease with the Royalton Hotel; (2) that, as a result, LuxUrban's total reported units was overstated; (3) that LuxUrban faced multiple lawsuits for unpaid rent; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the suit. When the truth emerged, the company's stock price fell $0.58, or 12 percent to close at $4.32 on January 17, 2024, and an additional $0.42, or 10 percent, to close at $3.89 on January 18, 2024. The Company's stock price continued to fall $0.99, or 22 percent, to close at $3.50 per share on February 5, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, which caused the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant damages. LuxUrban Hotels Inc. is a hospitality company, with its principal executive offices located in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. Rebecca Dawson, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com rdawson@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 MASTERCARD INC: Continues to Defend US Liability Shift Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2024, that Company continues to defend a U.S. Liability shift class suit in California. In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard, Visa, American Express and Discover (the "Network Defendants"), EMVCo, and a number of issuing banks (the "Bank Defendants") engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the "EMV Liability Shift"), in violation of the Sherman Act and California law. Plaintiffs allege damages equal to the value of all chargebacks for which class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability Shift on October 1, 2015. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, attorney's fees and costs and an injunction against future violations of governing law, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In September 2016, the district court denied the Network Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a motion for EMVCo and the Bank Defendants. In May 2017, the district court transferred the case to New York so that discovery could be coordinated with the U.S. MDL Litigation Cases described above. In August 2020, the district court issued an order granting the plaintiffs’ request for class certification and in January 2021, the Network Defendants’ request for permission to appeal that decision was denied. The plaintiffs have submitted expert reports that allege aggregate damages in excess of $1 billion against the four Network Defendants. The Network Defendants have submitted expert reports rebutting both liability and damages and all briefs on summary judgment have been submitted. Mastercard Inc. is a technology company in the global payments industry based in New York. MASTERCARD INC: Summary Judgment Briefs Submitted ------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2024, that all the merchant class suit summary judgment briefs have been submitted. In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard, Visa, American Express and Discover (the "Network Defendants"), EMVCo, and a number of issuing banks (the "Bank Defendants") engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the "EMV Liability Shift"), in violation of the Sherman Act and California law. Plaintiffs allege damages equal to the value of all chargebacks for which class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability Shift on October 1, 2015. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, attorney's fees and costs and an injunction against future violations of governing law, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In September 2016, the district court denied the Network Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a motion for EMVCo and the Bank Defendants. In May 2017, the district court transferred the case to New York so that discovery could be coordinated with the U.S. MDL Litigation Cases described above. In August 2020, the district court issued an order granting the plaintiffs' request for class certification and in January 2021, the Network Defendants' request for permission to appeal that decision was denied. The plaintiffs have submitted expert reports that allege aggregate damages in excess of $1 billion against the four Network Defendants. The Network Defendants have submitted expert reports rebutting both liability and damages and all briefs on summary judgment have been submitted. Mastercard Inc. is a technology company in the global payments industry based in New York. MATCH GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Addictive Dating Platform ------------------------------------------------------------ Joe Dworetzky, writing for Bay City News, reports that a lawsuit filed in San Francisco on Valentine's Day asserts that dating apps Tinder and Hinge are intentionally designed to make their users addicts. The suit -- filed Wednesday as a class action against Match Group Inc, the Dallas-based company that is owner of a bevy of dating platforms -- begins by stating that the dating apps "have altered social reality. A millennium of traditional courtship has been replaced by technology." The 58-page complaint then proceeds in sweeping fashion to make the case that as online dating has made it convenient for people seeking to find connection through relationships, the users have paid a weighty price. In the plaintiffs' words, "The truth is the apps are designed to be addictive." The legal theory is that the intentionally addictive aspects of the platforms are not disclosed to the consumer in violation of false advertising and unfair competition laws in California and elsewhere. The complaint says Match Group "affirmatively represents the Platforms as effective tools for establishing off-app relationships while secretly doing everything in its power to capture and sustain paying subscribers and keep them on-app." The complaint also invokes traditional product safety laws by calling the addictive feature of the apps a "design defect" and the apps "defective products." Earning particular opprobrium in the complaint is Hinge’s self-branding as the "dating app that is designed to be deleted," a reference to the goal of getting people into meaningful relationships where they no longer require a dating app. According to the complaint, Hinge’s business model is built to further exactly the opposite goal: "Defendant must consistently deliver addictive product features to retain subscribers and stay in business." In a particularly sharp statement, the complaint contends that even getting new subscribers is less profitable than "turning existing customers into addicts." The plaintiffs contend that Match Group "employs recognized dopamine-manipulating product features to gamify the Platforms to transform users into gamblers locked in a search for psychological rewards that Match makes elusive on purpose." Examples of the strategy are the use of "push notifications" that alert a user to action when they are not using the platform, and incentive rewards that allegedly "punish users from disengaging and reward compulsive users." The alleged plan to create users addicted to dating platforms is succeeding, according to the complaint, citing various surveys that purport to show levels of use. The plaintiffs are six individuals who have all purchased subscriptions to Tinder and/or Hinge. Burak Oksayan of San Francisco, for example, allegedly purchased a Tinder Gold monthly membership for $19.99 and a Tinder Platform weekly membership for $24.99. With a Tinder Gold membership, the user is able to "See Who Likes You and match with them instantly," while Tinder Platinum status lets one "Upgrade your Likes and Super Likes." (Super Likes communicate a greater level of interest than by merely swiping right.) Match Group swiping back A Match Group spokesperson took a swipe at the lawsuit in a statement. "This lawsuit is ridiculous and has zero merit. Our business model is not based on advertising or engagement metrics. We actively strive to get people on dates every day and off our apps. Anyone who states anything else doesn’t understand the purpose and mission of our entire industry," the spokesperson said. Match Group is a dominant player in the dating industry. It owns eight of the top online dating brands. Tinder and Hinge are the largest but other brands include Plenty of Fish, OkCupid, Match, and Pairs. Match Group claims that 40 percent of all relationships in the U.S. start online and 50 percent of those relationships began on one of its products. The class action lawsuit comes at a sensitive time. Match Group is a publicly traded company and like many companies on the major exchanges, it maintains a section of its website for "Investor Relations." The section contains the latest financial information and items of interest to investors, potential investors and business analysts. The information on that section includes a January 2024 letter to shareholders reporting on 2023 financial performance and commenting on key metrics for the business. Revenue in 2023 was up 6 percent to $3.365 billion. Tinder and Hinge accounted for more than 70 percent of revenue, and the lion’s share of that was attributable to Tinder. Tinder seemingly had a robust year financially with revenues growing 11 percent compared to 2022. The letter notes the revenue per payer increased 21 percent, partially as a result of "pricing optimizations." Not all was upbeat, however. Despite the revenue gains, there was a 5 percent loss of payers (users who purchase services) in 2023. When Match Group announced those user losses, its stock plunged from a 2023 high of $49.24 to $27.85 in November of the year. The stock price has partially climbed back -- it was trading at $37.48 late in the day on Thursday -- as the company focused on reversing the user loss trend. The company plans to do that by focusing on updating the "dating journey" for a new generation of daters. In 2024, Match Group intends to "focus on shaping an in-App experience that resonates better with today’s younger users. Tinder is still the first dating app used by most 18- and 19-year-olds and must remain relevant for these new category entrants." ‘Seizing the next phase in dating’ with A.I. There are a number of parts to Match Group’s strategy of "seizing the next phase in dating." One key plan is to use artificial intelligence to improve its products. The company said, "We believe that by combining AI’s capabilities with our unparalleled data and understanding of human connections, we can provide more personalized matchmaking and enhanced discovery mechanisms throughout the dating journey." The company expects that "as AI learns user behaviors, our existing matching algorithms will become more refined which, in turn, should enable even more positive user outcomes." The company’s letter gives some ideas how this will work: "The dating app journey begins with profile creation, which can be awkward for many users." Tinder wants to use AI to help "daters curate their photos and bios to better showcase who they are" and is testing an "AI-powered photo selector, which will help new users choose higher quality profile photos within seconds." The company predicts that as a result of its efforts, the payer trends at Tinder will turn positive in 2024. The lawsuit has been assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California, the same court where the Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation is pending. That case is multi-district litigation against Meta (owner of Facebook and Instagram), Snap (owner of Snapchat), ByteDance (owner of TikTok), and Google (owner of YouTube). Federal lawsuits against those companies from all over the country have been consolidated in San Francisco for pre-trial proceedings. The suits allege that the defendants have caused many young people to become addicted to social media platforms, causing profound damages to their mental health and wellbeing. While the Match Group and Social Media lawsuits are in different industries, both have the issue of addiction to online platforms at their core. [GN] MEDNAX SERVICES: Class Cert. Oral Argument Cancelled ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: Mednax Services, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 0:21-md-02994 (S.D. Fla., Filed June 04, 2021), the Hon. Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II entered an order cancelling oral argument on class certification. -- In light of the parties' ongoing settlement discussions, the OA on Class Certification currently scheduled for Feb. 9, 2024 is cancelled. -- The Court will reset OA on Class Certification, if necessary, at a later date. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury. Mednax provides physician services.[CC] META PLATFORMS: Certifies Class Suit Over Market Dominance ---------------------------------------------------------- Sam Tobin of Reuters reports that Facebook must face a collective lawsuit valued at around 3 billion pounds ($3.77 billion) over allegations the social media giant abused its dominant position to monetise users' personal data, a London tribunal ruled on February 15, 2024. Legal academic Liza Lovdahl Gormsen, who is bringing the case on behalf of around 45 million Facebook users in the UK, says they were not properly compensated for the value of personal data they had to provide. Her lawyers argue users should get compensation for the economic value they would have received if Facebook was not in a dominant position in the market for social networks. Facebook's parent company Meta Platforms Inc (META.O), however, says the lawsuit is "entirely without merit" and its lawyers argue the claimed losses ignore the economic value Facebook provides to its users. The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) last year refused to give the go-ahead to the case against Meta. But the CAT ruled on February 15, 2024 that a revised claim put forward by Gormsen's lawyers should be allowed to proceed towards a trial. Judge Marcus Smith said in a written ruling that a final hearing in the case could be heard in "the first half of 2026 at the latest". A Meta spokesperson said in a statement that the company would "vigorously defend" the case. "We are committed to giving people meaningful control of what information they share on our platforms and who with, and already invest heavily to create tools that allow them to do so," they added. The case against Meta is the latest to be given the go-ahead at the CAT, with separate claims against Sony (6758.T), Apple (AAPL.O) and major banks being certified last year alone. [GN] META PLATFORMS: Court Certifies Gormsen Privacy Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Charles River Associates reports that on February 15, 2024, the Competition Appeal Tribunal certified a class action brought by Liza Lovdahl Gormsen v. Meta. The action pertains to the unfair imposition of terms and conditions that permit Facebook to gather and use user data in exchange for access to the Facebook platform. The certification relied on an economic report from Professor Fiona Scott Morton supported by a CRA team including Oliver Latham, Christian Michel, Sam Marden, Ajay Pai, Joanna Young, and Shreyas Guntur. The report proposed the use of a calibrated Nash bargaining model to assess a fair level of compensation for users to allow Facebook to track their behavior across the Internet and thereby assess harm to the class. The model's output would be based on the benefits that such tracking gave to Facebook's advertising business and the privacy cost to users of giving their data up. [GN] META PLATFORMS: Lakeland, Indiana Joins Class Suit -------------------------------------------------- Ben Wengerd of The News Sun reports that schools from around the area, and around the country, have been filing litigation against social media giants like Meta, Snap or TikTok. On February 14, 2024, Lakeland voted to join them. The action was discussed and voted on at the school board's meeting on February 14, 2024. It passed by a vote of 4-1, with Kara Howard, District 2, the only dissenting vote. Specifically, Superintendent Dr. Traci Blaize brought forth the motion to join the large class action lawsuit against social media giants like Meta. In a report published January 31, 2024 by Education Week, over 200 school systems have already filed as plaintiffs. The schools that have filed action have done so on the grounds that social media has damaging effects on the youth and has contributed to the significant spike in mental health problems. "Schools have had to spend a lot of money on mental health, and sometimes misbehavior, that stemmed from something that happened at home on social media," said Blaize. Blaize went on to explain that the lawsuit examines the way the algorithms target certain audiences and could potentially be exposing them to cyberbullying or inappropriate content. According to Blaize, several schools nearby have already filed lawsuits against social media conglomerates. She's corroborated by reports from WSBT, a South Bend-area news outlet, dating back to August of 2023 when both Concord and Elkhart Community Schools filed litigation against Meta, Snap, TikTok and Youtube. The National Library of Medicine says, "Several studies have indicated that the prolonged use of social networking sites, such as Facebook, may be related to signs and symptoms of depression. In addition, some authors have indicated that certain SNS activities might be associated with low self-esteem, especially in children and adolescents." Studies are still ongoing, however, evidence does seem to suggest that the school board could be pointed in the right direction. According to Blaize, last time school systems filed a class action lawsuit was against the nicotine vaporizer manufacturer, Juul. That lawsuit resulted in millions of dollars being distributed to school systems that had filed as plaintiffs. [GN] NEWTON TEACHERS: Faces Class Suit Over Lengthy Teachers' Strike --------------------------------------------------------------- Frank O'Laughlin of Yahoo! News reports that parents of Newton Public Schools students are seeking damages in a class-action lawsuit for out-of-pocket costs that they incurred and emotional distress their children suffered during the lengthy teachers' strike. The class-action suit, spearheaded by Lital Asher-Dotan, a mother of three, alleges that the Newton Teachers Association "knowingly, willfully, intentionally" chose to break the law by carrying out the strike, which led to the loss of 11 school days. In addition to forcing the closure of schools, the lawsuit alleges that the strike threw "the lives and educations of 12,000 students and their families into chaos." Teacher strikes in Massachusetts are illegal and the NTA racked up $625,000 in fines issued by the court while they hit the picket line. "These tortious acts created real damage: learning loss for the students, emotional distress for the students and parents, and out-of-pocket costs for parents like tutors, camps, daycare, babysitters, burned vacation and sick days and missed work shifts," the lawsuit states. An agreement on a new contract was reached on Feb. 2 and students returned to the classroom on Feb. 5. As a result of all the missed time, the Newton School Committee voted to cancel the February break to make up days. [GN] NEWTON TEACHERS: Parents File Class Suit Over Teachers' Strike -------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Fieldman, writing for MassLive, reports that a group of Newton parents aggrieved by an 11-day teacher strike say they were harmed and are owed money due to the decision by the union to protest to secure a new contract, according to several news reports. Attorneys for the parents filed the lawsuit against the Newton Teachers Association in response to the longest teachers' strike in recent Massachusetts history. The lawsuit notes that it is against the law for teachers to strike in the state and that parents were harmed due to the stiff penalties doled out against the protesting union -- $625,000 in fines. The lawsuit was reported by several outlets, including Boston.com and CBS Boston. Court filings were not available on Saturday. The lawsuit seeks to recover unspecified damages caused to parents by the strike, according to the lawsuit filed in Middlesex Superior Court on Friday, which seeks to expand on an existing case brought by the state and the Newton School Committee against the union. In a press statement, Daniel Suhr, a Wisconsin lawyer representing Newton parents, wrote that the teachers union "knowingly, willfully, intentionally chose to break the law by engaging in an illegal strike . . . throwing the lives and educations of 12,000 students and their families into chaos as a result," The Boston Globe reported. In the court filing, per The Globe, the parents claim that the damages caused to students and parents were a central part of the teachers' strike: "The (Newton Teachers Association) calculated that the school committee would cave if the community could no longer tolerate the inconvenience and disruption caused by the strike." A parent of three Newton public school students previously asked a judge to end the strike, claiming it was an interference to a "constitutional right" to public education. The teachers union and Newton officials came to an agreement on Feb. 2, ending the strike. The school district was forced to cancel the February break in order to make up lost days. [GN] NOVO NORDISK: Plaintiffs Lose Bid to Certify Class in Chaires Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAIRES et al., v. NOVO NORDISK INC. et al. (RE INSULIN PRICING LITIGATION), Case No. 2:17-cv-00699-BRM-RLS (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Brian R. Martinotti entered an order that: -- The Defendants' motion to exclude the Expert Testimony of Dr. Meredith Rosenthal is granted in part and denied in part as follows: The Defendants' Motion to Exclude Dr. Rosenthal's testimony is granted to the extent Plaintiffs intend to rely on Dr. Rosenthal's testimony to establish whether Defendants' conduct in setting list prices for their analog insulin products was unfair or unconscionable under the applicable state law, but otherwise is denied. -- The Plaintiffs' motion for Class Certification is denied. -- The Plaintiffs shall have 45 days from the date of this Order to file a Fourth Amended Complaint with new proposed classes. -- The accompanying Opinion shall be filed under seal. -- The counsel shall submit, via email to chambers_of_judge_brian_martinotti@njd.uscourts.gov by February 14, 2024, a joint proposed redacted version of the Opinion for the Court's review and publication to the docket. Novo is a global healthcare company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 24, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7yXArt at no extra charge.[CC] NURX INC: Faces Simmons Suit Over Telephone Use Restrictions ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nurx, Inc. et al. The case is captioned as Simmons v. Nurx, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00069-HSG (N.D. Cal., Jan. 4, 2024). The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Haywood S Gilliam, Jr. Nurx is a digital healthcare company offering 10 services across reproductive health, at-home testing, dermatology, migraine care, and more.[BN] Plaintiff Melissa Simmons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com ONTARIO: Faces Class Suit Over Safe Injection Site -------------------------------------------------- Abby O'Brien, writing for CP24, reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit has been launched against a health centre operating a safe injection site in Toronto's Riverdale neighbourhood where a wife and mother of two was fatally shot last summer. The lawsuit, filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice earlier this year, blames the South Riverdale Community Health Centre (SRCHC), the province and the city for what the claimants say has been the neighbourhood's "rapid" deterioration since the consumption site's opening six years prior. The action has not been certified and at this time, the respondents have not filed a statement of defence. Riverdale resident Jacqueline Court and local business JSCS, who have requested to be named as plaintiffs in the suit, claim the area has worsened to such a degree they have grown fearful for their and others safety. They also claim the city and province failed to operate the site according to regulations. "Jacquie has witnessed violent assaults and other disturbing criminal activity when passing the [centre] and is now reluctant to invite visitors to her home because of the environment immediately outside," the statement of claim reads. In turn, they say they've endured loss of income, out-of-pocket expenses to repair property damage arising from criminal acts, and diminished value of real property and are seeking an unspecified amount in damages. When reached for comment, the SRCHC said it was important not to provide comment as the matter remained before the courts. "What we can say, however, is that South Riverdale Community Health Centre remains focused on both public health and public safety," a written statement provided by the centre reads. "We recently hosted three well-attended open houses to ensure residents are well-informed about the many health services available at the Centre. " The filing comes less than a year after the death of Karolina Huebner-Makurat, a Toronto mother who was killed by a stray bullet last July while outside of the centre. Three people are facing murder charges in connection with the death, and a fourth, an employee of the centre, was charged with obstruction of justice and accessory after the fact to an indictable offence. According to the claim, members of proposed class action had begun documenting incidents in the area about two months before Huebner-Makurat's death and, in June, met with the centre to share their concerns. "Within 30 days, the Class Members reported and recorded 136 activities, 46.3 per cent of which was visible drug use," the claim reads. "Not far behind were drug paraphernalia left out, substance abuse requiring medical attention, aggressive language or behaviour and drug selling, all taking place mostly on and around the centre property and in the nearby lanes," it continued. On July 4, three days before Huebner-Makurat was shot, the members claimed they followed up with the centre, which had not developed a plan to respond to their concerns. Ontario's Ministry of Health is not commenting on the lawsuit but said a review launched in the wake of Huebner-Maruket's death is ongoing. "As the ministry continues the review, we will explore all appropriate options to ensure safe communities for all," a spokesperson for the ministry said last fall. [GN] PAYCOM SOFTWARE: Faces Schoenrock Suit Over Common Stock Prices --------------------------------------------------------------- COREY SCHOENROCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PAYCOM SOFTWARE, INC., CHAD RICHISON, and CRAIG BOELTE, Case No. 5:24-cv-00012-F (W.D. Okla., Jan. 4, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Paycom securities and/or sold publicly traded put options of Paycom between February 9, 2022 and November 1, 2023, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. The Defendants violated section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 in that they: employed devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud; made untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or engaged in acts, practices, and a course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon the Plaintiff and others similarly situated in connection with their purchases of Paycom securities and/or sales of Paycom put options during the Class Period, the lawsuit asserts. On October 31, 2023, after the close of trading, in connection with reporting the Company's underwhelming 3Q23 financial results, Paycom finally expressly admitted that increased Beti adoption had been cannibalizing the one-off fees the Company had previously been receiving for correcting payroll errors, and finally admitted just how much the Company had been relying on those additional payroll correction fees to support its past outsized revenue growth. Rather than 3Q23 revenues "in the range of $410 million to $412 million" as projected on August 1, 2023, Paycom reported 3Q23 revenues of just $406 million. The market price of Paycom common stock crashed on this news, declining another $94.08 per share -- or 38.5 % -- from its close of $244.45 per share on October 31, 2023 to close down at $150.37 per share on November 1, 2023. The Plaintiff and the Class would not have purchased Paycom securities and/or sold Paycom put options at the prices they paid, or sold, or at all, if they had been aware that the market prices had been artificially and falsely inflated by these Defendants' misleading statements. The Plaintiff purchased Paycom securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the Defendants' fraud, the suit further asserts. Paycom is a provider of a comprehensive, cloud-based human capital management solution delivered as "Software-as-a-Service.".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Smith, Esq. Dennis A. Caruso, Esq. CARUSO & SMITH, PLLC 2021 South Lewis Avenue Suite 720 Tulsa, OK 74104 Telephone: (918) 583-5900 Facsimile: (918) 583-5902 E-mail: msmith@carusosmithok.com dcaruso@carusosmithok.com - and - Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com PELHAM PHARMACY: Court Approves Class Settlement in Lopez Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISSY LOPEZ, v. PELHAM PHARMACY, INC., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09458-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order approving the settlement and dismissing the case with prejudice. -- All pending motions are moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. The parties in this action, brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the New York State Labor Law (NYLL), advised the Court that they agreed to a settlement on Jan. 5, 2024. By Order entered Jan. 8, 2024, he Court directed the parties to submit a joint letter explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved, with reference to the factors set forth in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335–36 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). On Jan. 22, 2024, the Plaintiff submitted the executed settlement agreement as well as a letter addressing why the settlement should be approved. he The settlement's key terms are a release by the Plaintiff of any claims against the Defendants related to this action and a payment of $22,400, $7,734.65 of which will be paid to Plaintiff's counsel. -- Attorney's Fees and Costs The Plaintiff seeks approval of $7,734.65 in attorneys' fees and costs, to be deducted from the $22,400 settlement payment. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated Jan. 23, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dXKElN at no extra charge.[CC] PELOTON INTERACTIVE: EDNY Dismisses Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Peloton Interactive, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2024 that on March 30, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to amend a putative securities class action against the Company and certain of the company's officers. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2023, purportedly on behalf of a class consisting of those individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock between February 5, 2021 and January 19, 2022, and defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on June 16, 2023. Briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the class action was completed on August 18, 2023. On June 9, 2023, Sam Solomon filed said action against the company and certain of the company's officers under Case No. 1:23-cv-04279-MKB-JRC. Jia Tian and David Feigelman were appointed as co-lead plaintiffs. On November 6, 2023, co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint purportedly on behalf of a class consisting of those individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock between May 6, 2021 and August 22, 2023, alleging that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements relating to the seat post recall in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On December 21, 2023, the court set a deadline of February 2, 2024 for the defendants to file a motion to dismiss. Peloton is the world's largest interactive fitness platform with a loyal community of members who have Peloton accounts through a paid Connected Fitness Subscription or a paid Peloton App Membership. The company pioneered connected, technology-enabled fitness with the creation of its interactive fitness equipment and the streaming of immersive, instructor-led boutique classes to its members anytime, anywhere. PELOTON INTERACTIVE: SDNY Consolidates Two Securities Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Peloton Interactive, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2024 that on May 5, 2022, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York consolidated two putative securities class action lawsuits against the Company and certain of the company's officers under the caption "City of Hialeah Employees Retirement System et al. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., et al.," Case No. 21-CV-09582-ALC-OTW and appointed Robeco Capital Growth Funds SICAV – Robeco Global Consumer Trends as lead plaintiff in the class action. Lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint on June 25, 2022, alleging that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements about demand for the company's products and the reasons for the company's inventory growth, and engaged in improper trading in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act. Peloton is the world's largest interactive fitness platform with a loyal community of members who have Peloton accounts through a paid Connected Fitness Subscription or a paid Peloton App Membership. The company pioneered connected, technology-enabled fitness with the creation of its interactive fitness equipment and the streaming of immersive, instructor-led boutique classes to its members anytime, anywhere. PELOTON INTERACTIVE: To Settle Securities Suit for $14M ------------------------------------------------------- Peloton Interactive, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2024 that on April 17, 2023, the parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a consolidated action for $14.0 million. On November 16, 2021, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York consolidated two putative securities class action lawsuits against the company and certain of the company's officers under the caption "In re Peloton Interactive, Inc. Securities Litigation," Master File No. 21-cv-02369-CBA-PK, and appointed Richard Neswick as lead plaintiff. On January 21, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint in the action purportedly on behalf of a class consisting of those individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between September 11, 2020 and May 5, 2021. Lead plaintiff alleged that the company and certain of the company's officers made false or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, regarding the "Peloton Tread+" and the safety of the product. Peloton is the world's largest interactive fitness platform with a loyal community of members who have Peloton accounts through a paid Connected Fitness Subscription or a paid Peloton App Membership. The company pioneered connected, technology-enabled fitness with the creation of its interactive fitness equipment and the streaming of immersive, instructor-led boutique classes to its members anytime, anywhere. PEP BOYS: Campos Class Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Pep Boys Manny Moe and Jack of California, LLC et al. The class action lawsuit captioned as Randy Scott Campos, v. The Pep Boys Manny Moe and Jack of California, LLC et al, Case No. 23STCV27784 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 4, 2024. The Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00091-FLA-MAA to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of labor-related laws and is assigned to the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. Pep Boys retails automotive parts and accessories.[BN] Plaintiff Randy Scott Campos, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Christina M Lucio, Esq. James R Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: christina@emplawllp.com james@jameshawkinsaplc.com The Defendants are represented by: Kathy H. Gao, Esq. Daniel R Rodriguez, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 E-mail: kathy.gao@morganlewis.com daniel.rodriguez@morganlewis.com PERRY JOHNSON: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Abdaljalil Says -------------------------------------------------------------- HUDA ABDALJALIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PERRY JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a PJ&A, Case No. 2:24-cv-00025-APG-BNW (D. Nev., Jan. 4, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to safeguard patients' personally identifiable information and protected health information, the Plaintiff's and other patients' PII and/or PHI during a data breach of the Defendant's computer network which occurred between March 27, 2023, and May 2, 2023. The Plaintiff alleges that PJ&A inexcusably waited nearly six months until October 31, 2023, to begin notifying impacted individuals of the Data Breach. Following an investigation into the Data breach, PJ&A determined that the unauthorized party was able to gain access to and steal patients' PII and PHI, including names, dates of birth, addresses, medical record numbers, hospital account numbers, admission diagnoses, and dates and times of services, Social Security numbers, insurance information, and information from medical transcription files, such as laboratory and diagnostic testing results, medications, the names of the treatment facilities, and the names of the healthcare providers, the suit says. As a result of the Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic data security procedures, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI is now in the hands of cybercriminals who wish to use it for nefarious purposes. As a result of PJ&A's inadequate data security and a breach of its duties and obligations, the Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, intrusion on their health privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risks which may last for the rest of their lives. Since learning of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff has been required to spend her valuable time and efforts to mitigate her risk of future identity theft and fraud, including spending time researching the Data Breach, spending time changing her passwords to her financial and medical accounts, and spending time freezing her credit with the credit bureaus, the suit claims. Since the Data Breach, the Plaintiff has also received multiple dark web monitoring alerts from her credit monitoring services, alerting her that her PII and PHI is on the dark web, the suit adds. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Ohio. The Plaintiff received a notification from the Defendant indicating that her PII and/or PHI in PJ&A's possession had been compromised during the Data Breach. PJ&A is a medical transcription service provider which takes dictations about their healthcare provider clients' patients and transcribes them into clinical documented reports.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Bourassa, Esq. Jennifer A. Fornetti, Esq. Valerie S. Gray, Esq. THE BOURASSA LAW GROUP 2350 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (702) 851-2180 Facsimile: (702) 851-2189 E-mail: mbourassa@blgwins.com jfornetti@blgwins.com vgray@blgwins.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com jamisen@lcllp.com PHYSICIANS REALTY: Faces Frascarelli Class Action Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Physicians Realty Trust et al. The case is captioned as Frascarelli v. Physicians Realty Trust et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00047-PAE (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2024). The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer. Physicians Realty is a self-managed health care real estate company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua E Fruchter, Esq. WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP 25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209g Monsey, NY 10952 Telephone: (845) 290-6818 Facsimile: (718) 504-3773 E-mail: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com PLURALSIGHT INC: Seeks to Clarify Class Certification Order ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM and PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND OF CHICAGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PLURALSIGHT, INC.; AARON SKONNARD; and JAMES BUDGE, Case No. 1:19-cv-00128-DBB-DAO (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge entered an order the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order clarifying its Class Certification Order. -- The Defendants suggest that the Court could do so by (i) revising the Order to use the singular "misstatement" instead of misstatements" throughout, (ii) deleting references on pages 3 and 9 of the Order to particular statements that have been dismissed, and (iii) adding a footnote clarifying that this Court and the Tenth Circuit have ruled that the only allegedly false or misleading statement remaining in this case is the Jan. 16, 2019, statement that "today we have about 250" quota-bearing sales representatives and that all other allegedly false or misleading statements have been dismissed with prejudice. -- The Class Certification Order then goes on to identify purported misstatements made on Jan. 16, 2019, Feb. 13, 2019, and May 1, 2019. -- In 2021, the Court dismissed with prejudice all of Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendants. -- All other alleged misstatements were dismissed as inactionable because they were statements of corporate optimism or puffery, accurate statements of historical fact, and/or protected forward- looking statements. Pluralsight is a technology learning platform for software developers, IT admins, and creative professionals. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 24, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y94ucV at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory L. Watts, Esq. Caitlin E. McKelvie, Esq. Stevenson C. Smith, Esq. Tamara Lemmon, Esq. Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq. Stephanie L. Jensen, Esq. Tyre L. Tindall, Esq. McKinney Wheeler, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C. 15 West South Temple Gateway Tower West, Suite 1700 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (801) 401-8510 E-mail: gwatts@wsgr.com cmckelvie@wsgr.com stevenson.smith@wsgr.com tlemmon@wsgr.com isalceda@wsgr.com sjensen@wsgr.com ttindall@wsgr.com mckinney.wheeler@wsgr.com PORT WASHINGTON: Faces Khan Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------ AKLEEMA KHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PORT WASHINGTON HOSPITALITY LLC d/b/a NINO'S BEACH, NINO AQ LLC d/b/a NINO'S AQ, 46TH STREET HOSPITALITY, INC. d/b/a NINO'S 46, FILLAS RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, VENDOME HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, EVP HOSPITALITY, INC., FRANCO VENDOME, MICHAEL VENDOME, GENNARO VENDOME, CHRISTOPHER FILLAS, ELIAS FILLAS, STACEY FILLAS, and EFTHIMIOS PAPANASTASOPOULOS a/k/a TIM PAPPAS, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01064 (E.D.N.Y., February 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay for all hours worked, including overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law and for retaliation and discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff worked as a bartender and server at the Defendants' Nino's Beach Restaurant, located at 43 Orchard Beach Blvd., Port Washington, from April 2022 until in or around March 2023. Port Washington Hospitality LLC, doing business as Nino's Beach, is a restaurant owner and operator located at 43 Orchard Beach Blvd., Port Washington, New York. Nino AQ LLC, doing business as Nino's AQ, is a restaurant owner and operator located at 35-01 Ditmars Blvd., Queens, New York. 46TH Street Hospitality, Inc., doing business as Nino's 46, is a restaurant owner and operator located at 39 W. 46th St. New York, New York. Fillas Restaurant Group, LLC is a restaurant operator located at 35-01 Ditmars Boulevard, Astoria, New York. Vendome Hospitality Group, LLC is a hospitality company doing business in New York. EVP Hospitality, Inc. is a hospitality company based in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 POSTMEDS INC: Cohen Class Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to N.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Postmeds, Inc. et al. The class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Cohen, et al., v. Postmeds, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-10664 was transferred from the Central District of California to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 8, 2024. The California Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00134-HSG to the proceeding. The suit is brought over Defendants' alleged violation relating to Personal Property. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Haywood S Gilliam, Jr. PostMeds provides online pharmacy delivery services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Michael Treglio, Esq. Mark D Potter, Esq. POTTER HANDY, LLP 100 Pine Street Suite 1250 San Diego, CA 92111 Telephone: (415) 534-1911 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 E-mail: jimt@potterhandy.com mark@potterhandy.com The Defendants are represented by: Marcus Shane McCutcheon, Esq. BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 900 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 754-6000 Facsimile: (714) 754-6611 E-mail: mmccutcheon@bakerlaw.com ROWDY BEVERAGE: Faces Cave $1M Class Action Lawsuit in M.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rowdy Beverage, Inc. The case is captioned as Cave v. Rowdy Beverage, Inc., Case No. 8:24-cv-00058-WFJ-JSS (M.D. Fla., Jan. 4, 2024). The nature of suit states Diversity-Deceptive Trade Practices de-manding $1M in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William F. Jung. Rowdy is a drink industry business that specializes in energy drinks.[BN] Plaintiff Austin Cave, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Bryan James Geiger, Esq. SERAPH LEGAL, PA 2124 W Kennedy Blvd., Suite A Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (585) 203-4276 E-mail: bgeiger@seraphlegal.com - and - Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Meal Breaks -------------------------------------------------------------- American Bar Association reports that a class action lawsuit was filed on February 6, 2024, against the city and county of San Francisco by three nurses alleging they are not being provided with the mandated meal and rest breaks due to understaffing. In addition, the plaintiffs allege the employers are failing to provide pay compensation when a meal or rest break is not provided. The nurses claim the missed breaks cause fatigue that can adversely affect patient care. [GN] SCIENCE 37: Monteverde & Associates Investigates eMed Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm") has recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are now investigating: (a) Science 37 Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:SNCE), relating to its proposed sale to eMed, LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, SNCE shareholders will receive $5.75 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/science-37-holdings-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. (b) Battalion Oil Corp. (NYSE:BATL), relating to its proposed sale to Fury Resources, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, BATL shareholders are expected to receive $9.80 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/battalion-oil-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. (c) AVROBIO, Inc. (NASDAQ:AVRO), relating to its proposed merger with Tectonic Therapeutic, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, AVRO shareholders are expected to own approximately 22.3% of the combined company. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/avrobio-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: Do you recover money for shareholders? Do you litigate and go to Court? Do you even go to the office and wear a suit? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders. . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] SIKA AG: Artificially Inflated CCAs' Prices, Park Construction Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- PARK CONSTRUCTION CO., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIKA AG; SIKA CORPORATION; CHRYSO, INC.; GCP APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; COMPAGNIE DE SAINT GOBAIN S.A.; SAINT-GOBAIN NORTH AMERICA; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS ADMIXTURES U.S., LLC; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; CINVEN LTD.; CINVEN, INC.; THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY; RPM INTERNATIONAL INC.; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-00441-NEB-DTS (D. Minn., February 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act, state antitrust statutes, state consumer protection law, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful agreement to fix the prices for (a) concrete admixtures, (b) cement additives, and (c) admixtures for mortar (collectively, "CCAs"). CCAs, which can be either liquid or powdered, are added to concrete, cement, and mortar before or during the aggregate's mixing with water to give the finished product certain qualities. In sum, beginning no later than May 11, 2018, the Defendants entered into an agreement to consolidate their control over the global manufacture of CCAs and charge supracompetitive prices for CCAs through price increases and the imposition of surcharges. This agreement, which was effectuated through the Defendants' shared membership in numerous trade associations, resulted in the Plaintiff and members of the Class paying supra-competitive prices for CCAs in the United States and its territories. Through this action, the Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and members of the Class, seeks to recover the overcharges they paid to the Defendants. Park Construction Co. is a construction company, with its principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Sika AG is a specialty chemicals company, with its primary place of business at Zugerstrasse 50 Baar, Zug, 6341 Switzerland. Sika Corporation is a specialty chemicals company based in Lyndhurst, New Jersey. Chryso, Inc. is a construction chemicals company, with its primary place of business in Rockwall, Texas. GCP Applied Technologies Inc. is a chemicals company, with its primary place of business in Alpharetta, Georgia. Compagnie de Saint-Gobain S.A. is a manufacturing company, with its primary place of business in France. Saint-Gobain North America is a building materials manufacturer based in Malvern, Pennsylvania. Master Builders Solutions Admixtures US, LLC is a chemicals company, with its primary place of business in Beachwood, Ohio. Master Builders Solutions Deutschland GmbH is a chemicals company, with its primary place of business in Mannheim, Germany. Cinven Ltd. is a private equity firm in London, England. Cinven, Inc. is a private equity firm in Manhattan, New York. The Euclid Chemical Company is a chemicals company, with its primary place of business in Cleveland, Ohio. RPM International, Inc. is a chemicals company, with its primary place of business in Medina, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. LARSON KING, LLP 30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 312-6500 E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com SOLFI GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chavarria Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- RICARDO CHAVARRIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOLFI GROUP, INC. d/b/a SOLFI GROUP; and CHRISTIAN SOLORAZANO, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00929 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 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 Chavarria was employed by the Defendants as a delivery driver. SOLFI GROUP, INC. d/b/a SOLFI GROUP a dynamic business and family consortium with extensive experience in food distribution that operates in North, Central and South America. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 250 Broadway, Suite 600 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 323-6980 Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com SULLIVAN & CROMWELL: Faces Class Action Suit Over FTX Fraud ----------------------------------------------------------- Insha Zia, writing for DailyCoin, reports that in the ever-evolving FTX saga, each passing week brings interesting developments, ranging from new cases to strategic pivots, and this week is no different. With news of FTX scrapping revival plans still fresh, the bankruptcy case takes a surprising turn as the exchange's creditors target its legal counsel, Sullivan & Cromwell (S&C), in a class-action lawsuit. FTX Targets Sullivan & Cromwell In a court filing on February 16, FTX creditors alleged that its primary legal counsel overseeing the bankruptcy case, Sullivan & Cromwell, "actively" participated in the "FTX Group's multibillion-dollar fraud," asserting that the company benefited significantly from the exchange's fraud. The creditors painted a detailed portrait of conspiracy and oversight in their lawsuit, claiming that S&C disregarded legal and ethical standards, perpetuating the deception leading to the FTX fiasco. The lawsuit highlighted illicit activities such as large financial transactions and internal communication, suggesting S&C's involvement given its close advisory relationship with FTX leadership. Creditors argued that S&C's relationship with FTX wasn't merely superficial, citing the law firm reeled in $8.5 million in fees during the 16 months before FTX went under. According to the filing, since overseeing the FTX bankruptcy, S&C has reportedly made over $180 million, representing 10% of its total revenue for 2022. Additional reports suggest that S&C invoiced upwards of $153 million between November 2022 and November 2023 for its services in the exchange's bankruptcy case, with a monthly revenue averaging nearly $11.8 million. FTX creditors are pursuing damages for several counts, including civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting fraud, and aiding and abetting fiduciary breaches. FTX and S&C's Ties Sullivan & Cromwell is a century-old law firm that has served as outside counsel to FTX in several deals, including its bid for the assets of Voyager Digital Holdings and the acquisition of LedgerX, receiving significant compensation for its services. Ryne Miller, a former partner at S&C, established the relationship between the exchange and the law firm before assuming the exchange's general counsel role in August 2021. FTX creditors allege that Miller funneled at least 20 cases from the exchange back to his old firm. In another court filing, former FTX chief regulatory officer Daniel Friedberg stated, "Mr. Miller informed me that it was very important for him personally to channel a lot of business to S&C as he wanted to return there as a partner after his stint at the Debtors." Adding to the controversy, news of the class action comes just as reports surface indicating that S&C is poised to secure the role of an independent monitor for Binance Holdings Ltd. While official confirmation is pending, the class action suit could potentially hinder S&C's prospects in this regard. The class-action lawsuit marks a significant turn in the ongoing FTX saga, introducing a new layer of complexity that could mire the bankruptcy case in conflict of interest concerns. The developments add another dimension to the already brittle legal landscape surrounding the exchange, raising questions about the impartiality and integrity of the proceedings. [GN] SYSCO SACRAMENTO: Fite Allowed Leave to File TAC by April 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLENN FITE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SYSCO SACRAMENTO, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-01633-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order granting the Plaintiff leave to file third amended complaint and to continue status conference pending completion of mediation scheduled for April 30, 2024. 1. The Plaintiff Glenn Fite is permitted to file the Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") and directed to file the TAC withing seven days after the date of this order. 2. Sysco is directed to file a responsive pleading within 30 days of being served with the TAC. 3. The Plaintiff Fite's Motion for Leave to Amend the Operative Complaint is denied as moot; the hearing on Plaintiff's motion, scheduled for Feb. 1, 2024, is vacated. 4. The deadline set in the Order for the Plaintiff Fite to file a motion for class certification is continued to Sept. 27, 2024. 5. The Parties shall file a post-mediation status report within 14 days after completion of mediation. 6. The further Status Conference currently set for Feb. 1, 2024, is continued to May 30, 2024. Sysco provides food services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 24, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i3g55F at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. Hector R. Martinez, Esq. Daniel C. Keller, Esq. Caroline L. Hill, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 832-9999 Facsimile: (510) 832-1101 E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com Dkeller@TheMMLawFirm.com CHill@themmlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer C. Terry, Esq. Brittany M. Hernandez, Esq. Armine Antonyan, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 355 South Grand Ave, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 457-8000 Facsimile: (213) 457-8080 E-mail: Jennifer.terry@reedsmith.com bmhernandez@reedsmith.com aantonyan@reedsmith.com TD BANK: Ontario Court OKs $15.9-M Deal in NSF Fees Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Saba Aziz of Global News reports that a class-action settlement that would see Toronto Dominion Bank pay out nearly $16 million has been approved – one of two multi-million-dollar payouts by the bank given the green light in recent weeks. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the approval on February 15, 2024 after a hearing this week for the settlement reached between TD Bank and Toronto law firm Koskie Minsky LLP over non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees. In its decision the court concluded that the "settlement, overall, is excellent, and in the best interests of the class." A proposed settlement was reached in August 2023, less than a year after the court certified the case as a class action. Eligible customers will now share the benefits of the settlement, with an estimated $88 going into their accounts, according to the settlement agreement shared by the law firm with Global News. That amount will be directly deposited into customers' accounts without having to file any additional paperwork, the law firm says. The total payout is worth $15.9 million but class counsel fees and disbursements, third-party litigation funding fees, an honorarium of $10,000 to the representative plaintiff and any charitable donations will be deducted and the rest will be available for distribution. People eligible to get paid must be Canadian residents who have an open personal deposit account with TD Bank that has been charged a non-sufficient funds fee by the bank on a re-presented pre-authorized debit transaction between Feb. 2, 2019, and Nov. 27, 2023, according to a Notice of Hearing. Class members had until February 12, 2024 to legally opt out of or object to the proposed settlement. The class-action lawsuit, launched in 2021, alleges TD unlawfully charged customers multiple NSF fees on a single payment made or cheque issued. TD Bank has denied any wrongdoing or liability and rejected the allegations. This is not the only class-action settlement involving TD Bank that has been approved in court in recent weeks. On Jan. 30, the Superior Court of Quebec approved a $22-million class-action settlement. That lawsuit alleged that TD released documents and made statements containing false and misleading information relating to its Canadian Retail Business Segment and the implementation of a Pressure Selling Program. TD has not admitted any liability. Members eligible for the payout include all persons and entities who purchased securities of TD Bank on or after Dec. 3, 2015 and held all or some of those securities until March 9, 2017. The last day to claim compensation is May 13 and this can be done online. [GN] TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Settles NSF Fee Class Suit for $15.9M ------------------------------------------------------------ Ian Bickis, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that the high cost of not having enough money is being brought into focus by a class-action lawsuit at one of the country's largest banks. Court documents in the case against Toronto-Dominion Bank included a stark example from lead plaintiff Tyler Dufault, who was charged $96 in fees by the bank after he fell 45 cents short on a PayPal bill. A $15.9-million settlement of the suit, which focused on whether the bank had properly disclosed that customers could be twice charged the $48 non-sufficient funds (NSF) fee, was approved this week by the Ontario Superior Court. The settlement comes as scrutiny grows more generally on the charging of such fees, including a push to lower them by the federal government. In the United States, many banks have already moved to eliminate the fees thanks to pressure from regulators, while in Canada advocates are also pushing to reduce them or do away with them entirely. "This is just another predatory practice of the banks, to charge such a large amount of money," said Donna Borden, a leader at anti-poverty advocacy group Acorn. Big banks in Canada charge between $45 and $50 when there isn't enough money in the account to process a pre-authorized debit such as an automatic bill payment. If the transaction is rejected, merchants are allowed to try to put it through a second time within 30 days. TD, which didn't admit any liability in the settlement, agreed as part of the terms that it would amend its disclosures, and would also change its policy to allow for a full reversal of the fee for a first-time issue raised by a customer. 105,000 customers double-charged It maintains that it's not clear to the bank if it is facing the same charge a second time or a new purchase. "Each payment instruction is a unique transaction," said TD spokeswoman Ashleigh Murphy, noting that the bank has also set up balance alerts to help customers avoid NSF fees. The settlement should provide about $88 in compensation for the 105,000 or so TD customers who were double-charged between Feb. 2, 2019 and Nov. 27, 2023, giving a sense of how many people get caught up in these fees. Adam Tanel, a partner at Koskie Minsky which brought the class action and is pursuing similar ones against the remaining Big Five banks (RBC, BMO, Scotiabank and CIBC round out the list), said it was nice to know customers would be getting back money soon for what seems like a very high fee. "Once upon a time there was a lot more work that went into a bank honouring or dishonouring a cheque," said Tanel. "The notion of a $48 fee, for an electronic transaction that doesn't go through, it certainly rankles." It's not clear how much processing these transactions cost banks, but it could be minimal. U.S. banks eliminate fee The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the U.S., which has been pushing aggressively against junk fees, said in a January report that the average cost of non-sufficient funds handling for debit transactions was likely less than US$0.005 each -- that's half a cent. Nearly two-thirds of U.S. banks with more than $10 billion in assets have eliminated the fees, which the CFPB expects to save consumers $2 billion a year. Among them are TD Bank and Bank of Montreal‘s U.S. subsidiary, both of which did away with NSF fees in 2022. Neither followed suit in Canada. In ending the fees, BMO head of consumer strategy Paul Dilda said the change marked a milestone in empowering customers to achieve real financial progress. BMO, Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of Nova Scotia and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce declined to answer any questions related to NSF fees, citing the ongoing lawsuits. There are differences in the Canadian and U.S. markets, including that NSF fees aren't charged on immediate debit transactions here, since they're processed in real time so they're rejected without any fees if there isn't enough money in the account. The Canadian government has also forced banks to adopt several protection measures in recent years, including rolling out low-balance alerts to help customers avoid the fees. It could go further in the next budget, committing to lowering NSF fees because they disproportionately impact low-income Canadians and those who may not have access to overdraft protection because of their credit history. Borden at Acorn said there are all sorts of ways people can get caught out. At her work there was a payroll issue, leaving several colleagues caught out as automatic payments such as insurance went through even as wages didn't come in. The employer compensated them in that case, she said. But ultimately there are many people struggling, just staying above water that the unexpected timing of a charge could push them under. It's easy to say people should have the money in the bank, but it's not so simple, said Borden. "Who has money when you're poor? You just have only so much. [GN] TWITTER INC: Frederick-Osborn Sues Over Sex and Age Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------ SYDNEY FREDERICK-OSBORN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TWITTER, INC., and X CORP., Case No. 4:24-cv-00125-KAW (N.D. Cal., Jan. 5, 2024) claims of sex and age discrimination, challenging the company's constructive termination of female employees and older employees who refused to agree to new working conditions designed to result in the culling of female employees and older employees from Twitter's workforce in the wake of Musk's acquisition of the company. The Plaintiff brings claims of discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e, et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"), and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), Gov. Code section 12900, et seq. The mass termination of employees at Twitter impacted female employees to a much greater extent than male employees -- and to a highly statistically significant degree. Moreover, Musk has made a number of publicly discriminatory remarks about females, further confirming that the new policies at Twitter Musk implemented were intended to, and had the effect of, forcing more women to leave the company, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff files this class and collective action complaint against Twitter, Inc. and X Corp., on her own behalf and on behalf of other female Twitter employees, as well as older employees, who were discharged from their jobs during the chaotic months following multi-billionaire Elon Musk's purchase of the company in late 2022. The Plaintiff also files this class and collective action complaint against Twitter on her own behalf and on behalf of other Twitter employees age 50 or older across the country who were discharged from their jobs during the chaotic months after multi-billionaire Elon Musk purchased the company. Plaintiff Sydney Frederick-Osborn is an adult resident of San Francisco, California, where she worked for Twitter from June 2022 until November 2022. Dr. Frederick-Osborn was employed by Twitter as a Staff Software Engineer. Throughout her employment with Twitter, Dr. Frederick-Osborn's performance met the Company's expectations. Twitter is a social media company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com UNITED STATES: All Pending Dates in Jimenez Stayed Until March 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNARDO SANCHEZ JIMENEZ, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00967-SSS-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes entered an order extending stay as follows: 1. The case and all pending deadlines, including discovery deadlines, are stayed through March 8, 2024. 2. Either party may file a motion to lift the stay at any time. Within seven days after the filing of such a motion, the parties shall confer and agree on proposed deadlines for the completion of pre-class-certification discovery and for the filing of class certification briefs. The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other countries. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 24, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1eYHSB at no extra charge.[CC] WAYNE BANK: Fails to Safeguard Clients' Info, Werkmeister Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- IAN WERKMEISTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAYNE BANK, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00254-JKM (M.D. Pa., February 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within MOVEit data systems following a data breach in May 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals 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. Wayne Bank is a financial services company, headquartered in Honesdale, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 Facsimile: (215) 496-0999 E-mail: phoward@smbb.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com raina@turkestrauss.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com athomas@cohenandmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Andrew E. Mize, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS&GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com amize@stranchlaw.com WYNDHAM VACATION: Class Settlement in Bennett Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANI BENNETT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC., a Delaware Corporation; WYNDHAM DESTINATIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-01050-JES-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James E. Simmons Jr. entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement. -- The Court approves class counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of $308,333.33 and reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $16,220.00, which shall be paid in accordance with the terms of the Settlement. -- The Court approves a class representative service payment to Plaintiff Bennett in the amount of $10,000, which shall be paid in accordance with the terms of the Settlement. -- The Court approves settlement administration fees and expenses to CPT Group Settlement Administrators in the amount of $14,500, which shall be paid in accordance with the terms of the Settlement. The Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of the class, that Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation; failed to provide meal periods; failed to pay meal period premium pay; failed to provide rest periods; failed to pay rest period premium pay; failed to pay all sick pay; failed to timely pay wages throughout employment; failed to timely pay final wages upon separation of employment; failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failed to maintain accurate payroll records; failed to reimburse reasonable business expenses; unlawfully collected employee wages; and committed unlawful and unfair business practices in violation of the Labor Code. Wyndham operates as a club. The Club provides gaming, lodging, restaurant and leisure services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DH8F3c at no extra charge.[CC] ZAC PRINCE: Elas' Bid for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIE ELAS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ZAC PRINCE, FLORI MARQUEZ, AMIT CHEELA, DAVID OLSSON, and SAMIA BAYOU, Case No. 1:23-cv-10472-IT (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani entered an order denying the Plaintiff Elas's Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel. -- Movants Trey Greene and Arman Reyes' Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel, Cameron Wyatt's Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel, and Pham Duy Anh Dang's Motion for of Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel, as modified by their Joint Response, are granted in part and denied in part. -- The court appoints Trey Greene, Arman Reyes, Cameron Wyatt, and Pham Duy Anh Dang as Co-Lead Plaintiffs pursuant to Sections 27(a)(3)(B)(v) and 21D(a)(3)(B)(v) of the PSLRA. -- Co-Lead Plaintiffs shall promptly file a renewed motion for appointment of Lead Counsel in accordance with this order. The Plaintiff Elas commenced this action on March 1, 2023, as a putative securities class action under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1933. Elas brings this action on behalf of all individuals and entities who, between March 4, 2019, through November 28, 2022, invested in BlockFi, Inc.'s and were allocated cryptocurrency (or transferred cryptocurrency assets) to a BIA account in exchange for interest payments, and suffered financial injury as a result of such investments. Elas asserts claims against BlockFi's CEO, COO, CFO, Global Head of Institutional Distribution, and Global Head of Private Client Investors. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RNlPBo at no extra charge.[CC] ZILLOW INC: Shofet Class Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zillow Inc. et al. The class action lawsuit captioned as Joseph Shofet et al. v. Zillow Inc. et al., Case No. 23STCV28635 was removed from the Superior Court of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 4, 2024. The Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00092-SVW-BFM to the proceeding. The suit demands $75,000 in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson. Zillow is an American tech real-estate marketplace company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher Ross Rodriguez, Esq. Andrew Daniel Bluth, Esq. John Richard Ternieden, Esq. Trent James Nelson, Esq. YuQing Min, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER LLP 1414 K Street Suite 470 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 248-8478 Facsimile: (619) 255-1515 E-mail: crodriguez@singletonschreiber.com abluth@singletonschreiber.com jternieden@singletonschreiber.com tnelson@singletonschreiber.com - and - Thomas Anthony Leary, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS LEARY, APC 3023 First Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 291-1900 Facsimile: (619) 291-2500 E-mail: tleary@learylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Natalie Nola Peled, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL AND ROONEY LLP One America Plaza 600 West Broadway Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-8700 Facsimile: (619) 702-3898 E-mail: natalie.peled@bipc.com - and - Doris Alvarez-Reyes, Esq. Julie Erin Schwartz, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1888 Century Park East Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 788-3226 Facsimile: (310) 788-3399 E-mail: DAlvarezReyes@perkinscoie.com jschwartz@perkinscoie.com - and - Jason E Murtagh, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL AND ROONEY LLP One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-8700 Facsimile: (619) 702-3898 E-mail: jason.murtagh@bipc.com [*] Port Moody Council to Join Suit Against Fossil Fuel Companies ----------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Penner, writing for Penticton Herald, reports that although no commitments have been made, Port Moody council will debate joining a class action lawsuit against major fossil fuel companies. A Feb. 13 delegation brought forward by local environmental groups -- which was previously barred from presenting -- successfully convinced council to consider joining the Sue Big Oil campaign. "We can't underestimate the damage that fossil fuels have done in terms of climate change," said Mayor Meghan Lahti. "Anything that we can do in terms of trying to mitigate the costs for the residents of Port Moody, we should be considering." Sue Big Oil was initiated in June, 2022 by the non-profit West Coast Environmental Law. It is attempting to sway enough municipalities to join and certify a class action suit in an attempt to recoup significant costs local governments are facing related to climate change. The municipalities of Gibsons, View Royal, and Squamish have signed on, along with Qualicum Beach and Slocan just in the last week. Port Moody's environmental costs associated with its Climate Action Plan are estimated at up to $11.7 million by 2040. Justin Arsenault, local resident and member of the environmental group, Laudato Si' Circle, said without finding a way to offset these costs, taxpayers will be on the hook. He said Port Moody has already experienced climate-related expenses, providing its Shoreline Trial Boardwalk replacement project and 2021 heat dome as examples, along with the increased risks of flooding, landslides and forest fires as examples. "These costs will only rise. Without additional funds, we will be faced with a choice between raising taxes, cutting services, or leaving Port Moody vulnerable to climate impacts," Arsenault said. If Port Moody were to join the campaign, it would need to pledge $1 per resident (around $36,000), and only after a local government had decided to step up as the lead plaintiff. If the case is determined to have merit and certified by a judge, there would be a range of funding options, but a future council would be under no obligation to make further financial contributions, Arsenault said. He added the municipality that decides to be the lead plaintiff would be protected from having to pay a portion of the fossil fuel companies' legal fees if the suit is unsuccessful. Andrew Gage, a lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law, said the municipality which signs on as lead plaintiff will have significantly more resource demands on it, and would be required to hire the legal team specializing in class action law. No local government has yet stepped up to that role, and Gage said the campaign is currently just trying to demonstrate there is broad support for certification. "For the party that ultimately becomes a lead plaintiff, this is a big undertaking," Gage said. "I think a lot of the concerns come from the assumption that we're asking the municipalities to do more right now than we actually are." Lahti did not dismiss the possibility that Port Moody could become the lead plaintiff in the case, but added council would need to discuss what that might involve. Arsenault referenced 2022 polling showing Sue Big Oil is popular among B.C. residents across the political spectrum, when they understand it could offset tax increases related to climate costs. He noted more than 40 local and state governments in the U.S. currently have lawsuits against fossil fuel companies, along with similar cases in Germany and Switzerland. Arsenault also referenced 28 Canadian law professors signing a joint letter in 2019 advocating for legal actions by Canadian municipalities. "Cases like Sue Big Oil can succeed. We've seen it in the lawsuits against tobacco and opioid (companies)," Arsenault said. He said scientists are increasingly able to attribute specific emission totals to specific companies through their operations and products. Only 90 companies are responsible for nearly two-thirds of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, he added. Arsenault further detailed how fossil fuel companies have been aware their products were leading to climate change since 1959, and by the 1970s and 1980s, had detailed information about their impacts. He continued that when governments attempted to start regulating the industry in the 1980s and 1990, fossil fuel companies engaged in a well-documented misinformation and lobbying campaign to prevent further action. Council voted unanimously to refer the delegation's request back to staff, and report back with next steps for discussion at a future meeting. The delegation was initially denied a chance to present their delegation to council in January, with the city arguing that it had "no jurisdiction" on the issue. The environmental groups organized a protest outside city hall, and appealed to council during public input period before the decision was reversed. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has $271MM Total Reserves at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ashland Inc. has total reserves for asbestos claims of $271 million at December 31, 2023 compared to $281 million at September 30, 2023, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "To assist in developing and annually updating independent reserve estimates for future asbestos claims and related costs given various assumptions for Ashland and Hercules asbestos claims, Ashland retained third party actuarial experts Gnarus. The methodology used by Gnarus to project future asbestos costs is based largely on recent experience, including claim-filing and settlement rates, disease mix, open claims and litigation defense. The claim experience of Ashland and Hercules are separately compared to the results of previously conducted third party epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population expected to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information, Gnarus estimates a range of the number of future claims that may be filed, as well as the related costs that may be incurred in resolving those claims. Changes in asbestos-related liabilities and receivables are recorded on an after-tax basis within the discontinued operations caption in the Statements of Consolidated Comprehensive Income (Loss)." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9igjCL ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $8.9MM Net Liability ----------------------------------------------------------------- Columbus McKinnon Corporation has estimated its net asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs to range between $4,900,000 and $8,900,000, net of insurance recoveries, using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a period of 38 years from December 31, 2023, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, net of insurance recoveries, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates $6,414,000. The Company has reflected the liability gross of insurance recoveries of $7,496,000 as a liability in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2023. The recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program. Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability payments of approximately $2,700,000 over the next 12 months. Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over many years, management believes that the potential additional costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future period. In continually evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos-related liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the incidence of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue. Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related personal injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to the limitations of the available data and the difficulty of forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can affect the range of the liability. The Company will continue to study the variables in light of additional information in order to identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact on the range of liability that is probable and estimable. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=STq1KH ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l. Has $1.49BB Asbestos Liabilities ------------------------------------------------------------------ Honeywell International Inc., in its press release dated February 1, 2024, has reported 1.49 billion asbestos related liabilities, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0Qke2v ASBESTOS UPDATE: UCC Has 6,367 Unresolved Claims at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) has reported 6,367 unresolved claims at Dec 31, 2023, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Corporation expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed against the Corporation and its former subsidiary Amchem Products, Inc. in the future, and will aggressively defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future claims. Since 2003, the Corporation has engaged a third-party actuarial specialist to review the Corporation's historical asbestos-related claim and resolution activity in order to assist management in estimating the Corporation's asbestos-related liability. The Corporation considers quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature of pending claims, trial experience of the Corporation and other asbestos defendants, current spending for defense and processing costs, significant appellate rulings and legislative developments, trends in the tort system, and their respective effects on expected future resolution costs. Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue numerous defendants in individual lawsuits or on behalf of numerous claimants. As a result, the damages alleged are not expressly identified as to UCC, Amchem or any other particular defendant, even when specific damages are alleged with respect to a specific disease or injury. For these reasons and based upon the Corporation's litigation and settlement experience, the Corporation does not consider the damages alleged against it and Amchem to be a meaningful factor in its determination of any potential asbestos-related liability. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wYrKKv ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Reports $867MM Liability at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Dow Chemical Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Union Carbide Corporation, at December 31, 2023, has total asbestos-related liability, including future defense and processing costs of $867 million ($947 million at December 31, 2022), according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Union Carbide is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past four decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that Union Carbide sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on Union Carbide's premises, and Union Carbide's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former Union Carbide subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). Each year, Ankura Consulting Group, LLC ("Ankura") performs a review for Union Carbide based upon historical asbestos claims, resolution and asbestos-related defense and processing costs, through the terminal year of 2049. Union Carbide compares current asbestos claim and resolution activity, including asbestos-related defense and processing costs, to the results of the most recent Ankura study at each balance sheet date to determine whether the asbestos-related liability continues to be appropriate." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4bzyMJ ********* 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 ***