/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240226.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 26, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 41 Headlines 23ANDME INC: Paddy Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PHI 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Barnick Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Bill Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Burke Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Carson Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Clark Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Filieau Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Golson Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Graham Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Hall Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Hames Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Herzig Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Holmes Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Holthouse Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Jones Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Jordan Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Jordan Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Justice Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Krumm Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Mack Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Mason Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Nelson Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Palm Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Pecchia Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Pechek Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Raney Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Richardson Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Rivera Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Smith Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Themides Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Vanetta Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Walsh Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Watson Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: Gacovino, Lake Files 4 Lawsuits on Toxic Foams 3M COMPANY: Meyers Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Willis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 40-59 BROADWAY: Cortez Sues Over Nonpayment of Proper Wages 710 E. 4TH PLACE: Faces Sotirhos Wage-and-Hour Suit in California 808 LEX RESTAURANT: Fact Discovery in Tenezaca Suit Due April 3 AFLAC INC: Faces Class Action Over Unwanted Telephone Calls AFLAC INC: Smith Files Class Suit Over Telemarketing Calls ALL FLEET: Faces Steptour Class Suit Over Collection of Biometrics ALLSTATE FIRE: Landis Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Murphy Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 7 AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit Over Prime Video Ad-Free Rate Change AMAZON.COM: Class Cert Filing in Frame-Wilson Extended to June 12 AMC NETWORKS: Agrees to Settle Subscribers' Class Suit for $8.3M AMERICAN EXPRESS: Fails to Probe Unauthorized EFTs, McQueen Says ANDERSEN CORPORATION: Human TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri APPLE VACATIONS: Thompson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ARCHER DANIELS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on March 25 ASCENSION SAINT: Nurses File Wage Theft Class Action ASHFORD INC: Mooney Files Suit in N.D. Texas AT&T INC: Franco Class Suit Removed From Sup. Ct. to D. New Jersey BAY CITIES: Smith Seeks Unpaid Wages for Lead Drywall Technicians BEN TAS CORP: Hernandez Sues Over Labor Law Breaches BIG PICTURE: Galloway Allowed to Seal Documents BIONTECH SE: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Securities Class Action BIOVIE INC: Continues to Defend Olmstead Shareholder Class Suit BOFA SECURITIES: Manipulates Treasury Futures' Prices, M & N Says BOSTON FOUNDRY: Seeks to Dismiss Elserod Class Action BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: $38.5MM Settlement to be Heard on April 23 BRINKER INT'L: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert. Bid Filing BRISTOL-MYERS: Celgene Securities Class Suit Trial Dates Not Set BRISTOL-MYERS: Pomalyst Antitrust Class Suit Trial Dates Not Set CANADA: Faces Class Action Over ArriveCan App Issues CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Martins Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages CLUB LOS GLOBOS: Fails to Properly Pay Bouncers, Lyskoski Claims CO-DIAGNOSTICS: Must Face Securities Class Action in S.D.N.Y. CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Court OK's Bid to Certify Class in Issokson CONNEXIN SOFTWARE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $4M CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: $14MM Settlement to be Heard on June 6 CORE ENVIRONMENTAL: Guzman Sues Over Unlawful Pay Practices DAVITA INC: Teodosio Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement DICK'S SPORTING: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on April 22 EASTWESTPROTO INC: Bautista Sues Over Unpaid Wages for EMTs EL ENCANTO: Espinobarros Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff EPIC AIRCRAFT: Judge Recommends Granting Hanney Class Cert Bid ESCAPE NAILS: Li Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification EXP REALTY: Class Certification Bid in Usanovic Due Dec. 11 FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Bell Class Action Lawsuit in M.D. Florida FIESTA COFFEE: Martinez Suit Seeks Restaurant Cooks' Unpaid Wages FIRST NATIONAL: Hussan Seeks Universal Bankers' Unpaid Overtime FIT FOODS: Fact & Class Discovery in Scheibe Suit Due April 26 FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Class Settlement in Ali Tossed w/o Prejudice GOLDMAN SACHS: Extension of Expert Discovery Deadline Sought GRAND CANYON EDUCATION: Securities Class Suit Ongoing in Delaware GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: March 26 Class Cert Filing Extension Sought HARBOR FREIGHT: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Hammock Due March 8 HEALTH CAROUSEL: Extension to File Initial OK of Settlement Sought HEALTHEC LLC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Markowitz Says HIGHER EDUCATION: Lancaster Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Misused Forfeited Funds, Barragan Alleges ICON HEALTH: Barclay's Class Cert. Bid Reply Due March 22 ICOT HOLDINGS: Bank's Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Tossed INMODE LTD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on April 15 INNODATA INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims ISAAC OUAZANA: Layani RICO Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class JASON PERRI: Green Seeks Proper Overtime Wages for Couriers JEFF SANDY: Plaintiffs Seek to Supplement Class Certification Bid JIANGNANNJ LLC: Ignacio Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Drug Pricing Suit Asks Class Action Status JOSE GARZA: Plaintiffs Fund Seeks to Certify Defendant Class JSW STEEL: Seeks Reconsideration of Conditional Cert Order in Polen KIA AMERICA: Bid for Class Certification in Knight Due Dec. 6 KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due May 10 KROGER CORP: Degioanni Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling LA DELICE PASTRY: Underpays Counter Staff, Koutali Suit Claims LABORATORY CORP: Faces HIPAA Class Action in Pennsylvania LABORATORY CORP: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Young Due August 15 LAML LLC: Mabry Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective LIBERTY MEDIA: $36MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 8 LINKEDIN CORP: Faces Data Privacy Class Action in California LOANDEPOT INC: Bower Sues Over Unprotected Private Information LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Kearns Suit Seeks to Certify TCPA Class LOTTERY.COM INC: Court Dismisses Securities Putative Class Action LUXURBAN HOTELS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on April 12 MAGNA INTERNATIONAL: Davis Wins Class Certification Bid MAPLE MOON: Greene and White Sue Over Unlawful Labor Practices MATCH GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Tinder's Addictive Features MATCHGROUP INC: Dating Platforms "Addictive," Oksayan Suit Claims MEDICAL TRANSPORT: Must Face Class Suit Over Drivers' Unpaid Wages MEDNAX SERVICES: Court Extends Appointment of Special Mediator MENARD INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Shoemaker Due March 1 META PLATFORMS: Settles Suit Over Data Sharing Dispute MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Drinks MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Continues to Defend Schaub Class Suit NATIONAL CREDIT: Faces Blackburn Class Action Suit in E.D. Va. NESTLE HEALTH: Faces Nature's Bounty False Ad Class Action NESTLE USA: Parties in Falcone Suit Seek Class Cert. Briefing Sched NESTLE WATERS: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due March 18 NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Faces Miskey Suit Over Drop of Stock Price NEW YORK, NY: Children's Services Agency Faces Class Action NEWTON TEACHERS: Class Action Over 11-Day Strike Dismissed NISSAN NORTH: 11th Cir. Upholds Ruling in Wage-and-Hour-Class Suit NORTH CAROLINA: Faces Doe Class Suit Over Solitary Confinement NORTHWEST BANK: Faces Tharp Class Suit Over Breach of Contract NUGS.NET ENTERPRISES: Time to Amend Pleadings Extended to April 7 NYC MEDICAL: Bid to Decertify Class in Lawrence Suit Tossed PACIFIC MARKET: Krohn Sues Over Undisclosed Lead on Stanley Cups PAPPAS NEW YORK: Nokaj Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Retaliation PATELCO CREDIT: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Jani Suit Alleges PIONEER BANCORP: Continues to Defend BYP Class Suit PIONEER BANCORP: Seeks Dismissal of O'Malley's Oven Class Suit PORT AUTHORITY: Meinert Seeks More Time for Class Cert Discovery POWER ELECTRONICS: Underpays Industrial Technicians, Hoff Alleges PREMIUM MORTGAGE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Breach PRIMOS LIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Araus Suit Alleges PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN: Bid to Seal Docs OK'd in Knight Suit PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN: Knight Seeks Class Certification PUBLIC STORAGE: Ikener and Adams Sue Over Labor Law Violations RETAIL EMPLOYEES: Faces Suit Over Income Protection Premiums RIVIANA FOODS: Does Not Have Lactation Accommodations, Jeffers Says ROIVANT SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Immunovant Securities Suit ROMEO POWER: $14.9MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 10 RYDER SYSTEM: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Nod SCOOBY AGGREGATOR: Kaur Sues Over Unlawful Stockholder's Agreement SEABOARD CORP: Settlement in Antitrust Suit for Court Approval SECRIST MARKETING: Case Management Plan Entered in Goudelias Suit SLEEPING BABY: Carrero Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces Aragon Wage-and-Hour Suit in California SOUTHWEST ENERGY: Faces Rice Class Action Suit in Kansas STAKE CENTER: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Loonsfoot SULLIVAN & CROMWELL: Group of FTX Investors File Class Action SUNNOVA ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on April 16 TALIS CORP: Parties Seek Order on Class Certification Experts TD BANK: $16-M Settlement on Illegal Bank Fees Suit Gets Final OK THOUGHTWORKS HOLDING: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims TJ INSPECTION: Court OK's Bid to Extend Deadlines in Cox Class Suit TRANCO LOGISTICS: Fails to Properly Pay Yard Drivers, Nelson Says TRANS VALLEY: Mendoza Seeks Initial OK of Revised Class Settlement TVI INC: Fails to Pay Wages on a Weekly Basis, Hauser Says UNISYS CORP: Pennsylvania Tosses Securities Fraud Class Action UNITED AIRLINES: Class Settlement in Ward Suit Gets Final Nod UNITED BEHAVIORAL: LD Suit Seeks to Certify Class UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Hearing US IMMIGRATION: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response VALLEE LOGISTICS: Merridith Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid OT VAXART INC: Seek Class Cert Evidentiary Hearing in Securities Suit VETERANS SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Premiums, Cole Says VIPKID INT'L: Wins Bid to Dismiss Meehan Suit WALMART INC: $45MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 12 WALMART INC: Fact Discovery in Ramos Class Suit Extended to May 31 WILMINGTON TRUST: Parties Must Submit Dispute Briefing by March 1 WORK NUMBER: Faces Class Suit Over Accuracy on Consumer Data ZOLL MEDICAL: Martin Appointed as Interim Lead Class Counsel [*] CA Supreme Court Limits Manageability Defense to PAGA Claims [*] Plaintiffs Seek Prelim. Nod of $9M Deal in Unsolicited Ads Suit ********* 23ANDME INC: Paddy Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PHI ---------------------------------------------------------------- Claire Paddy and Neil Haven, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. 23ANDME, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-06698-EMC (N.D. Cal., Dec. 29, 2023), is brought against Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information ("PHI") of at least 6.9 million 23andMe customers. According to Defendant, it has more than 14 million customers worldwide, and receives and stores "a large volume of personally identifiable information ("PII"), genetic and health information, and other data relating to our customers and patients, as well as other PII/PHI and other data relating to individuals such as our employees." According to recent reports, the stolen data may have been circulating for at least two months before Defendant alerted the public of the Data Breach. On August 11, 2023, a hacker on a known cybercrime forum called Hydra advertised a set of 23andMe user data. "The hacker claimed to have 300 terabytes of stolen 23andMe user data, and said they contacted 23andMe, 'but instead of taking the matter seriously, they asked irrelevant questions.' The hacker asked for $50 million for the data, and claimed they would only sell it once, but also offered to sell only a subset of data for between $1,000 and $10,000." At least one person saw the Hydra post and alerted user on the "unofficial" 23andMe subreddit that same day. The Defendant waited until October 6, 2023, to publish a notice on its website stating that it was subject of a data breach whereby hackers gained unauthorized access and obtained information from certain accounts, including information about users' DNA Relatives profiles (the "Data Breach"). The hackers were able to access highly sensitive PII/PHI stored on Defendant's servers, including names, sex, birth year, genetic results, profile photos, relationship labels, and geographic location. Thus, for nearly two months, Defendant did nothing in response to the August 11, 2023 Hydra and Reddit posts, leaving Plaintiffs and class members uniformed about the Data Breach. The Plaintiffs and class members impacted by the Data Breach are now at serious risk. Their most sensitive personal PII/PHI is in the possession of cybercriminals seeking to profit from it and is available on underground websites for anyone to access. The Data Breach occurred because Defendant did not require users to implement two-factor authentication, did not double-check whether someone logging in from an unknown IP address is the legitimate user, and offered no protection from brute-force entries—mechanisms by which hackers can try an endless loop of combinations of letters and numbers until they land on the correct password to unlock account. Even though these basic precautions are common and unexceptional security measures across a wealth of online services, Defendant did not utilize them to protect its users' accounts. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and maintain reasonable data security measures, Plaintiffs and class members did not receive the benefit of their bargain with 23andMe and now face a significant risk of identity theft and fraud, financial fraud and blackmail, and other identity-related fraud now and into the indefinite future, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are victims of the Data Breach, The Defendant sells direct-to-consumer genetic testing kits to the public.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence D. King, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. Blair E. Reed, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 415-772-4700 Email: lking@kaplanfox.com mgeorge@kaplanfox.com breed@kaplanfox.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. J. Austin Moore, Esq. Brandi S. Spates, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: 816-714-7100 Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com moore@stuevesiegel.com spates@stuevesiegel.com 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Barnick Class Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Barnick, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00104-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 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. Jason Barnick is a resident and citizen of Glasgow, 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 Ulcerative Colitis 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, Bill Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Bill v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00103-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) seeks 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 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. Plaintiff Mark Bill is a resident and citizen of Clearwater, Florida. 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 Ulcerative Colitis 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, Burke Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Andrew Burke, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00099-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 Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS 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. Plaintiff Dennis Andrew Burke is a resident and citizen of Fallbrook, California. 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 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, Carson Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Earl Corbett Carson, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00170-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 10, 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 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. Plaintiff Earl Corbett Carson is a resident and citizen of Anchorage, Alaska. The Plaintiff 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 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, Clark Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Renard Clark v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00172-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 10, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. 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. Plaintiff Kenneth Renard Clark is a resident and citizen of Jacksonville, Florida. The Plaintiff 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 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, Filieau Class Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Filieau Sr., v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00095-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. David Filieau Sr. is a resident and citizen of Troy, New York. 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 Bladder 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, Golson Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Omar Golson v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00115-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. 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. Plaintiff Omar Golson is a resident and citizen of Gaston, South Carolina. 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 Kidney 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, Graham Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- John Graham, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00128-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 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. John Graham is a resident and citizen of Chandler, Arizona. 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 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, Hall Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- Willie Hall III, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00109-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. 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. Willie Hall III is a resident and citizen of Des Moines, Iowa. He was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting career. 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 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, Hames Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hames v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00098-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action seeking damages 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 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. Michael Hames is a resident and citizen of Nashwauk, Minnesota. 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 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, Herzig Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Anthony Herzig Jr., v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00110-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages from personal injury resulting from alleged exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. 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. Joseph Anthony Herzig Jr. is a resident and citizen of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 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 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, Holmes Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Michel Holmes, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00116-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action seeking damages 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 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. Plaintiff Michel Holmes is a resident and citizen of St. Petersburg, Florida. 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 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, Holthouse Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ Richard Holthouse v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00112-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. 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. Richard Holthouse is a resident and citizen of Rosemont, Illinois. 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 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, Jones Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Derek Jones, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00101-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 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. Plaintiff Derek Jones is a resident and citizen of Chicago, Illinois. 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 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, Jordan Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Greggory Jordan v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00093-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages due to alleged exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. 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. Plaintiff Greggory Jordan is a resident and citizen of Mt. Clemens, Michigan. The Plaintiff 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. The Plaintiff was 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, Jordan Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Jordan, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00120-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 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. Matthew Jordan is a resident and citizen of Monticello, Georgia. 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. 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, Justice Class Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Dwayne Justice, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00119-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 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. Greg Dwayne Justice is a resident and citizen of Georgetown, South 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 Ulcerative Colitis 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, Krumm Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Krumm, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00127-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action for damages stemming from personal injury due to exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. 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. The Plaintiff Kenneth Krumm is a resident and citizen of Kaneohe, Hawaii. The Plaintiff 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 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, Mack Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Mack, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00125-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 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. Plaintiff Larry Mack is a resident and citizen of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 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 Kidney 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, Mason Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Johnny Mason, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00126-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 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. Johnny Mason is a resident and citizen of Fayetteville, Georgia. 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 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, Nelson Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Milard Lee Nelson v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00118-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. 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. Plaintiff Milard Lee Nelson is a resident and citizen of Johnson, Nebraska. 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 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, Palm Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- Lyle Palm, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00122-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages from personal injury due to exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. 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. Plaintiff Lyle Palm is a resident and citizen of Spring Valley, California. The Plaintiff 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 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, Pecchia Class Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Pecchia v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00171-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 10, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. 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. Plaintiff Gregory Pecchia is a resident and citizen of Okeechobee, Florida. 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 Thyroid 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, Pechek Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Wayne Pechek v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00111-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. 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. Plaintiff Wayne Pechek is a resident and citizen of Pueblo, Colorado. 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 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, Raney Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Glenn Allen Raney v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00102-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 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. Plaintiff Glenn Allen Raney is a resident and citizen of Spring, Texas. 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 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, Richardson Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Richardson v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00091-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action seeking damages 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 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. The Plaintiff Paul Richardson is a resident and citizen of Santa Barbara, California. The Plaintiff 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. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer and Bladder 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, Rivera Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Marlon Rivera v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00121-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action for damages from personal injury due to exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. 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. Plaintiff Marlon Rivera is a resident and citizen of Anaheim, California. The Plaintiff 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 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Smith, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00107-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 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. Plaintiff Heather Smith is a resident and citizen of Quinlan, Texas. 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 Thyroid Disease 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, Themides Class Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Chris Themides v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00100-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 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. Plaintiff Dean Chris Themides is a resident and citizen of Virginia Beach, Virginia. 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 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, Vanetta Class Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond Vanetta Jr. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00114-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. 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. Raymond Vanetta Jr. is a resident and citizen of Cumberland, 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 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 TE HNOLOGIES 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, Walsh Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Matthew Walsh v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00113-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. 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. Plaintiff Robert Matthew Walsh is a resident and citizen of Woburn, Massachusetts. 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 and 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, Watson Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Watson v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00117-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. 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. Michael Watson is a resident and citizen of Wetumpka, Alabama. 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 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: Gacovino, Lake Files 4 Lawsuits on Toxic Foams ---------------------------------------------------------- Gacovino, Lake & Associates, P.C. and Environmental Litigation Group, P.C. filed 4 lawsuits seeking class action status against the Defendants 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE 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; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50). Each of the complaints alleges that the Defendants caused personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. Defendants' PFAS containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiffs in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiffs were unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiffs' consumption, Inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. All of the complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The complaints were filed in Dec. 29, 2023. The Plaintiffs are: David Kreidenweis. Case No. 2:23-cv-07151-RMG. Jose Murphy. Case No. 2:23-cv-07153-RMG Randall Brooks. Case No. 2:23-cv-07152-RMG Darryl Nance. Case No. 2:23-cv-07154-RMG The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Meyers Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mike Meyers, et al. v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2023-904224.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Jan. 1, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00535-RMG. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other the Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to the Plaintiffs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 Email: gregc@elglaw.com gary@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Willis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------- Steven Douglas Willis, on behalf of himself v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:23-cv-07157-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 29, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with Bladder Cancer as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Phone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 40-59 BROADWAY: Cortez Sues Over Nonpayment of Proper Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- JOSE CORTEZ, Plaintiff v. 40-59 BROADWAY INC. (DBA DINASTIA II), and NELSON CHAN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01039 (S.D.N.Y., February 13, 2024) is a class action seeking to recover, inter alia, unpaid minimum and overtime wage compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the Wage Theft Prevention Act, related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations. Plaintiff Cortez was employed by the Defendant from approximately August 2023 until January 28, 2024, where his primary work duty was as a delivery staff, but also was a kitchen assistant and dishwasher. The Plaintiff worked approximately 66 hours per week; however, he was not paid appropriate minimum and overtime wages from the beginning and until the end of his employment with Defendants. Among other things, he was not provided with accurate statement of wages, as required by NYLL, says the Plaintiff. Based in New York, NY, 40-59 Broadway Inc. owns and operates a restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 Website: www.StillmanLegalPC.com 710 E. 4TH PLACE: Faces Sotirhos Wage-and-Hour Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------------- KONSTANTIN SOTIRHOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 710 E. 4TH PLACE LLC; HEATHER TIERNEY; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV03700 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 13, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California's Private Attorneys' General Act including failure to pay for all hours worked, including overtime; failure to pay meal break and rest break premiums; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to provide wage notice; failure to pay due wages upon separation of employment; failure to reimburse business expenses; and failure to timely provide cash tips. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a chef from in or around 2023 until October 2023. 710 E. 4th Place LLC is a restaurant owner and operator doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 808 LEX RESTAURANT: Fact Discovery in Tenezaca Suit Due April 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALFONSO TENEZACA, NELSON NACIPUCHA, RENAN ZAMORA-FLORES, and MALVIN LUNA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. 808 LEX RESTAURANT, LLC d/b/a IL GRADINO RESTAURANT, TERRENCE LOWENBERG, and TODD COHEN, Case No. 1:23-cv-08545-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery shall be completed April 3, 2024 no later than: -- All expert discovery, including expert May 22, 2024 reports and depositions, shall be completed no later than: -- The next case management conference is May 29, 2024 scheduled for: A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3lFxFf at no extra charge.[CC] AFLAC INC: Faces Class Action Over Unwanted Telephone Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- Eric J. Troutman of Troutman Amin, LLP, writing for TCPAWorld, reports that you all know those commercials with the duck (or is it a goose?) that says "AFLAC"? I hate those commercials. But if the goal is to get the name "AFLAC" stuck in your head–it works. Except I thought they only sold supplemental gap insurance. Turns out they also sell motor vehicle warranties–at least according to a new TCPA class action filed last week against the company. Consumer Stewart Smith claims he received unwanted calls from AFLAC trying to sell him a vehicle warranty. He claims he was on the DNC list at the time and did not consent to the cold calls. He sues AFLAC for unspecified damages under the TCPA–which allows for up to $1,500.00 per call for unwanted telemarketing calls–on behalf of himself and a class of individuals he estimates to be in the thousands. The class is defined as: All persons within the United States who from four years prior to the date of the filing of this lawsuit to the date of class certification:(1) received more than one telephone call or text message from AFLAC or someone acting on its behalf (2) during a 12-month period; (3) where the calls were made in connection with a campaign to solicit products or services; and (4) whose number was registered on the Do Not Call Registry for more than 31 days at the time the calls were received. This class likely includes innumerable individuals who do not have valid claims because they consented to receive the calls. Nonetheless this is the class AFLAC is currently facing. The suit is brought by the ever dangerous Godfather of TCPA Class Actions–Abbas Kazerounian. [GN] AFLAC INC: Smith Files Class Suit Over Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------- Eric J. Troutman, writing for TCPAWorld, reports that You all know those commercials with the duck (or is it a goose?) that says "AFLAC"? I hate those commercials. But if the goal is to get the name "AFLAC" stuck in your head--it works. Except I thought they only sold supplemental gap insurance. Turns out they also sell motor vehicle warranties--at least according to a new TCPA class action filed last week against the company. Consumer Stewart Smith claims he received unwanted calls from AFLAC trying to sell him a vehicle warranty. He claims he was on the DNC list at the time and did not consent to the cold calls. He sues AFLAC for unspecified damages under the TCPA -- which allows for up to $1,500.00 per call for unwanted telemarketing calls--on behalf of himself and a class of individuals he estimates to be in the thousands. The class is defined as: All persons within the United States who from four years prior to the date of the filing of this lawsuit to the date of class certification: (1) received more than one telephone call or text message from AFLAC or someone acting on its behalf (2) during a 12-month period; (3) where the calls were made in connection with a campaign to solicit products or services; and (4) whose number was registered on the Do Not Call Registry for more than 31 days at the time the calls were received. This class likely includes innumerable individuals who do not have valid claims because they consented to receive the calls. Nonetheless this is the class AFLAC is currently facing. The suit is brought by the ever dangerous Godfather of TCPA Class Actions--Abbas Kazerounian. We'll keep an eye on the suit. But really this is small news compared to the fact that John Henson joined our firm today!!! [GN] ALL FLEET: Faces Steptour Class Suit Over Collection of Biometrics ------------------------------------------------------------------ KEESHA STEPTOUR, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals v. ALL FLEET, INC., an Illinois Corporation, Case No. 2024LA00000024 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Lake Cty., Jan. 8, 2024) is a class action suit seeking damages and other legal and equitable remedy resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in collecting, storing and using the Plaintiffs' biometric identifiers and biometric information ("biometrics) without informed consent in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a dispatcher from on or about sometime in February 2022 through January 11, 2023, at All Fleet Inc. at its locations at 1142 Sheridan Rd., Winthrop Harbor, Illinois. The Plaintiff contends that during the 5 years preceding the filing of this lawsuit, the Defendant required its employees to use a facial recognition scanner for the purposes of measuring and recording employees' work attendance and the time that employees spent working at its location in Zion, Illinois. The Defendant operates All Fleet, Inc. in Lake County, Illinois; Defendant's headquarters are located at 201 N. Green Bay Rd., Zion, Illinois. All Fleet, Inc. provides truck and trailer repair services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com sarah@usaemploymentlawyers.com ALLSTATE FIRE: Landis Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Andrew Landis, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Allstate Fire And Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 231202743 was removed from the CCP Philadelphia County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 1, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00478-CFK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company -- https://www.allstate.com/ -- operates as an insurance firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Haggerty, Esq. HGSK 1801 Market Street, Suite 100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 350-6633 Email: jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com - and - John P. Goodrich, Esq. 429 Fourth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 261-4663 - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. SHUB LAW FIRM LLC 134 Kings Highway, Second Floor Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Phone: (856) 772-7200 Email: ecf@shublawyers.com - and - Scott B. Cooper, Esq. SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Phone: (717) 232-6300 Email: scooper@schmidtkramer.com The Defendant is represented by: A. Christopher Young, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 3000 Two Logan Square, 18th & Arch Sts. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 981-4190 Email: christopher.young@troutman.com ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Murphy Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as William D. Murphy, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Allstate Property And Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 231202746 was removed from the CCP Philadelphia County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 1, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00480 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Co. -- https://www.allstate.com/ -- operates as an insurance service provider.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: A. Christopher Young, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 3000 Two Logan Square, 18th & Arch Sts. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 981-4190 Email: christopher.young@troutman.com AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 7 ------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered 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 Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6crxlP 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: Faces Suit Over Prime Video Ad-Free Rate Change --------------------------------------------------------------- Amaris Encinas, writing for USA TODAY, reports that a California man has sued Amazon, alleging that the company's move to run ads in all Prime Video programming was "deceptive." Wilbert Napoleon, who brought forth the lawsuit in the interest of all Amazon Prime customers said they were led to believe by Amazon's "false and misleading" advertisements that they would have "ad-free access to tv shows and movies," according to the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington state on Feb. 9. These "representations" made by the company led Napoleon and other customers "to purchase the service and to pay a price premium for the service," referring to the additional monthly fee Amazon rolled out in January for those interested in an "ad-free experience." The change in terms, the lawsuit alleges, violates consumer protection laws in California and Washington which prohibits a company from engaging in "unfair" or "deceptive" business acts and practices. The "false advertisements" made by the company has harmed consumers, depriving "them of the reasonable expectations to which they are entitled," the lawsuit states. "Instead of receiving a subscription that included ad-free streaming of tv shows and movies, they received something worth less. They cannot enjoy ad-free streaming unless they pay an extra $2.99/month." An Amazon spokesperson told USA TODAY on Feb. 19 that they were "unable to comment on pending litigation." [GN] AMAZON.COM: Class Cert Filing in Frame-Wilson Extended to June 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered an order regarding class certification briefing schedule as follows: 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 brief is: Nov. 11, 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 Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XDb2SR 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 AMC NETWORKS: Agrees to Settle Subscribers' Class Suit for $8.3M ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Ensey, writing for 102.3 KRMG, reports that AMC settled a class action suit by subscribers who said their data was improperly shared. If you subscribed to AMC+ or any of its affiliates and watched any content between Jan. 18, 2012, and Jan. 10, 2024, you may have already received an email informing you of your eligibility for a part of an $8.3 million settlement agreed on by the class action attorneys and the network. If you haven't seen the email, check your junk mail, and if you still can't find it, you can check your eligibility and issue a claim directly on the settlement website (www.amcvppsettlement.com) or download a claim form from the site to send in. The deadline is April 9, according to USA Today. AMC's other services include Shudder, BBC America and Sundance Now streaming services. The subscribers claimed the company gave out users' personally identifiable information to other parties without consent. AMC denied any wrongdoing but set up the $8.3 million fund the claims. The network said it's impossible to calculate how much each subscriber will receive until attorney's fees and other expenses are applied. But given a settlement group of 11.4 million subscribers, the award could be less than $1 each, according to USA Today. On the bright side: claimants will receive a free one-week subscription to AMC+. The website and the email will give you instructions to file your claim. But one Reddit user suggested everybody decline the payment and try to form a bigger class action suit and sue for more money, because "$8.3 million is chump change for them." [GN] AMERICAN EXPRESS: Fails to Probe Unauthorized EFTs, McQueen Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- TANIKA MCQUEEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00862 (D.N.J., February 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to conduct any investigation of the Plaintiff's and Class members' error reporting and claims of fraudulent or unauthorized transactions. The Defendant also failed to adequately consider the facts and circumstances of the unauthorized transactions. As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members were unable to reclaim funds that were fraudulently taken from their accounts within the authorized period for error resolution. American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. is a financial institution, with its principal place of business located at 200 Vesey Street, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross H. Schmierer, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP A.P.C. 3000 Atrium Way, Suite 200 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (732) 588-8688 E-mail: ross@kazlg.com ANDERSEN CORPORATION: Human TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Bradford Daniel Human, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Andersen Corporation, John and Jane Does (1-4), Case No. 23SL-CC05360 was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Feb. 5, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00196 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Andersen -- https://www.andersenwindows.com/ -- crafts and designs windows and doors that are a true reflection of the self-expressive people who put them in their homes.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Matthew D. Guletz, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP - St. Louis One US Bank Plaza, Suite 2700 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 552-6311 Fax: (314) 552-7000 Email: mguletz@thompsoncoburn.com APPLE VACATIONS: Thompson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple Vacations, LLC. The case is styled as Andrea Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apple Vacations, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00123 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 2, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Apple Vacations -- https://www.applevacations.com/ -- offers deals on vacation packages to destinations in Mexico, Caribbean, Hawaii, Central America, and South America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com ARCHER DANIELS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on March 25 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges Archer Daniels Midland Co. (NYSE: ADM) investors who suffered substantial losses to submit your losses now. Class Period: Apr. 30, 2020 -- Jan. 22, 2024 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Mar. 25, 2024 Archer Daniels Midland Co. (ADM) Securities Fraud Class Action: The litigation focuses on Archer Daniels' statements about the performance of its Nutrition segment, a business the company poured billions of dollars into to protect against commodity price volatility in its legacy agricultural commodities trading business. The complaint alleges Archer Daniels made misleading statements and concealed that: (1) the Nutrition segment's financial reporting and accounting practices did not provide investors with an accurate impression of the company's performance and future prospects, including reported operating profits; (2) the Nutrition segment's accounting practices created a heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny and adverse impacts to the company's business; and (3) based on the foregoing, the defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Nutrition segment and related financial results, growth, and prospects. Investors began to learn the truth on Jan. 21, 2024, when Archer Daniels announced that it had placed CFO Vikram Luther on leave effective immediately. The company said that Luther's "leave is pending an ongoing investigation being conducted by outside counsel for ADM and the Board's Audit Committee regarding certain accounting practices and procedures with respect to ADM's Nutrition segment, including as related to certain intersegment transactions." Archer Daniels also revealed that its investigation was initiated in response to its receipt of a voluntary document request by the SEC. The company further stated that it is delaying its Q4 and FY 2023 earnings release and withdrew its outlook for the Nutrition segment. This news sent the price of Archer Daniels shares crashing as much as $14.46 (or about 21%) lower during intraday trading on Jan. 22, 2024. If you invested in Archer Daniels and have substantial losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, submit your losses now. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Archer Daniels should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email ADM@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law firm focusing on corporate accountability through class-action law. The firm is home to a robust securities litigation practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN] ASCENSION SAINT: Nurses File Wage Theft Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- FOX 32 Chicago reports that a class-action lawsuit filed on Feb. 20 in Will County claims over 90 nurses at Ascension Saint Joseph in Joliet weren't paid wages they had been promised leading up to a lockout late last year. The suit, filed in Will County circuit court, accuses healthcare giant Ascension Health of wage theft for allegedly failing to pay nurses Kaitlynd French, Beth Corsetti and over 90 others prior to the November lockout, according to a statement from the Illinois Nurses Association (INA). The complaint claims Ascension Health agreed to pay the nurses extra to work shifts beyond their normal schedules, then refused to pay them after the shifts had been worked. The nurses union said Ascension Saint Joseph has faced staffing challenges for years and has relied on its existing nurses to pick up extra shifts beyond their normal schedule to keep the hospital running. "The silver lining of Joe's being understaffed is that you can always make some extra money picking up 'incentive shifts'," French said in a statement. Nurses were locked out of the hospital for four days around Thanksgiving in what the union claimed was retaliation for calling a two-day strike. During the same pay period, the union said nurses were asked to pick up extra shifts for incentive pay, but were allegedly told after returning to work the following week that they wouldn't be paid at the rate Ascension had promised. "The employer agreed, both as a matter of standing policy and individually with each nurse for each shift, to pay incentive pay for shifts that nurses worked above and beyond their normal schedule," attorney Will Bloom said in a statement. "Only after the nurses had worked the agreed shifts did the employer announce that they would not pay them as agreed. That's textbook wage theft," he added. Ascension and the nurses have been in contract negotiations since May 2023. The healthcare workers went on strike twice last year, and once again this month demanding better pay and staffing. The nurses' union said they went on two Unfair Labor Practice strikes because the company wasn't bargaining in good faith. FOX Chicago has reached out to Ascension Health for a statement, but has not yet heard back. The nurses are being represented by Despres, Schwartz and Geoghegan Ltd. [GN] ASHFORD INC: Mooney Files Suit in N.D. Texas -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ashford, Inc. The case is styled as Sean Mooney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ashford, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00279-K (N.D. Tex., Feb. 2, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Ashford -- https://www.ashfordinc.com/ -- is an alternative asset management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (214) 744-3000 Fax: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com AT&T INC: Franco Class Suit Removed From Sup. Ct. to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against AT&T INC. et al. The class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCO v. AT&T INC. et al., Case No. BER-L-006469-23, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on Jan. 10, 2024. The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00174-WJM-JBC to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of Fraud related laws. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William J. Martini. AT&T is an American multinational telecommunications holding company headquartered at Whitacre Tower in Downtown Dallas, Texas.[BN] Plaintiff TYLER FRANCO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Boris Shmaruk, Esq. VLASAC & SHMARUK, LLC 485B Route 1 South, Suite 120 Iselin, NJ 08830 Telephone: (732) 494-3600 Facsimile: (732) 494-3601 E-mail: bshmaruk@vslaws.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew B. Joseph, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 600 Campus Drive Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 549-7264 E-mail: andrew.joseph@faegredrinker.com - and - Kristofer Chiesa, Esq. SHERMAN SILVERSTEIN KOHL ROSE & PODOLSKY 308 Harper Drive, Suite 200 Moorestown, NJ 08057 Telephone: (856) 662-0700 Facsimile: (856) 488-4744 E-mail: kchiesa@shermansilverstein.com BAY CITIES: Smith Seeks Unpaid Wages for Lead Drywall Technicians ----------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH LAMAR SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAY CITIES FURNACE & AIR CONDITIONING CO.; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV03702 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 13, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California's Private Attorneys' General Act including failure to pay for all hours worked, including overtime; failure to pay meal break and rest break premiums; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to provide wage notice; failure to pay due wages upon separation of employment; and failure to reimburse business expenses. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a lead drywall technician until November 2023. Bay Cities Furnace & Air Conditioning Co. is a heating, ventilating & air conditioning service provider, doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 BEN TAS CORP: Hernandez Sues Over Labor Law Breaches ---------------------------------------------------- AQUILINO HERNANDEZ on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEN TAS CORP D/B/A OTHELLO DELI, THEODORE J. BENINATI, ANGELO T. BENINATI, and SALVATORE A. BENINATI, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01123 (E.D.N.Y., February 13, 2024) seeks to remedy violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants employed Plaintiff from in or about September 2022 until February 16, 2023. They also required Plaintiff to work for a total of 63 hours per week. Throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff regularly worked through his lunch/meal breaks and was unable to take uninterrupted meal breaks of at least 30 minutes each shift. Among other things, the Plaintiff was not paid at the required minimum wage rates and overtime premiums for hours they worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Ben Tas Corp. is a domestic business corporation that owns and operates a store/deli named OTHELLO DELI at 26-19 24th Avenue in Astoria, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Harrison, Esq. HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (718) 799-9111 E-mail: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com BIG PICTURE: Galloway Allowed to Seal Documents ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Renee Galloway, et al., v. Big Picture Loans, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00406-REP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert E. Payne entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion to seal. -- The Plaintiffs' memorandum in support of motion for class certification is filed under seal provided that an appropriately redacted version thereof is filled in the public record. Big Picture is a financial institution that offers tribal loans. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YdTkHl at no extra charge.[CC] BIONTECH SE: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- If you suffered a loss on your BioNTech SE (NASDAQ:BNTX) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/biontech-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=67480&wire=1 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against BioNTech SE that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between March 30, 2022 and October 13, 2023. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (i) BioNTech overstated demand for and/or the commercial prospects of Comirnaty, the COVID-19 vaccine developed by the Company in collaboration with Pfizer ; (ii) the Company and/or Pfizer had accumulated excess inventory of raw materials for Comirnaty, as well as COVID-19 vaccine doses adapted to other, non-XBB.1.5 variants that were produced at risk; (iii) accordingly, BioNTech was at an increased risk of recording significant inventory write-offs and other charges related to Comirnaty; and (iv) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in BioNTech stock during the relevant time frame -- even if you still hold your shares -- go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/biontech-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=67480&wire=1 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] BIOVIE INC: Continues to Defend Olmstead Shareholder Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Biovie Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from Olmstead shareholder class suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. On January 19, 2024, a purported shareholder class action complaint, captioned Eric Olmstead v. BioVie Inc. et al., No. 3:24-cv-00035, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, naming Company and certain of its officers and/or directors as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to the Company's business, operations, compliance, and prospects, including information related to the study and trial of NE3107, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The class action is on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s securities during the period from August 5, 2021 through November 29, 2023 and seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the case vigorously. Headquartered in Carson City, NV, BioVie is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that purports to engage in the discovery, development, and commercialization of innovative drugs therapies, including for treatment of neurological and neurodegenerative disorders and advanced liver disease. The company's stock trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "BIVI." [BN] BOFA SECURITIES: Manipulates Treasury Futures' Prices, M & N Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- M & N TRADING, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOFA SECURITIES, INC., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, and JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01229 (N.D. Ill., February 13, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and for unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful and intentional manipulation of U.S. Treasury Securities, Treasury futures contracts, and options on U.S. Treasury Futures, traded on United States-based exchanges including the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) during the period from at least October 2014 through February 2021. The Defendants manipulated the prices of Treasury Futures using a classic manipulative device known as "spoofing," wherein they placed illegitimate orders to send false and illegitimate supply and demand signals to the market and create artificial prices. As a result of their manipulation, the Defendants caused Treasury Futures and Treasury Securities prices to be artificial throughout the Class Period to illegitimately benefit themselves financially, at the expense of other investors, including the Plaintiff and the Class, says the suit. M & N Trading, LLC is a limited liability company in Illinois. BofA Securities, Inc. is a full-service broker-dealer, headquartered in New York, New York. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. is a broker-dealer and investment adviser, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony F. Fata, Esq. Anthony E. Maneiro, Esq. KIRBY McINERNEY LLP 211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 550 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 767-5180 E-mail: afata@kmllp.com amaneiro@kmllp.com - and - Vincent Briganti, Esq. Raymond P. Girnys, Esq. Peter Demato, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com rgirnys@lowey.com pdemato@lowey.com BOSTON FOUNDRY: Seeks to Dismiss Elserod Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT ELSEROAD, EVAN DOROSHEFF, DAVID ESTEY, JONATHAN SCHMIDT, DARRICK THOMPSON, RYAN DISHMAN, BRENT MILLS, MONALISA BOJORQUEZ, GIL REFAEL, and BEN LUCKADOO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BOSTON FOUNDRY, INC., d/b/a MADE IN COOKWARE, Case No. 1:23-cv-01449-RP (W.D. Tex.), MIC requests the Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. Because Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege that the Products contain harmful PFAS chemicals or cause harm to consumers, they also "cannot plausibly allege [MIC's] advertising materials are false or misleading." The Plaintiffs do not assert that they were physically harmed in any way by the Products and instead seek to recover only benefit-of-the-bargain damages through their negligent misrepresentation claim. Such damages are barred by the economic loss rule, and Plaintiffs "nationwide" negligent misrepresentation claim should therefore be dismissed. Through this lawsuit, Plaintiffs ask the Court to impose liability on MIC for selling cookware products manufactured with a non-stick polymer coating containing polytetrafluoroethylene ("PTFE") -- a substance that has been explicitly authorized by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration as safe for use in the coating of cookware products -- and for marketing those cookware products as "safe," "non-toxic," and "made without PFOAs." Plaintiffs claim that is deceptive and misleading. The Plaintiffs Elseroad, Dorosheff, Estey, Thompson, Dishman, Bojorquez, Refael, and Luckadoo allege that they purchased various non-stick products through MIC's website between 2021 and 2023. I MIC manufactures and sells stainless clad, non-stick, carbon steel, enameled cast iron, and copper cookware. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=il8Iur at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey Parker, Esq. Sascha Henry, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 333 South Hope Street Forty-Third Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 E-mail: jparker@sheppardmullin.com shenry@sheppardmullin.com - and - David C. Lawrence, Esq. William A. Duncan, Esq. RIGBY SLACK, PLLC 3500 Jefferson Street, Suite 330 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (512) 782-2060 E-mail: dlawrence@rigbyslack.com wduncan@rigbyslack.com BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: $38.5MM Settlement to be Heard on April 23 ------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS In re BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION Master File No. 1:20-cv-12225-ADB SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston Scientific") during the period from September 16, 2020 through November 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby: PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court"), that the above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff Union Asset Management Holding AG, on behalf of itself and the Settlement Class, has reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $38,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). If approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action. Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition, as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"), available at BostonScientificSecuritiesLitigation.com. The Action involves allegations that Boston Scientific and certain of its senior officers violated federal securities laws. Lead Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Boston Scientific and certain of its executives made material misrepresentations and omissions about Boston Scientific's Lotus Edge medical device during the period from September 16, 2020 through November 16, 2020, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and that the executive defendants controlled Boston Scientific when the misstatements were made, in violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Defendants deny all allegations in the Action and deny any violations of the federal securities laws. Issues and defenses at issue in the Action included (i) whether Defendants made materially false statements or omissions; (ii) whether Defendants made the statements with the required state of mind; (iii) whether the alleged misstatements caused class members' losses; and (iv) the amount of damages, if any. A hearing will be held on April 23, 2024 at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Allison D. Burroughs of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, either in person in Courtroom 17 on the Fifth Floor of the John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210, or by telephone or videoconference (in the discretion of the Court), to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether, for purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiff should be certified as Class Representative for the Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated December 14, 2023 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Boston Scientific Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91477, Seattle, WA 98111, 877-595-0084, info@BostonScientificSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, BostonScientificSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed) or online by no later than May 28, 2024. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than April 2, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than April 2, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Office of the Clerk of the Court, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Boston Scientific Securities Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91477 Seattle, WA 98111 1-877-595-0084 info@BostonScientificSecuritiesLitigation.com BostonScientificSecuritiesLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: Salvatore J. Graziano Lauren A. Ormsbee Michael D. Blatchley Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, NY 10020 1-800-380-8496 settlements@blbglaw.com By Order of the Court BRINKER INT'L: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert. Bid Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA HALE and JESUS GOMEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation; BRINKER INTERNATIONAL PAYROLL COMPANY, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; BRINKER RESTAURANT CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-09978-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending time for the Plaintiffs to file motion for class certification and to continue related dates as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class April 1, 2024 Certification shall be due: 2. The Defendants' Opposition shall May 1, 2024 be due: 3. The Plaintiffs' Reply shall be May 22, 2024 Due: 4. The Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion June 27, 2024 for Class Certification shall be: Brinker is an American multinational hospitality industry company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XvKJAH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Jose Maria D. Patino, Jr., Esq. Tyson Gibb, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 460 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com jose@setarehlaw.com tyson@setarehlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Kevin D. Reese, Esq. Geoffrey R. Pittman, Esq. Robert Yang, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Telephone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 E-mail: Kevin.Reese@jacksonlewis.com Geoffrey.Pittman@jacksonlewis.com Rob.Yang@jacksonlewis.com BRISTOL-MYERS: Celgene Securities Class Suit Trial Dates Not Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. 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 the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has not set trial dates for the consolidated Celgene securities class suits. Beginning in March 2018, two putative class actions were filed against Celgene and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Celgene Securities Class Action"). The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions concerning (1) trials of GED-0301, (2) Celgene's 2020 outlook and projected sales of Otezla, and (3) the NDA for Zeposia. The Court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel for the putative class. In February 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint in full. In December 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss in part and granted the motion to dismiss in part (including all claims arising from alleged misstatements regarding GED-0301). Although the Court gave the plaintiff leave to re-plead the dismissed claims, it elected not to do so, and the dismissed claims are now dismissed with prejudice. In November 2020, the Court granted class certification with respect to the remaining claims. In March 2023, the Court granted the defendants leave to file a motion for summary judgment, the briefing for which was completed in June 2023. On September 8, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the claims regarding statements made by the remaining officer defendants. As to the claims regarding Celgene's corporate statements, the Court denied the defendants' motion without prejudice and granted the defendants leave to re-raise the issue. On October 27, 2023, the defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to Celgene's corporate statements. No trial dates have been scheduled in any of the above Celgene Securities Litigations. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is engaged in the discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of biopharmaceutical products based in New York. BRISTOL-MYERS: Pomalyst Antitrust Class Suit Trial Dates Not Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. 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 the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has not set trial dates for Pomalyst antitrust class suits. In September 2023, certain health plan entities filed an action on behalf of a putative class of end-payor plaintiffs against Celgene, BMS, and certain generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The class complaint asserts claims under federal antitrust law and state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws based on allegations that Celgene and BMS engaged in anticompetitive conduct related to pomalidomide in the U.S., including by allegedly engaging in fraud before the USPTO in the acquisition of patents related to the use of pomalidomide, by filing alleged sham patent litigations against generic pharmaceutical companies seeking to market generic pomalidomide, and by entering into allegedly unlawful patent litigation settlements with certain generic pharmaceutical companies seeking to market generic pomalidomide. In December 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that added one individual Pomalyst patient as a plaintiff, removed the generic manufacturer defendants, and added two individuals as defendants. No trial date has been scheduled. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is engaged in the discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of biopharmaceutical products based in New York. CANADA: Faces Class Action Over ArriveCan App Issues ---------------------------------------------------- Katelyn Thomas, writing for Montreal Gazette, report that an application for a class-action lawsuit has been launched over issues with the ArriveCan app that resulted in thousands of Canadians being instructed to quarantine when they should have been exempt. The application was filed on Feb. 19 for a suit against the Attorney General of Canada in the Federal Court in Montreal by Consumer Law Group. It comes after a 2024 report by the auditor general of Canada found issues with the ArriveCan app, including that it wrongly instructed about 10,000 people to quarantine in June 2022 following one of many updates. "There was an obligation on the government to make sure the app was functioning properly, because there were serious consequences if it was not," Jeff Orenstein, a lawyer at Consumer Law Group, said on Feb. 20. The app was used to collect information about where travellers had been, their pre-travel COVID-19 test results, proof of vaccination and symptom self-assessments. Issues with the app arose almost immediately after it became mandatory to enter Canada, with travellers complaining that it was confusing, unreliable and awkward to navigate. Several people reported being ordered to quarantine over issues with the app as early as December 2021. The class action covers anyone who travelled to Canada while the app was mandatory for entry (between Nov. 21, 2020 and Oct. 1, 2022) and was wrongly instructed to isolate when they should have been exempt because of their vaccination status. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs in the case -- Quebec residents E. Sabbag and D. Rossner -- had issues accessing the app while returning from New York State in May 2022. The pair tried to explain the problem to a border agent at the St-Bernard-de-Lacolle port of entry and attempted to show proof of vaccination outside the app, but they were instructed to quarantine because they couldn't submit the documentation electronically, the court documents say. The plaintiffs called the Public Health Agency of Canada and were told by a quarantine officer that they would have to await the results of COVID-19 tests to be allowed out of isolation, which took several days to arrive, the documents say. In addition to missing out on their usual routines, both missed planned trips as a result. The lawsuit alleges the plaintiffs' Charter rights were infringed upon, particularly regarding the right to liberty and the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. "We allege various different types of damages that could have been experienced by that. Some of them I think are fairly obvious when you can't leave your house," Orenstein said. The damages haven't been quantified yet, he added. In addition to issues with the functionality of the app itself, the auditor general report exposed issues related to its creation and maintenance. At a press conference on Feb. 20, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said it's "obvious" contracting rules weren't followed during the app's development, adding that investigations are ongoing and there will be consequences for situations in which public servants didn't abide by rules. "Ultimately, the auditor general found that there had been a glaring disregard for basic management and contracting practices surrounding the ArriveCan application," Consumer Law Group said in a statement. Those who wish to join the class action can do so on the Consumer Law Group website. The class-action request still needs to be authorized to move forward. With files from The Canadian Press and Katherine Wilton. [GN] CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Martins Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- RITA MARTINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10357-MJJ (D. Mass., February 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay appropriate wages in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a delivery driver from approximately November 2022 until September 2023. Capstone Logistics, LLC is a logistics company based in Peachtree Corners, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harold Lichten, Esq. Matthew Thomson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com mthomson@llrlaw.com - and - Michael J. Bace, Esq. BACE LAW GROUP, LLC P.O. Box 9316 Boston, MA 02114 Telephone: (508) 922-8328 E-mail: mjb@bacelaw.com CLUB LOS GLOBOS: Fails to Properly Pay Bouncers, Lyskoski Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- KYLE STEPHEN LYSKOSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLUB LOS GLOBOS CORPORATION and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV03706 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 13, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California's Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages owed every pay period, failure to pay wages when employment ends, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide personnel records, and failure to provide pay records, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff has worked at Club Los Globos as a bouncer in or around September/October 2023. Club Los Globos Corporation is a club owner and operator doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 CO-DIAGNOSTICS: Must Face Securities Class Action in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP on Feb. 20 disclosed that on February 5, 2024, Judge Arun Subramanian of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York largely declined to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a manufacturer of medical tests and certain of its executives. Stadium Capital LLC v. Co-Diagnostics, Inc., 2024 WL 456745 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations regarding the prospect of future sales of the company's medical tests as the COVID-19 pandemic subsided. The Court held that plaintiff plausibly alleged actionable misrepresentations regarding comments made announcing earnings results for the first quarter of 2022, and plausibly alleged that defendants acted with scienter. Plaintiff alleged that during the COVID-19 pandemic—from the second quarter of 2020 through the first quarter of 2022—the company's revenue was approximately $20 million per quarter, but that in the second quarter of 2022 the company's revenue was only $5 million. Id.at *1. The Court first determined that three challenged statements were actionable: (i) "changes in our operating environment and markets have restricted our near term visibility"; (ii) "[o]ur ability to accurately forecast . . . COVID-19 test sales through the balance of the year has diminished"; and (iii) "we are experiencing sizable fluctuations in order patterns from our customers . . . [and] it has become difficult to predict with an expected level of precision the cumulative impact of these and other factors on our future financial results." Id.at *2. The Court explained that the company's references to "near term visibility" and "fluctuations" implied it was experiencing current or potential volatility, not that its sales had actually already cratered, as plaintiff alleged, and which was supported by the company's reported revenue figures. Id. The Court found these statements would have provided "comfort to investors" even though plaintiff alleged that the company knew demand for tests was already in decline. Id. Moreover, the company CFO expressly said in response to a question about whether the company was "already seeing a decline in customer orders" that the company's statements to this effect were "more about the timing and being able to forecast the timing of orders ... not necessarily a demand issue that we're seeing," which the Court held reinforced the determination that the challenged statements were plausibly alleged to be misleading. Id. The Court held these statements were not opinions or puffery because they described fluctuations in order patterns and were "determinate, verifiable statements." Id. The Court also determined that these statements were not forward-looking, and to the extent they were, they were not accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements, since the cautionary language was misleading in light of historical fact, and thus not subject to the safe harbor for forward-looking statements. Id. In addition, the Court held that plaintiff adequately alleged that the company failed to disclose a trend with respect to its declining sales as required by Item 303 of Regulation S-K by failing to disclose that federal funding it had received for COVID tests had run out. Id.at *4. The Court noted that it was plausible that at least half the company's revenue was tied to this funding since the company, in opposing the motion to dismiss, had argued that half of the company's revenue was attributable to other sources. Id. The Court also noted that even though decreased federal funding for COVID testing had been publicized, "the magnitude of the effect" on the company was not. Id. But the Court held that various statements were not actionable since they did not imply anything about overall demand for the company's products, and otherwise described historical facts about the company's performance. Id. The Court then held that plaintiff adequately alleged scienter. Id.at *5. The Court explained that plaintiff alleged that the company's executives were reckless in making the challenged statements because the executives had knowledge or access to facts that contradicted those statements, as evidenced by the fact that the executives noted that they were "able to monitor the daily influx of demand for our tests" and "keep a close eye on" distributor inventory "every day" and explained that they saw "falloff" in inventory when they reported their disappointing earnings results. Id. On the basis of these statements about sales monitoring, the Court held that the executives "were likely to know whether demand had fallen substantially for the product that accounted for more than 99% of the company's revenue" and thus scienter was supported by the "core operations doctrine" which "reflects the commonsense assumption that executives are likely to know more about things central to their business." Id. The Court found that the company's statements noting "fluctuations" and an "inability to forecast" also suggested they were monitoring sales, knew sales were down and hoped that demand would later rebound. Id. The Court similarly held that scienter was sufficiently alleged with respect to the Item 303 claim, given the importance of federal funding to the company's revenue. Id. The Court rejected defendants' arguments against the inference of scienter. First, the Court held that the individual defendants were linked to the alleged fraud by their statements that they closely monitored sales. Id.at *6. Second, while the individual defendants were not alleged to have reviewed specific sales reports that undermined their statements, the Court explained that in this case plaintiff was not alleging the general existence of sales reports but was instead pointing to the fact that the company's executives themselves touted that they were monitoring sales at the time they were speaking with investors. Id. Finally, the Court rejected the suggestion the company lacked motive in light of the company's stock buybacks, noting that the volume of stock buybacks was significantly lower during the period plaintiff contended the company's stock price was inflated than during the surrounding periods, and the individual executives' stock holdings increased because options had vested and were sold to cover certain tax obligations. Id. Thus, the Court held that plaintiff adequately alleged the company's executives knew sales were down and tried to obscure that fact. Id. Stadium Capital LLC v. Co-Diagnostics, Inc. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. [GN] CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Court OK's Bid to Certify Class in Issokson ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Issokson v. Connecticut General Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-30070 (D. Mass., Filed May 17, 2018), the Hon. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni entered an order granting motion to certify class. As an initial matter, the court concludes that the applicable contract is the group policy, not the individual certificates. Both the certificates and the group policy explicitly say this. Here, the master group policy was delivered in Washington D.C. to a D.C.-based group policyholder trust. Washington D.C. law therefore applies. As Plaintiff argues, after resolving these preliminary questions, "Defendant's primary arguments against certification fall away." The common question is whether the policy's inflation protection benefit should be calculated using a compound interest formula instead of a simple interest formula. The court also finds "that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Requiring individual insureds "to litigate their cases is a vastly inferior method of adjudication when compared to determining threshold issues of contract interpretation that apply equally to the whole class." The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. Connecticut General provides insurance services.[CC] CONNEXIN SOFTWARE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $4M ------------------------------------------------------------ Steve Alder, writing for The HIPPA Journal, reports that Connexin Software, which does business as Office Practicum, has proposed a $4 million settlement to resolve a consolidated class action lawsuit stemming from a 2022 data breach that affected almost 3 million individuals. Office Practicum provides pediatric-specific health information technology solutions to healthcare providers, including electronic health records, practice management software, billing services, and business analytics tools. On August 26, 2022, Connexin Software said it detected a data anomaly within its internal network and the subsequent forensic investigation confirmed that an unauthorized third party had obtained an offline set of patient data that was used for data conversion and troubleshooting. The compromised data included the protected health information of 2,675,934 patients, the majority of whom were children. The compromised data included names, guarantor names, parent/guardian names, addresses, email addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health insurance information, medical and treatment information, and billing and claims data. Several class action lawsuits were filed against Connexin Software shortly after the company announced the breach, nine of which were consolidated into a single class action lawsuit as they all made similar claims, including an alleged failure to implement reasonable and appropriate security measures to protect patient data. Children's data is particularly valuable to cybercriminals as it can be misused for years. The affected individuals suffered an invasion of privacy and immediate and long-term risks of identity theft, fraud, medical identity theft, misappropriation of health insurance benefits, and other misuses. The plaintiffs argued that the threat actor behind the attack could also sell the data of children to human trafficking groups. The settlement is in the best interests of all parties concerned. The plaintiffs will be able to claim for reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses and Connexin Software will avoid further legal costs. Connexin Software explained to the judge when filing the preliminary settlement that if the lawsuit had progressed much further, the company would have no option other than to file for bankruptcy protection. All parties have agreed to the proposed settlement, which has received preliminary approval from a Pennsylvania federal court judge. The plaintiffs and class members have been given three options: Expanded identity theft protection services for three years and coverage by a $1,000,000 identity theft insurance policy; reimbursement for unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses up to a maximum of $7,500 per class member; or a flat-fee cash payment, the amount of which will be determined based on the claims received. Connexin Software has also agreed to invest $1.5 million in its information security program to better protect patient data in the future. Attorneys for the plaintiffs and class members are seeking around $1.3 million in fees. "The parties were well-aware of each other's strengths and weaknesses by virtue of the court's ruling on Connexin's partial motion to dismiss, their exchange of thousands of pages of documents, nearly a dozen depositions, and mediation-related discovery and analysis directed at Connexin's finances," states the settlement document. "Rather than prolonging the litigation, plaintiffs have reached a settlement that will immediately provide them and class members with significant benefits for their injuries arising from the data security incident." The settlement now awaits a final hearing, the date for which has not yet been set. [GN] CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: $14MM Settlement to be Heard on June 6 ------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION FERRARO FAMILY FOUNDATION, INC. and JAMES L. FERRARO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS INCORPORATED, JOSEPH K. BELANOFF, CHARLES ROBB, and SEAN MADUCK, Defendants. SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, FINAL APPROVAL HEARING AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All Persons that during the period from August 2, 2017 through January 31, 2019, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock or options to purchase common stock of Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated (the "Settlement Class"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (THE "COURT"). PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS INCORPORATED, OR ANY OTHER DEFENDANT, OR THEIR COUNSEL, REGARDING THIS NOTICE. ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS NOTICE, THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, OR YOUR ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO LEAD COUNSEL OR THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR, WHOSE CONTACT INFORMATION IS PROVIDED BELOW. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the Settlement Class in the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been preliminarily certified for the purposes of the proposed Settlement only. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Ferraro Group (consisting of the Ferraro Family Foundation, Inc. and James L. Ferraro) ("Lead Plaintiff"), on behalf of itself and the proposed Settlement Class, and the Defendants have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $14 million in cash (the "Settlement Amount"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action (the "Settlement"). A hearing (the "Final Approval Hearing") will be held before the Honorable James Donato, United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of California, either via telephonic or video conference, or in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102 at 10:00 a.m. on June 6, 2024, to, among other things, determine whether: (i) the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (ii) the Action against the Defendants should be dismissed with prejudice, as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation"), dated April 11, 2023; (iii) the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement Fund, and any interest earned thereon, less Taxes, Notice and Administration Costs, Litigation Expenses awarded by the Court, attorneys' fees awarded by the Court and any other costs, expenses or amounts as may be approved by the Court (the "Net Settlement Fund"), should be approved as fair and reasonable; (iv) the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved; and (v) the application for an award to pay the time and expenses of Lead Plaintiff should be approved.1 The Court may change the date of the Final Approval Hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Final Approval Hearing in order to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received (i) the printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Final Approval Hearing and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses ("Notice") or (ii) the Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain a copy of those documents from the Settlement website www.CorceptSecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting the Claims Administrator: Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173029 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Please refer to the website for more detailed information and to review the Settlement documents. Inquiries other than requests for information about the status of a claim may also be made to Lead Counsel: Shannon L. Hopkins Gregory M. Potrepka Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 If you are a potential Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must timely submit a valid Claim Form, which can be found on the website listed above, postmarked no later than May 13, 2024. If you are a potential Settlement Class Member and do not submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. 1 The Notice and the Stipulation, available for download at www.CorceptSecuritiesLitigation.com, contain additional information concerning the Settlement and the definitions, and further explanation, of many of the defined terms used in this Summary Notice (which are indicated by initial capital letters). If you are a potential Settlement Class Member, but wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice, which can also be found on the website, postmarked no later than May 13, 2024. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be eligible to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you are a potential Settlement Class Member and do not timely exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation, Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, or the application for an award to pay the time and expenses of Lead Plaintiff must be submitted to the Court in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice, including by filing with the Court no later than May 13, 2024, and postmarked or emailed to the Settling Parties' counsel no later than May 13, 2024. DATED: FEBRUARY 5, 2024 THE HONORABLE JAMES DONATO United States District Court Judge, United States District Court for The Northern District of California CORE ENVIRONMENTAL: Guzman Sues Over Unlawful Pay Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- JESUS GUZMAN, as an individual and on behalf of all employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV03593 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 13, 2024) arises from the Defendant's unlawful pay and business practices that violated the California Labor Code, the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and Code of Regulations, and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff was employed as a foreman supervisor from June 12, 2023 to January 15, 2024. Throughout his employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff was required to work overtime in excess of eight hours per workday and in excess of 40 hours per workweek but was not paid at the proper overtime rate of pay. Among other things, he was not reimbursed for all necessary expenditures he incurred in direct discharge of his duties, says the Plaintiff. Core Environmental Solutions is a California registered corporation that provides asbestos abatement, lead abatement, mold remediation, demolition, bio-hazard cleanup, and hoarding services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lilit Tunyan, Esq. Artur Tunyan, Esq. TUNYAN LAW, APC 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 285 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (323) 410-5050 E-mail: ltunyan@tunyanlaw.com atunyan@tunyanlaw.com DAVITA INC: Teodosio Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOURDES M. TEODOSIO, AMBER BROCK, GAROON J. GIBBS-RACHO and DAMON A. PARKS, SR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DAVITA, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DAVITA, INC., THE PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF DAVITA, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:22-cv-00712-WJM-MDB (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, preliminary certification of settlement Class, approval of class notice, approval of plan of allocation, and scheduling of fairness hearing and memorandum in support. The Plaintiffs commenced this action against the Defendants by filing the Class Action Complaint on March 23, 2022, after months of pre-filing investigation and engaging consulting experts. On July 8, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. The Class Members include all individuals in the Settlement Class, or: all persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are the members of the Plan Administrative Committee of DaVita Inc. during the Class Period. Class Period means the period from March 23, 2016, through the date of the Preliminary Approval Order. DaVita is a provider of dialysis services and integrated health care management services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gU06CY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Wells, Esq. Donald R. Reavey, Esq. Brandon S. Williams, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jayw@capozziadler.com donr@capozziadler.com brandonw@capozziadler.com DICK'S SPORTING: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on April 22 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on Feb. 21 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of those who acquired Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. ("DSG" or the "Company") (NYSE: DKS) securities during the period of May 25, 2022 to August 21, 2023 inclusive ("the Class Period"). Investors have until April 22, 2024 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On May 25, 2022, DSG announced its financial results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2022 and discussed changes in its business strategy during an earnings call. The company claimed to have undergone a "transformation" to sustain its structurally higher merchandise margin when compared to pre-COVID levels. These changes included leveraging relationships with manufacturers for exclusive products, improving pricing technology, and new digital marketing tools. In subsequent updates on August 23, 2022, and November 22, 2022, DSG continued to express confidence in its merchandise margin. DSG executives continued to speak positively about demand, mentioning excess inventory in certain outdoor categories but expressing confidence in managing it effectively. However, on May 19, 2023, analyst reports from TD Cowen and Telsey Advisory Group lowered sales and earnings estimates for DSG due to their concerns about the "durability of margin expansion since 2019." On this news, the price of DSG shares declined by $9.24, or approximately 6.8%, from $135.91 per share on May 18, 2023 to close at $126.67 on May 19, 2023. Subsequently, on May 23, 2023, DSG reported its first-quarter fiscal year 2023 results and emphasized that margins would remain elevated and inventory positions would remain favorable. Then, on August 22, 2023, DSG announced significantly lower profitability and margins for the second quarter of 2023, attributing the results to issues such as elevated inventory and promotional sales of excess Outdoor inventory. On this news, the price of DSG shares declined by $35.51, or approximately 24.1%, from $147.04 per share on August 21, 2023 to close at $111.53 per share on August 22, 2023. The lawsuit alleges that the Company's representations about DSG's inventory, margins, and prospects were each misleading when made. Specifically, the true facts included: (i) demand for products in DSG's Outdoor segment was slowing faster than represented, resulting in excess inventory; (ii) the "structural changes" that Company executives repeatedly touted, including differentiated products, improved pricing technology, and more efficient clearance channels, did not allow the Company to manage its excess inventory without hurting the Company's profitability; and (iii) the need to liquidate excess inventory, including in the Outdoor segment, would have a materially negative effect on the Company's profitability. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. securities, have information, or would like to learn more about this investigation, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this CONTACT FORM, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contact: Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W. Elrod, Esq. 212-699-1180 https://www.kmllp.com investigations@kmllp.com [GN] EASTWESTPROTO INC: Bautista Sues Over Unpaid Wages for EMTs ----------------------------------------------------------- LUZ BAUTISTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EASTWESTPROTO, INC. dba LIFELINE AMBULANCE; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV03807 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California's Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages owed every pay period, failure to pay wages when employment ends, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide personnel records, and failure to provide pay records, retaliation, wrongful termination, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff worked as an emergency medical technician (EMT) from approximately 2022 until November 2023. Eastwestproto, Inc., doing business as Lifeline Ambulance, is a provider of emergency vehicles in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 EL ENCANTO: Espinobarros Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff ---------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS ANGEL ESPINOBARROS and ROSA JERONIMO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EL ENCANTO DE LOLA 2 LLC, JOSUE MORAN a/k/a JOSUE MORAN CALUCAS or JOSUE CALUCAS MORAN and LUZ MARIA MORAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01048 (E.D.N.Y., February 13, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours pay, failure to provide accurate wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements, unlawful tip retention, unlawful deductions and kickbacks, and retaliation. Plaintiffs Espinobarros and Jeronimo worked for the Defendants as bussers, food runners, and general laborers at El Encanto de Lola 2 LLC from approximately May 2019 through late July 2023 and from approximately February 2022 through late July 2023, respectively. El Encanto de Lola 2 LLC is a restaurant owner and operator, with its principal place of business at 175 Lenox Ave., New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Colin Mulholland, Esq. 36-36 33rd Street, Suite 308 Astoria, NY 11106 Telephone: (347) 687-2019 EPIC AIRCRAFT: Judge Recommends Granting Hanney Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUNO HANNEY; and PAUL TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EPIC AIRCRAFT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 6:21-cv-01199-MK (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai recommends that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification should be granted. -- The Defendant's motion to strike arguments in the Plaintiffs' reply should be denied. -- The Defendant's motion to deny class certification should be denied. The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against Epic, alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and for violating the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA"). Before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In Aug. 2021, the Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other reservation agreement holders, alleging that the Defendant breached the terms of E1000 aircraft customer reservation agreements and made material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the marketing and sale of E1000 aircraft. Epic is a general aviation aircraft manufacturer. A copy of the Court's recommendation dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s1TvGe at no extra charge.[CC] ESCAPE NAILS: Li Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WEIDONG LI, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ESCAPE NAILS & SPA, LLC, et. al Case No. 8:23-cv-01487-DKC (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order as follows (1) Granting collective action status, pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), (2) Directing the Defendants within 14 days of the entry of this Order to produce an Excel spreadsheet containing first and last name, last known address with apartment number (if applicable), the last known telephone numbers, last known e-mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work location, dates of employment and position of ALL current and former non-exempt and nonmanagerial employees employed at any time from June 1, 2020 (three years prior to the filing of the Complaint) to the date when the Court so- orders the Notice of Pendency and Consent to Join Form or the date when Defendants provide the name list, whichever is later; (3) Authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in any relevant language via mail, email, text message, website or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all members of the putative class within 21 days after receipt of a complete and accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from Defendants certifying that the list is complete and from existing employment records; (4) Authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of dissemination of the notice and its translation; (5) Authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in notice on Plaintiffs' counsel’s website; (6) Authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice may also be published to social media groups specifically targeting the Chinese, Spanish-speaking American immigrant worker community; (7) Directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed Notice in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently employed members of the collective, and the notice shall remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the workplace; (8) Directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of Pendency, in an abbreviated form to be approved by the Court, at Defendants' expense by social media and by publication in newspaper should Defendants fail to furnish a complete Excel list or more than 20% of the Notice be returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address to be published in English, and Chinese, Spanish; and (9) Directing the equitable tolling on the statute of limitation on this suit be tolled for 90 days until the expiration of the Opt-in Period. Escape Salon is an inclusive full service hair/nail salon and spa/med spa. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GsYoqT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com EXP REALTY: Class Certification Bid in Usanovic Due Dec. 11 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY USANOVIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EXP REALTY LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00687-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John C. Coughenour entered an order granting the following case management schedule: Event Date Close of Discovery: Nov. 11, 2024 Deadline for Disclosure of Expert Aug. 13, 2024 Reports: Deadline for Disclosure of Rebuttal Sept. 9, 2024 Reports: Class Certification Motion Deadline: Dec. 11, 2024 Class Certification Opposition Deadline: Jan. 15, 2025 Class Certification Reply Deadline: Feb. 5, 2025 A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zwDvqi at no extra charge.[CC] FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Bell Class Action Lawsuit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fidelity National Financial, Inc. et al. The case is captioned as Bell v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00030-TJC-LLL (M.D. Fla., Jan. 9, 2024). The suit alleges contract-related violations demanding $5M in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Corrigan. Fidelity is an American provider of title insurance and settlement services to the real estate and mortgage industries.[BN] Plaintiff Theodore Bell, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, is represented by: Ra O. Amen, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: ramen@masonllp.com - and - Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq. KYNES, MARKMAN & FELMAN, PA 100 S Ashley Dr-Ste 1300 Tampa, FL 33601-3396 Telephone: (813) 229-1118 Facsimile: (813) 221-6750 E-mail: KYanes@kmf-law.com FIESTA COFFEE: Martinez Suit Seeks Restaurant Cooks' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- GREGORIO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIESTA COFFEE AND GRILL CORP. (DBA FIESTA MEXICAN RESTAURANT) and DELFINA ARENAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01107 (E.D.N.Y., February 13, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide notice at time of hiring, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook at 2931 Fulton St., Brooklyn, New York from approximately February 2023 until December 15, 2023. Fiesta Coffee and Grill Corp. is the owner and operator of the Fiesta Mexican Restaurant located at Fulton St., Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL PC 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 FIRST NATIONAL: Hussan Seeks Universal Bankers' Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- WARAICH HUSSAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LONG ISLAND, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01155 (E.D.N.Y., February 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to pay earned wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a universal banker from on or around January 2, 2021 until on or around July 4, 2022. First National Bank of Long Island is a bank company in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin L. Swidler, Esq. Matthew D. Miller, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 9 Tanner Street, Suite 101 Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Facsimile: (856) 685-7417 E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com jswidler@swartz-legal.com FIT FOODS: Fact & Class Discovery in Scheibe Suit Due April 26 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB SCHEIBE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. FIT FOODS DISTRIBUTION INC., d/b/a MUTANT, Case No. 3:23-cv-00220-JLS-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison H. Goddard entered a scheduling order setting discovery deadlines and class certification motion deadline: 1. Any motion to join other parties, amend Feb. 4, 2024 the pleadings, or file additional pleadings shall be filed by: 2. Fact and class discovery are not April 26, 2024 bifurcated, but class discovery must be completed by: Fit Foods provides research & development, manufacturing & distribution of nutritional supplements. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X865Kd at no extra charge.[CC] FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Class Settlement in Ali Tossed w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMMED USMAN ALI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. FRANKLIN WIRELESS CORP., OC KIM, and DAVID BROWN, Case No. 3:21-cv-00687-AJB-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order denying without Prejudice lead plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. -- The denial is without prejudice to the filing of a renewed motion addressing the deficiencies identified in this Order. The renewed motion must be filed no later than Feb. 26, 2024 and contain information and case law authority establishing that the proposed settlement is within the range of possible approval. On April 16, 2021, Mohammed Usman Ali filed a Class Action Complaint against the Defendants On Sept. 15, 2021, the Court appointed Gergely Csaba as Lead Plaintif and Pomerantz LLP as Lead Counsel pursuant to section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act. On Jan. 3, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for class certification and certified the following Class: "All persons and entities other than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Franklin Wireless Corporation common stock between September 17, 2020 and April 8, 2021, inclusive." Excluded from the Class are any parties who are or have been Defendants in this litigation, the present and former officers and directors of Franklin and any subsidiary thereof, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which any current or former Defendant has or had a controlling interest. Franklin is a wireless broadband high-speed data communications products provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 24, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q1xVmX at no extra charge.[CC] GOLDMAN SACHS: Extension of Expert Discovery Deadline Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sjunde AP-Fonden v. The Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-12084-VSB-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties' asks the Court to enter an order extending the time to complete expert discovery after the class certification hearing, while also accommodating Defendants' experts schedules: Event Current Proposed Schedule Schedule Plaintiff's Reply Expert Reports Feb. 5, 2024 March 22, 2024 Close of Expert Discovery Mar. 8, 2024 April 22, 2024 Goldman is a leading global investment banking, securities and investment management firm. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ifpkqt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER CHECK LLP 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: azivitz@ktmc.com GRAND CANYON EDUCATION: Securities Class Suit Ongoing in Delaware ----------------------------------------------------------------- Grand Canyon Education Inc. 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 the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On May 12, 2020, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by the City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System naming the Company, Brian E. Mueller and Daniel E. Bachus as defendants for allegedly making false and materially misleading statements regarding the circumstances surrounding the Company's sale of Grand Canyon University (the "University") to a non-profit entity on July 1, 2018 and the subsequent decision of the U.S. Department of Education to continue to treat the University as a for-profit institution for education regulatory purposes (collectively, the "Conversion"). The complaint asserted a putative class period stemming from January 5, 2018, the date when the Company announced that it had applied to the University's accreditor for approval of the Conversion, to January 27, 2020, the date prior to the publication of a short-seller report focused on the Conversion. A substantially similar complaint was filed in the same court by Grant Walsh on June 12, 2020 making similar allegations against the Company, Mr. Mueller and Mr. Bachus. Both complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and sought unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. On August 13, 2020, the two cases were consolidated and the Fire and Police Association of Colorado, the Oakland County Employees' Retirement System and the Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association Trust were appointed as lead plaintiffs. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on October 20, 2020 and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on December 21, 2020. On August 23, 2021, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety but permitted plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint to correct deficiencies in the initial complaint. The plaintiffs filed further amended complaints on September 28, 2021 and January 21, 2022, and the Company filed a further motion to dismiss on March 15, 2022. On March 28, 2023, the Company’s motion to dismiss was denied. On January 5, 2024, plaintiffs moved for class certification and the briefing on plaintiffs' motion is ongoing. Grand Canyon Education, Inc. is a publicly traded education services company dedicated to serving colleges and universities. GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: March 26 Class Cert Filing Extension Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH HICKS, an Individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated and the general public, v. GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC., a Corporation with Headquarters in California, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-02038-JLS-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the parties stipulate and agree that (a) the last day for plaintiff to file a motion for class certification should be continued and reset to March 26, 2024; and (b) the opposition and reply briefing dates, and hearing date, relating to that motion for class certification should be set as follows: Event Current Date Requested Date L/D to File Motion for Feb. 6, 2024 March 26, 2024 Class Cert. L/D to File Opposition to [not set] May 23, 2024 Class Cert. L/D to File Reply to Class Cert. [not set] June 7, 2024 Hearing on Motion for Class Cert. [not set] June 21, 2024 Grimmway grows, produces, and supplies agricultural products. A copy of the the Parties' motion dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LqX9Iv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq. Ryan T. Kuhn, Esq. Karoline D. Kitlowski, Esq. SULLIVAN & YAECKEL LAW GROUP, APC 2330 3rd Ave, San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 702-6760 The Defendants are represented by: Timothy K. Branson, Esq. Richard Spirra, Esq. Patrick J. Mulkern, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 101 W. Broadway Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-7441 Facsimile: (619) 696-7124 E-mail: tbranson@grsm.com rspirra@grsm.com pmulkern@grsm.com HARBOR FREIGHT: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Hammock Due March 8 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hammock v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-00312 (W.D. Mo., Filed May 10, 2022), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting joint motion to amend scheduling order: (1) The Defendant's opposition to class Feb. 5, 2024 certification shall be filed on or before: (2) The Plaintiff's class certification March 8, 2024 reply shall be filed on or before: The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Property Damage Product Liability. Harbor Freight is an American privately held tool and equipment retailer.[CC] HEALTH CAROUSEL: Extension to File Initial OK of Settlement Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Novie Dale Carmen, Jerlin C. Amistoso, and Kersteen B. Flores, individually and as Representatives of the Classes, v. Health Carousel, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00313-DRC (S.D. Ohio), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for a motion regarding preliminary settlement approval until March 1, 2024. 1. On Dec. 21, 2023, the Plaintiffs Novie Dale Carmen, Jerlin C. Amistoso, and Kersteen B. Flores, individually and as Representatives of the Classes and Defendant Health Carousel, LLC. 2. Through mediation, the Parties reached a settlement in principle to resolve this action on a class-wide basis. 3. On Jan. 8, 2024, the Parties moved this Court to stay deadlines for discovery and briefing on class certification and requested a deadline of February 1, 2024, for the Parties to file a motion regarding preliminary settlement approval. 4. On Jan. 9, 2024, the Court granted the Parties' motion. 5. The Parties are still engaged in negotiations regarding the terms of the settlement and, in light of counsel's trial schedules, require additional time to finalize a full settlement agreement. Health Carousel is a total talent management company with a leading portfolio of healthcare staffing and workforce solutions. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NQyiCL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anna P. Prakash, Esq. Joshua R. Cottle, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: aprakash@nka.com jcottle@nka.com - and - Robert E. DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP 250 East Broad Street, 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Bryce Ashby, Esq. DONATI LAW 1545 Union Avenue Memphis, TN 38104 Telephone: (901) 209-5500 E-mail: bryce@donatilaw.com - and - Valerie Collins, Esq. David H. Seligman, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE PMB 44465 Denver, CO 80237-5680 Telephone: (720) 295-1672 E-mail: valerie@towardsjustice.org david@towardsjustice.org - and - Jennifer Dale Bennett, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER, PLLC 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 573-0336 Facsimile: (202) 888-7792 E-mail: jennifer@guptawessler.com The Defendant is represented by: Russell S. Sayre, Esq. Beth A. Bryan, Esq. Kenneth A. Foisy, Esq. Spencer S. Cowan, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 357-9460 Facsimile: (513) 381-0205 E-mail: sayre@taftlaw.com bryan@taftlaw.com kfoisy@taftlaw.com scowan@taftlaw.com HEALTHEC LLC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Markowitz Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MINDY MARKOWITZ and BRENDA LITTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HealthEC, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00172-JKS-ESK (D.N.J., Jan. 10, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") in a data breach, which HEC publicly disclosed on December 22, 2023. The Plaintiff contends that over 4.5 million patients' information was affected by the Data Breach, including names, Social Security numbers, medical record numbers, billing information, and claims information. The sensitive nature of the data exposed through the Data Breach signifies that the Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered irreparable harm. The Defendant inexcusably delayed disclosing and providing notice of the Data Breach to their customers. The Defendant believes that the Data Breach occurred on July 14 and July 23, 2023. Despite the Defendant's public disclosure on October 26, 2023 regarding the Data Breach, the Plaintiffs were not notified until December 22, 2023, the suit claims. As a result of the Defendant's negligence and breach of duties, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have and will suffer damages including a substantial increase in the likelihood of identity theft; loss of time and costs associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from unauthorized use of their personal information; future costs in terms of time, effort, and money that will be required to prevent, detect, and repair the impact of the personal information compromised as a result of the Data Breach; and overpayment for the services or products that were received without adequate data security, says the suit. Plaintiff Markowitz is a citizen of Michigan and resides in Southfield Michigan. The Plaintiff Markowitz received a notice of data breach letter -- dated December 22, 2023 -- from HealthEC. Plaintiff Brenda Little is a citizen of Michigan and resides in Wayne, Michigan. The Plaintiff Little, received a notice of data breach letter -- dated December 22, 2023 -- from HealthEC. HEC is an analytics software vendor, which helps develop and deliver end-to-end technology solutions for exchanging healthcare information and managing population health technology company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: cmaccarone@zlk.com HIGHER EDUCATION: Lancaster Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------------- BRIANNA LANCASTER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI D/B/A MOHELA, Defendant, Case No. 24-000699-CI (Fla. Cir., 6th Judicial, Pinellas Cty., February 13, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff Lancaster alleges that the Defendant violated the FCCPA when it sent a consumer debt-related electronic mail communication on October 7, 2023 at 4:59 AM in her time zone. Headquartered in Chesterfield, MO, Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri is a servicer to federal student aid. [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 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Misused Forfeited Funds, Barragan Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ LUCIANO BARRAGAN, individually and as a representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Honeywell 401(k) Plan, Plaintiff v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.; and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01194 (C.D. Cal., February 13, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty, breach of fiduciary duty of prudence, breach of anti-inurement provision, and prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The case arises from the Defendants' breach of their fiduciary duties to the Honeywell 401(k) Plan and its participants by failing to use forfeited funds to pay the Plan's administrative expenses. Instead, the Defendants have consistently utilized the forfeited funds in the Plan exclusively for the company's own benefit, to the detriment of the Plan and its participants, by using these Plan assets solely to reduce company contributions to the Plan. Honeywell International, Inc. is a global technology and manufacturing company with offices in Torrance, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew B. Hayes, Esq. Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq. HAYES PAWLENKO LLP 1414 Fair Oaks Avenue, Unit 2B South Pasadena, CA 91030 Telephone: (626) 808-4357 E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com ICON HEALTH: Barclay's Class Cert. Bid Reply Due March 22 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barclay v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:19-cv-02970 (D. Minn., Filed Nov. 22, 2019), the Hon. Judge Eric C. Tostrud entered an order amending the Pretrial Schedule as follows: (a) The Defendants must file their opposition Feb. 9, 2024 to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification by: (b) The Plaintiffs must file their reply in March 22, 2024 support of the class-certification motion by: This extension shall not be a basis for extension of the dispositive motion or trial-ready deadlines. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Icon Health manufactures and markets home fitness products.[CC] ICOT HOLDINGS: Bank's Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TODD C. BANK, v. ICOT HOLDINGS, LLC AND ICOT HEARING SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-02554-AMD-PK (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ann M. Donnelly entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The pro se plaintiff brought this action individually and as a class action, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The plaintiff asserts that he was at his mother's home and answered two prerecorded phone calls promoting hearing aids. The plaintiff asserts that these calls violated the TCPA because his mother’s phone number was on the national do-not-call registry and no one had given the defendant express written consent to call that line. The plaintiff answered two calls on his mother's residential telephone line, one in 2017 and the second in 2018. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qBL7uK at no extra charge.[CC] INMODE LTD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on April 15 ------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of common stock of InMode Ltd. (NASDAQ: INMD) between June 4, 2021 and October 12, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 15, 2024. SO WHAT: If you purchased InMode securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the InMode class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=22575 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 15, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) InMode heavily discounts almost every device it sells; (2) demand for InMode's products was driven by InMode's willingness to discount its products; (3) InMode violated U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regulations by engaging in off-label marketing and promoting products for treatment of indications for which they lack FDA approval; and (4) InMode violated FDA regulations by failing to timely report injuries caused by its devices. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the InMode class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=22575 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] INNODATA INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 20 announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Innodata Inc. (NASDAQ: INOD) resulting from allegations that Innodata may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Innodata securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=22655 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On February 15, 2024, Wolfpack Research released a report entitled "INOD: Exposing INOD's 'Smoke and Mirrors' AI." In this report, Wolfpack stated that "despite management's pumping that it is 'delivering the promise of AI to many of the world's most prestigious companies,' it is a deteriorating, manual data-entry business driven by offshore labor, not innovation.'" On this news, the price of Innodata stock fell $3.74 per share, or 30.5%, to close at $8.52 on February 15, 2024. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] ISAAC OUAZANA: Layani RICO Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERARD LAYANI, et al., v. ISAAC OUAZANA, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00420-SAG (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class of: "All persons targeted by the Defendants' scheme who: a. Purchased a full or fractional interest in properties sold directly or indirectly by Defendants, and who, within four years before the filing of this action were entitled to receive, requested or otherwise asked the Defendants to render accounts and provide true and complete information regarding the person's investment funds; or b. Had a property managed directly or indirectly by the Defendants, and who, within four years before the filing of this action were entitled to receive, requested or otherwise asked the Ouazana Defendants to render accounts and provide true and complete information regarding the management of the person's property. the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order." The Plaintiffs contend that the Court should certify the proposed class because the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are met (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation) and the class fulfils the requirements and may be certified under Rule 23(b)(1)(B), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in a wide-ranging scheme to defraud scores of investors via the sale and management of various properties in Baltimore City, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and Maryland state law. The alleged "scheme to defraud is broadly divided into two types of fraud: (a) Fraud in Marketing/Selling the Baltimore real estate; and (b) Property-Management-related Looting, Concealment, and Related Fraud." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YBsh0k at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jamil Zouaoui, Esq. MIZENE, PLLC 2911 Arizona Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 670-0529 E-mail: jzouaoui@mizene.us JASON PERRI: Green Seeks Proper Overtime Wages for Couriers ----------------------------------------------------------- TERRICA L. GREEN, Individually, and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JASON PERRI GROUP, LLC, and JASON C. PERRI, individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00167 (M.D. Tenn., February 13, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former couriers of Defendants in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Allegedly, Defendants had a common practice of requiring Plaintiff and other similarly situated couriers to begin their daily work prior to the beginning of their assigned shifts without being paid the applicable FLSA overtime compensation within weekly pay periods during all times material for such "off the clock" time, says the suit. Based in College Grove, TN, Jason Perri Group, LLC, is a Tennessee limited liability company that provides courier services for businesses, healthcare and other entities in Middle Tennessee and other surrounding states. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com JEFF SANDY: Plaintiffs Seek to Supplement Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL D. ROSE, et al., v. JEFF SANDY, et al. Case No. 5:22-cv-00405 (S.D.W. Va.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order granting them leave to supplement the record in support of their Motion for Class Certification as to medical Defendants Wexford Health Sources. Inc.; PrimeCare Medical, Inc; and PrimeCare Medical of West Virginia, Inc. The Plaintiffs state in support of their motion that undue delay in Defendants' responses to Plaintiffs' timely discovery requests has led to the discovery of additional information regarding the class allegations. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F6JPCd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen P. New, Esq. Emilee B. Wooldridge, Esq. STEPHEN NEW & ASSOCIATES 430 Harper Park Drive Beckley, WV 25801 Telephone: (304) 250-6017 Facsimile: (304) 250-6012 - and - Amanda J. Taylor, Esq. TAYLOR, HINKLE & TAYLOR 115 ½ S. Kanawha St. Beckley, WV 25801 Telephone: (304) 894-8733 Facsimile: (681) 245-6236 E-mail: amanda@thtwv.com - and - Timothy Lupardus, Esq. THE LUPARDUS LAW OFFICE 275 Bearhole Road Pineville, WV 24874 Telephone: (304) 732-0250 E-mail: office@luparduslaw.com - and - Zachary Whitten, Esq. THE WHITTEN LAW OFFICE Pineville, WV 24874 E-mail: zwhittenlaw@gmail.com - and - Robert Dunlap, Esq. ROBERT DUNLAP & ASSOCIATES 208 Main Street Beckley, WV 25801 Telephone: (304) 255-4762 JIANGNANNJ LLC: Ignacio Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE IGNACIO and ALBERTO IGNACIO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. JIANGNANNJ LLC d/b/a JIANG NAN NJC, JIANGNANNJM LLC d/b/a JIANG NAN NJM, and LEI CHEN, individually, Case No. 2:23-cv-22964-WJM-JBC (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) Granting Conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim as a representative collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); (2) Granting Court-facilitated notice of this FLSA action to covered employees; including a consent form (or opt-in form) as authorized by the FLSA; (3) Approving of the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the consent form; (4) Directing the Production of names, last known mailing address, alternate address, telephone numbers, and dates of employment of all covered employees; and (5) Posting of the Notice, along with consent forms, in conspicuous locations at Defendants. Jiangnannj is a chinese restaurant located at 97 Montgomery St, Jersey City. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KbCqoV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 250 Broadway, Suite 600 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 323-6980 Facsimile: (212) 233-9238 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Drug Pricing Suit Asks Class Action Status ------------------------------------------------------------- Doug Bailey, writing for InsuranceNewsNet.com, reports that in what's being called a "watershed" case for pharmaceutical price transparency and accountability, a lawsuit seeking class action status accuses drug giant Johnson & Johnson of mismanaging its employee benefits program causing huge overpayments for certain drugs. And it is likely a harbinger of what's to come for employee health plans. The drug pricing lawsuit, filed in early February in New Jersey U.S. District Court by a former Johnson & Johnson employee, says the company's pension and benefits plan did not take proper measures to ensure its costs were reasonable and failed to prudently select a pharmacy benefit manager resulting in undesirable contract terms. Allegations included in the 74-page complaint includes the eye-opening example of the Johnson & Johnson benefits manager paying a whopping $10,239.69 for a 90-day supply of a treatment for multiple sclerosis when a generic drug was available at local pharmacies for as little as $28, even before accounting for insurance. That's "not a typo," the complaint states. Breach of 'fiduciary duties' charged "Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and mismanaged Johnson and Johnson's prescription-drug benefits program, costing their ERISA plans and their employees millions of dollars in the form of higher payments for prescription drugs, higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher coinsurance, higher copays, and lower wages or limited wage growth," the complaint states. This drug pricing lawsuit, which asks for a jury trial, joins a number of impending lawsuits alleging improper corporate governance of pension and employee plans but may be the first to involve health care benefits. It won't be the last. "This is probably the first of many class action suits pitting plan participants against their plan sponsor for not taking their fiduciary responsibility seriously," said Mark Galvin, founder and CEO of Talon, based in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, which worked with the White House Health Policy Team in developing the new Transparency in Coverage rule. Talon was subsequently used as the model upon which the new Transparency in Coverage and No Surprises Act federal mandates are based. Galvin said the lack of healthcare price transparency has led to outrageous overspending, with price disparities between providers paying up to 25 times for the same services. "The new federal transparency rules are exposing this overspending and requiring employers to shop for better prices as fiduciaries," he said. While Galvin and others agree the Johnson & Johnson drug pricing lawsuit is going to put managers of employee health plans on notice that their fiduciary responsibility will extend to price shopping and negotiation for drugs, he said the corporations aren't totally to blame for the alleged mismanagement. Lack of transparency cited "The system is broken by the lack of transparency and perverse incentives, not unethical employers," he said. Talon provides real-time healthcare shipping tools to expose true prices. The new rules require employers to shop for better prices as fiduciaries or face major fines. "The new rules will drive overall market efficiency over the next three to five years," he said. Congress enacted Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) following several high-profile scandals involving employers that mismanaged employee benefits programs causing millions of dollars of harm to employees and their dependents. "ERISA was designed to put an end to this mismanagement and to protect the interests of employee benefit plan participants," the Johnson & Johnson lawsuit notes. "It does so by 'establishing standards of conduct, responsibility, and obligation for fiduciaries of employee benefit plans,' and by providing plan participants with "appropriate remedies, sanctions, and ready access to the Federal courts' when plan fiduciaries mismanage plan assets." NABIP anticipates more lawsuits The National Association of Benefits and Insurance Professionals also believes more lawsuits like the J&J case are coming. "It's anticipated that several more lawsuits alleging similar violations will be filed in the same fashion," said NABIP CEO Jessica Brooks-Woods. "The Johnson & Johnson lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and statutory penalties under ERISA because -- if the case's allegations are accurate -- J&J did not uphold its responsibility to fiduciaries." Brooks-Woods said overall, the case underscores the importance of ERISA and the legal responsibilities of plan administrators to act in the best interests of the participants and beneficiaries including exercising prudence in contract negotiations and plan management to ensure reasonable costs and fees. "NABIP will be following these developments and informing our membership as they are filed. "Plan fiduciaries should not delay in reviewing their fiduciary processes, particularly as they relate to selecting and monitoring plan contracting arrangements with [third-party administrators] to assess the reasonableness of costs and fees being paid by their health plans," she added. "NABIP will be following these developments and informing our membership as they are filed." For its part, Johnson & Johnson said the lawsuit is baseless and it will move for dismissal. "The allegations and legal theories asserted in the complaint are meritless," a Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman said. "As a company, we are committed to our employees, and we seek to provide the best coverage for the best medicines at the lowest cost. In evaluating our options, we seek to secure the best combination of cost and other terms from the pharmacy benefit managers that control the market and set reimbursement levels for medicines." But the complaint presents multiple examples it says showing Johnson & Johnson's plan paid hundreds, sometimes thousands, of times more for drugs than could be obtained in lower-cost outlets. Warnings on overcharging unheeded "Prominent media outlets, industry publications, governmental entities, and research organizations have long reported on the [pharmacy benefit management] tactics and conflicts of interest, and have warned plan administrators about the financial harms that result when they fail to act prudently and instead allow PBMs to enrich themselves at the expense of the plans and their beneficiaries," the lawsuit states. "Prudent fiduciaries would heed this advice . . . by taking steps to protect their plans from these widely reported tactics." The lawsuit said Johnson & Johnson's plan administrators knew or should have known that their PBM contracts unreasonably failed to heed these warnings and failed to protect the plans from widely reported tactics, despite having ample bargaining power. "The problem quite honestly, companies couldn't take their fiduciary responsibility seriously because they were being blocked by the entire industry which was operating in total secrecy, in pricing and all types of structures to surgically remove the consumer from the health care market," said Talon's Gavin. "Now the new rules take us from totally opaque pricing to total transparency." Galvin said it's taken a little time for health plans to realize the impact of the transparency and accountability. But they will come to realize it through litigation like the Johnson & Johnson case. "What you're seeing now and what this litigation is a result of, is there's enough people and enough transparency that people are learning about the bad behaviors that were happening behind the curtains that they never knew about," he said. "And I wouldn't say Johnson & Johnson knew that they were getting gouged for this stuff. But it is their responsibility." [GN] JOSE GARZA: Plaintiffs Fund Seeks to Certify Defendant Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Plaintiffs Fund Texas Choice, et al., v. JOSE GARZA, in his Official Capacity of Travis County District Attorney, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00859-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: (1) certifying the Defendant Class (including subclasses if necessary); (2) appointing the Prosecutor Defendants as class representatives; and (3) appointing Eric Magee of Allison, Bass & Magee, LLP as counsel for the Prosecutor Defendants as class counsel. The Plaintiffs originally filed their original motion to certify the defendant class on Nov. 1, 2022, but it has not been ruled upon and the SAC was filed after that date. The Plaintiffs propose a Defendant Class of "All elected District Attorneys and County Attorneys in the State of Texas who have the authority within their jurisdictions to enforce through criminal prosecutions the Pre-Roe Statutes” ("Defendant Class"). Alternatively, and if necessary to meet the requirements of Rule 23(a), Plaintiffs also define Defendant Subclasses of: 1. District Attorneys and County Attorneys who do not oppose the declaratory and injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs in the SAC regarding the unconstitutionality of the Pre-Roe Statutes ("Non-Opposition Subclass"); and 2. District Attorneys and County Attorneys who do oppose the declaratory and injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs in the SAC regarding the unconstitutionality of the Pre-Roe Statutes ("Opposition Subclass"). The Plaintiffs are nine Texas-based non-profit abortion funds and practical support networks and an OB-GYN and abortion provider who resides in Texas. A copy of Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s6pS9M at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer R. Ecklund, Esq. Elizabeth G. Myers, Esq. Nicole L. Williams, Esq. Allyn Jaqua Lowell, Esq. John Atkins, Esq. Elizabeth Rocha, Esq. Sarah E. Hillier, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (972) 629-7100 Facsimile: (972) 629-7171 E-mail: jecklund@thompsoncoburn.com emyers@thompsoncoburn.com nwilliams@thompsoncoburn.com alowell@thompsoncoburn.com jatkins@thompsoncoburn.com erocha@thompsoncoburn.com shillier@thompsoncoburn.com - and - Alexandra Wilson Albright, Esq. Marcy Hogan Greer, Esq. Kevin Dubose, Esq. Kirsten M. Castañeda, Esq. ALEXANDER DUBOSE & JEFFERSON, LLP 515 Congress Ave., Suite 2350 Austin, TX 78701-3562 Telephone: (512) 482-9300 Facsimile: (5120 482-9303 E-mail: aalbright@adjtlaw.com mgreer@adjtlaw.com kdubose@adjtlaw.com kcastaneda@adjtlaw.com JSW STEEL: Seeks Reconsideration of Conditional Cert Order in Polen ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON POLEN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. JSW STEEL USA OHIO, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00085-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Defendant moves the Court for reconsideration of the Opinion & Order granting in part plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. Specifically, Jason Polen testified that he was never told to begin work 20, 30, or any other number of minutes in advance of a scheduled shift, and he coordinated shift changes with others so that everyone stopped performing compensable work far in advance of the scheduled shift end. JSW brings this Motion for Reconsideration based on testimony elicited at the Jan. 15, 2024, deposition of the Named Plaintiff, Jason Polen. Polen's deposition was taken by agreement. The day after JSW terminated Polen in Oct. 2021, he agreed to serve as the named plaintiff in this action. He was angry about being terminated and "hoped" a lawsuit would "cost JSW a lot of money." The Amended Complaint asserts that all JSW production employees "worked for 20-30 minutes prior to the scheduled start of their shifts." Polen's claims are based on the allegation that JSW "required" production employees to arrive at their workstation 30 minutes prior to each scheduled shift to begin work and to then continue working until each scheduled shift end, if not beyond. JSW Steel provides rolling mills. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QvWmYw at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Michel A. Roberts, Esq. Alexandra Berry, Esq. BRICKER GRAYDON, LLP 312 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 629-2799 E-mail: mroberts@brickergraydon.com aberry@brickergraydon.com KIA AMERICA: Bid for Class Certification in Knight Due Dec. 6 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACIE KNIGHT, JOHN KNIGHT, ASHLEY JARMAN, JVANNE RHODES, PAULETTE CARR, and ANGELICA MCKENZIE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. KIA AMERICA INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-01160-JWH-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John W. Holcomb entered an order granting stipulation regarding the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint and schedule: -- Motion for class certification: Dec. 6, 2024 -- Opposition to class certification: Feb. 28, 2025 -- Reply in support of class certification: March 21, 2025 -- Hearing on class certification: April 11, 2025 Kia Motors operates as an automobile dealer. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oXFYQ7 at no extra charge.[CC] KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due May 10 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENNIE HAMILTON, ANTHONY KILLION, KRISTOPHER KACZANOWSKI, LEROY COKER, DARRELL BROWN, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, and the general public, v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC. dba Arizona Knight Transportation Inc.; KNIGHT PORT SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-01859-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order granting stipulation to continue class certification motion briefing schedule and hearing date as follows: 1. Class Certification Motion filing Feb. 26, 2024 deadline: 2. Opposition to Class Certification May 10, 2024. Motion filing deadline: 3. Reply to Class Certification Motion June 10, 2024. filing deadline: 4. Hearing on Class Certification Aug. 1, 2024 Motion: Knight Transportation is a truckload carrier offering dry van, refrigerated, intermodal and brokerage services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=11Rd2h at no extra charge.[CC] KROGER CORP: Degioanni Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling ----------------------------------------------------------- AMY DEGIOANNI, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE KROGER CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00528 (S.D. Tex., February 13, 2024) alleges that Kroger's Fruit & Grain Cereal bars and Kroger's Vitamin and Energy water enhancers are misbranded and falsely advertised and asserts claims for unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, and for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Both of the Defendant's cereal products and drink enhancer products were labeled as naturally favored in their packaging. However, these products contain DL malic acid, a synthetic substance derived from petrochemicals. The Defendant uses the petrochemical-derived DL malic acid in these products to create a sweet and tart flavor but pretends otherwise, conflating natural and artificial flavorings, misbranding them and deceiving consumers, says the suit. Headquartered in Cincinnati, OH, The Kroger Corporation is a Delaware corporation that operates as a grocery retailer. It specializes in the production and distribution of food and non-food products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 LA DELICE PASTRY: Underpays Counter Staff, Koutali Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- EFTHYMIA KOUTALI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LA DELICE PASTRY SHOP, INC. and GEORGIOS ANASTASIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01041 (S.D.N.Y., February 13, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a counter staff at 372 3rd Avenue, New York, New York from approximately April 2017. La Delice Pastry Shop, Inc. is a pastry shop business, with its principal place of business located at 372 3rd Avenue, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL PC 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 LABORATORY CORP: Faces HIPAA Class Action in Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that plaintiffs Michael Wiggins and Teri Stevens filed a class action lawsuit against Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings. Why: They allege LabCorp unlawfully shares sensitive patient health information with Google, in violation of Pennsylvania law and he Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Where: The LabCorp lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania federal court. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings unlawfully shares sensitive patient health information with Google, according to a LabCorp class action lawsuit filed Feb. 13. Plaintiffs Michael Wiggins and Teri Stevens allege LabCorp installed three types of Google computer code -- Google Analytics, Google Ads and Google Display Ads -- on its public website. The computer code "intercepts an array of individually-identifiable health information from all LabCorp website users and sends this information to Google," the class action lawsuit claims. Google is allegedly able to match this information to individual users using "cookies" and analyze their health information on LabCorp's website. LabCorp lawsuit says health information is used without patient consent Together, Google and LabCorp use the individually identifiable health information for various purposes, such as determining how patients use LabCorp's website and which advertisements they see on the website, the plaintiffs say. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges LabCorp and Google use this information to sell ads to companies seeking to target advertisements to individuals with certain characteristics. This commercial use of this information violates Pennsylvania law and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), according to the LabCorp class action. These laws ban health care providers from sharing individually-identifiable health information with third parties unless such information sharing is necessary for a patient's treatment or payment, or if a patient has expressly authorized the sharing of the data, the plaintiffs explain. In recognition of the HIPAA requirements, Google reportedly warns all HIPAA-covered entities that its Google data collection tools may violate HIPAA and lists steps that entities may take to ensure that their Google Analytics use complies with the law. However, Google and LabCorp allegedly failed to inform website users that their individually-identifiable health information would be used for commercial purposes, the class action says. "Instead, LabCorp's public-facing policy statements repeatedly promised that it was a safe, secure place to communicate health information, that it treated patients' individually-identifiable health information as private and confidential, and that it would not share this information, or allow it to be used for commercial purposes, without notice and consent," the class action lawsuit says. The plaintiffs filed the LabCorp lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of other patients whose protected health information was disclosed to Google without their authorization or consent through the Google data collection tools on LabCorp's website before March 8, 2023. LabCorp previously reached an $11 million settlement over allegations it violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act by printing debit and credit card transaction receipts that displayed the payment cards' expiration dates. What do you think about the class action lawsuit's allegations that LabCorp shares patient health data with Google? Tell us your thoughts in the comments. Wiggins and Stevens are represented by David J. Cohen, Ryan F. Stephan, James B. Zouras, Teresa M. Becvar and Michael J. Casas of Stephan Zouras LLP. The LabCorp class action lawsuit is Michael Wiggins, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Case No. 2:24-cv-00648, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. [GN] LABORATORY CORP: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Young Due August 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINE M. YOUNG, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05892-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David G. Estudillo entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule as follows: -- Motion to Certify Class due: Aug. 15, 2024 -- Opposition to Motion to Certify Sept. 16, 2024 Class due: -- Reply in Support of Motion to Sept. 30, 2024 Certify Class due: -- Noting Date on Motion to Certify Sept. 30, 2024 Class shall be: Laboratory Corp is a provider of clinical laboratory services and end-to-end drug development support. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gzd83s at no extra charge.[CC] LAML LLC: Mabry Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAITH MABRY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. LAML, LLC d/b/a JOHN SULLIVAN'S BAR & GRILL; 240 BBJ PUB INC., d/b/a JACK DOYLE'S PUB & RESTAURANT; 5050 HP LLLC, d/b/a THE TAILOR PUBLIC HOUSE & KITCHEN; BRENDAN CRREGAN; and JOHN CREEGAN, Case No. 1:23-cv-05468-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion for conditional certification of an Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) collective. John Sullivan's is an Irish Pub, Sports Bar, and Grill in the heart of Midtown, New York City. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HTLory at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael DiGiulio, Esq. D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 688-2548 LIBERTY MEDIA: $36MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 8 ------------------------------------------------------------ IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE VLADIMIR FISHEL, derivatively on behalf of SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS INC. and directly on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS INC., Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MEDIA CORPORATION, GREGORY B. MAFFEI, JAMES E. MEYER, JENNIFER WITZ, EVAN D. MALONE, DAVID A. BLAU, ROBIN P. HICKENLOOPER, MICHAEL RAPINO, DAVID ZASLAV, EDDY W. HARTENSTEIN, JAMES P. HOLDEN, JONELLE PROCOPE, KRISTINA M. SALEN, and CARL E. VOGEL, Defendants, - and - SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS INC., Nominal Defendant. C.A. No. 2021-0820-KSJM SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS AND DERIVATIVE ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: All holders of Sirius XM Holdings Inc. ("Sirius XM" or the "Company") common stock as of the close of trading on January 5, 2024 (the "Settlement Date") (the "Settlement Class"). Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition, as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Class and Derivative Action, Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice"), available at www.SiriusXMStockholdersLitigation.com. Any capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined in this Summary Notice shall have the meanings given to them in the Notice or in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release dated January 8, 2024 (the "Stipulation"), which is also available at www.SiriusXMStockholdersLitigation.com. PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS AND DERIVATIVE ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the above-captioned consolidated stockholder class and derivative action (the "Action") is pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) Plaintiff Vladimir Fishel ("Plaintiff"), derivatively on behalf of Sirius XM and directly on behalf of himself and the other members of the Settlement Class; (ii) nominal defendant Sirius XM; (iii) defendant Liberty Media Corporation ("Liberty Media"); and (iv) defendants Gregory B. Maffei, James E. Meyer, Jennifer Witz, Evan D. Malone, David A. Blau, Robin P. Hickenlooper, Michael Rapino, David Zaslav, Jonelle Procope, Kristina M. Salen, and Carl E. Vogel (the "Director Defendants", and together with Sirius XM and Liberty Media, "Defendants") (Plaintiff and Defendants, together, the "Parties") have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $36,000,000.00 (United States Dollars) in cash (the "Settlement"). The terms and conditions of the Settlement are stated in the Stipulation. If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve the Action and all claims therein. A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on April 8, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. (or at such other time as may be directed by the Court), before The Honorable Kathaleen St. J. McCormick, Chancellor, either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, or remotely by telephone or videoconference (in the discretion of the Court), to, among other things: (i) determine whether to finally certify the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (ii) determine whether Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Lead Counsel have adequately represented the Settlement Class, and whether Plaintiff should be finally appointed as Class Representative for the Settlement Class and Plaintiff's Lead Counsel should be finally appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iii) determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to Plaintiff, the other members of the Settlement Class, and the Company, and is in each of their best interests; (iv) determine whether the proposed Order and Final Judgment approving the Settlement, dismissing the Action with prejudice, and granting the Releases provided under the Stipulation should be entered; (v) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (vi) determine whether and in what amount any Fee and Expense Award should be paid out of the Settlement Fund, including any Incentive Award to Plaintiff to be paid solely from any Fee and Expense Award; (vii) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or the Fee and Expense Application, including any Incentive Award to Plaintiff; and (viii) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date, time, or format of the hearing or updates regarding remote or in-person appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website, www.SiriusXMStockholdersLitigation.com. If you were a registered or beneficial owner of Sirius XM common stock as of the close of trading on the Settlement Date, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and members of the Settlement Class may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator by mail at Sirius XM Stockholders Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., PO Box 173108, Milwaukee, WI 53217; by telephone at 877-888-8694; or by email at info@SiriusXMStockholdersLitigation.com. A copy of the Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, www.SiriusXMStockholdersLitigation.com. If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to Eligible Class Members in accordance with the proposed Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of allocation as is approved by the Court. Pursuant to the proposed Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to the product of (i) the number of shares of Sirius XM common stock held by the Eligible Class Member as of the close of trading on January 5, 2024 (the Settlement Date) ("Eligible Shares") and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery", which will be determined by dividing the total amount of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of Eligible Shares held by all Eligible Class Members. As explained in further detail in the Notice, Eligible Class Members do not have to submit a claim form to receive a payment from the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or the Fee and Expense Application must be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiff's Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than March 25, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in Chancery regarding this Summary Notice. All questions about this Summary Notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or Plaintiff's Lead Counsel. Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement Administrator: Sirius XM Stockholders Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. PO Box 173108 Milwaukee, WI 53217 877-888-8694 info@SiriusXMStockholdersLitigation.com www.SiriusXMStockholdersLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to Plaintiff's Lead Counsel: Jeroen van Kwawegen Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, NY 10020 800–380–8496 settlements@blbglaw.com BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LINKEDIN CORP: Faces Data Privacy Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that plaintiff Jacqueline Jackson filed a class action lawsuit against LinkedIn Corporation. Why: Jackson claims LinkedIn unlawfully tracked the activity of members who visited the California Department of Motor Vehicles website to apply for, renew or check the status of a disability placard. Where: The LinkedIn DMV class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new Linkedin class action lawsuit claims the social media company unlawfully tracked the activities of its members who visited the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) website to apply for, renew, or check the status of a disability placard. Plaintiff Jacqueline Jackson's class action lawsuit claims LinkedIn, by way of a tracking pixel, unlawfully obtained the personal disability information of its members who went to the DMV's website and then allegedly used that information for "unlawful purposes." "At no time did LinkedIn or the DMV disclose to Plaintiff or Class Members that LinkedIn was tracking the activities of its members on the DMV website, obtaining their personal information, or learning the contents of their communications with the DMV," the LinkedIn DMV class action states. Jackson, who uses a disability placard for her vehicle, wants to represent a California class of LinkedIn members who visited the California DMV website to apply for, renew, or check on the status of a disability placard. LinkedIn class action claims company gathered 'massive' amounts of personal data Jackson argues LinkedIn was able to secretly amass "massive" amounts of personal information and data belonging to its members, then used that data to allegedly generate "substantial" revenue from both advertising and marketing services. "Such information is extremely valuable to marketers and advertisers because the inferences derived from users' personal information and communications allows marketers and advertisers, including healthcare providers and insurance companies, to target potential customers," the LinkedIn class action says. Jackson claims LinkedIn is guilty of violating both the Driver's Privacy Protection Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. She is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief along with an award of actual and/or statutory damages for herself and all class members. LinkedIn agreed to pay $6.75 million last year to put an end to claims the company violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by allegedly mismanaging its 401(k) retirement plan. Are you concerned that LinkedIn has unlawfully tracked you on the California DMV website? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Roland Tellis, Sterling L. Cluff and Michael J. Pacelli of Baron & Budd, P.C. and Don Bivens of Don Bivens PLLC. The LinkedIn data privacy class action lawsuit is Jackson v. LinkedIn Corp., Case No. 5:24-cv-00812, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] LOANDEPOT INC: Bower Sues Over Unprotected Private Information -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID BOWER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOANDEPOT, INC. and related entities, Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00305 (C.D. Cal., February 13, 2024) arises out of the recent data breach on Defendant's network that resulted in unauthorized access to, and disclosure of, the highly sensitive data of approximately 16.6 million individuals. The Plaintiff brings claims on for negligence, invasion of privacy and unjust enrichment, violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, and violations of the New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Defendant's investigation has determined that the private information of approximately 16.6 million customers and other affiliated individuals was accessed and compromised by an unauthorized user on or about January 8, 2024. Among other things, the Defendant failed to comply with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines for cybersecurity, in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act and to to adhere to industry standards for cybersecurity, says the suit. Headquartered in Irvine, CA, LoanDepot proclaims to be the country's fifth largest retail mortgage lender and the country's second largest non-bank retail originator. Defendant currently employs more than 6,000 individuals and services more than 27,000 customers each month. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Rd., Ste. 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Kearns Suit Seeks to Certify TCPA Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY KEARNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-01217-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying a Class under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3): "All persons in the United States whose cellular telephone number of Defendant's Court Ordered Supplemental Discovery Responses and who was called by Defendant utilizing a prerecorded message;" (2) appointing him as representative of the Class; (3) appointing Adrian R. Bacon, Chris C. Gold, Garret O. Berg, Jibrael S. Hindi, Manuel S. Hiraldo, Michael L. Eisenband, and Scott Edelsberg and their respective law firms as Class Counsel; (4) directing the Parties to jointly submit a proposed Notice Plan within 30 days of the Court's Order granting this Motion; and (5) providing all other and further relief the Court deems equitable and just. The Plaintiff moves for class certification of claims against LoanDepot for its violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") For over a decade, LoanDepot has purchased consumer leads from LendingTree, LLC and harassed those consumers with prerecorded voice robocalls. As it pertains to the proposed Class, LoanDepot placed millions of prerecorded voice calls to millions of Class Members to sell them its loan products and services. Because robocalling consumers is how LoanDepot has fueled is rapid growth in the mortgage industry, it has no plans to stop. LoanDepot.com offers debt consolidation, home improvement, small business, consumer, and mortgage loans. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I0yVrC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Chris C. Gold, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 1925 Century Park E, Ste 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2740 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com chris@edelsberglaw.com - and - Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN 21031 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com - and - Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com - and - Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: gberg@shamisgentile.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW. P.A 515 E las Olas Blvd. Ste 120, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com LOTTERY.COM INC: Court Dismisses Securities Putative Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mondaq reports that on February 6, 2024, Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with leave to amend a putative class action asserting claims under the Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against a Special Purpose Acquisition Company ("SPAC") and certain of its officers and directors, along with an individual action consolidated with the putative class action and asserting similar claims. In re Lottery.com, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:22-cv-07111 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2024), slip op. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants misrepresented certain financial information regarding the SPAC's target company both before and after the merger. The Court held that, while certain challenged statements were adequately alleged to be false, plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege scienter with respect to any alleged misrepresentation. As a threshold matter, defendants argued that plaintiffs' allegations amounted to improper "puzzle pleading" by quoting at length from defendants' statements without "explain[ing] with particularity why each statement is false." Id.at 27. The Court disagreed, however, holding that the complaint sufficiently alleged how challenged portions of each quotation were rendered false or misleading. Id.at 28-29. The Court divided the challenged statements into three categories: pre-merger statements, post-merger statements regarding the company's finances and post-merger statements regarding regulatory compliance and controls. The Court concluded that plaintiffs failed to allege any actionable statement or omission prior to the merger. The Court noted that statements noting the target company's work with regulators amounted to non-actionable puffery because they were "too general to cause a reasonable investor to rely upon them." Id.at 31. The Court further determined that financial projections contained in the Proxy were protected by the bespeaks‑caution doctrine as "forward-looking statement[s] accompanied by sufficient cautionary language." Id.at 34-35. The Court noted that statements were forward-looking if their "truth cannot be ascertained until some time after," and the Proxy's projections were made in October 2021 regarding the company's performance for all of 2021, and therefore could not be checked until after the year had concluded. Id.at 35. The Court also credited the risk disclosures in the Proxy, noting that they cautioned investors regarding potential weaknesses in internal controls -- the "very risk that Plaintiffs allege it failed to disclose." Id.at 36. Similarly, the Court also rejected plaintiffs' allegations regarding preliminary revenue results contained in a press release, concluding that the bespeaks-caution doctrine applied to those projections even though the quarter in reference had already ended, as "corporate statements of projections as to corporate earnings" are considered forward-looking regardless of whether the covered earnings period had already ended. Id.at 38. In addition, the Court rejected plaintiffs' allegations that the Proxy omitted "known trends or uncertainties" required to be disclosed under Item 303 of Regulation S-K. While plaintiffs argued that the Proxy failed to disclose that the company "was not complying with state and federal laws and overstating its cash and revenue," the Court concluded that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege that the company's management "actually kn[ew]" about the alleged noncompliance. Id.at 37. Moreover, the Court concluded that risk disclosures relating to cash and revenue statements in the Proxy were sufficient and therefore no further disclosure was necessary under Item 303. Id.at 38. With respect to post-merger statements relating to the company's financial performance, however, the Court held that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that the statements were false or misleading at the time they were made, based on plaintiffs' allegation that the figures included $30 million for a sale that allegedly never happened and the company's admissions that its prior financial reporting contained certain errors. Id.at 40, 45. The Court concluded that these statements were not forward-looking and thus were not protected under the bespeaks-caution doctrine. Id.at 41. Moreover, the Court rejected defendants' argument that the statements were inactionable statements of opinion, concluding that even though accounting standards can involve opinions, the allegation that the statements included $30 million from a sale that never took place was fact-based and contravened generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"). Id.at 49. The Court further held that, even if the statements were deemed opinions, plaintiffs plausibly alleged that they were subjectively false because they alleged that there was no historical evidence justifying including the $30 million sale. Id.at 50. The Court also concluded that these alleged misstatements were adequately alleged to be material, because they concerned the company's reported revenue -- the "exact type of information that would be important to a reasonable investor." Id. Finally, the Court declined to dismiss allegations that the company's post-closing quarterly and annual reports failed to disclose that the purported $30 million sale never happened and that a subsidiary had entered into a line of credit that was not disclosed in prior financial statements, concluding that these alleged omissions concerned historical facts and were not protected by the bespeaks-caution doctrine. Id.at 54-55. However, the Court held that the SOX certifications in the company's quarterly and annual reports were non-actionable statements of opinion (id.at 57), and the Court held that challenged statements in a post-closing annual report that the company "rel[ied] on technology services to closely monitor and track" regulatory information and "us[ed] this information" to "create strong working relationships with the regulatory authorities" was non-actionable puffery. Id. Turning to the requirement of scienter, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument for scienter under a "motive and opportunity" theory, concluding that simply because defendants' compensation stood to increase based on a successful merger was not enough to support a strong inference of scienter. Id.at 63. While the Court suggested some receptiveness to the argument that SPACs should be closely scrutinized in this regard, the Court nevertheless concluded that there was no SPAC "exception" to the general rule that the prospect of a public offering was not enough to infer scienter, and that, in any event, the only statements adequately alleged to be false occurred after the merger, when no SPAC-related motive existed. Id.at 65‑66. The Court also rejected plaintiffs' argument for scienter under a "conscious misbehavior or recklessness" theory. While plaintiffs argued that the errors in the company's financial statements were enough to infer scienter, the Court noted that "plaintiffs may not plead fraud by hindsight" and that it was not enough to argue that defendants "must have known that their statements were false or misleading given the magnitude of the restatement of revenue of a core operation of the company . . . and [defendants'] respective roles at the company." Id.at 68. Indeed, the Court explained that, within the Southern District of New York, the core operations doctrine is generally only considered to supplement other allegations of scienter. Id. The Court also declined to infer scienter from the resignation of certain executives, noting that based on the complaint those allegations were "at least as consistent with punishing those at the helm for their poor judgment and leadership" as opposed to fraud. Id.at 72. Thus, viewing all of plaintiffs' scienter allegations together, the Court concluded that the inference of scienter was less compelling than the alternative inference -- "that [d]efendants were negligent and committed acts of corporate mismanagement, not securities fraud." Id.at 73. In addition, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claim under Section 14(a) with respect to the pre-merger Proxy, noting that the challenged statements in the Proxy were non-actionable for the same reasons noted in connection with the Section 10(b) claim. [GN] LUXURBAN HOTELS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on April 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of LuxUrban Hotels, Inc. (NASDAQ: LUXH) between November 8, 2023 and February 2, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 12, 2024. SO WHAT: If you purchased LuxUrban securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the LuxUrban class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=22523 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 12, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) LuxUrban had not signed a lease with the Royalton Hotel, a four star hotel located in New York; (2) as a result, LuxUrban's total reported units was overstated; (3) LuxUrban faced multiple lawsuits for unpaid rent; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about LuxUrban's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the LuxUrban class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=22523 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] MAGNA INTERNATIONAL: Davis Wins Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELVIN DAVIS, et al., v. MAGNA INTERNATIONAL OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-11060-NGE-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Nancy G. Edmunds entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court also grants Davis and King their request to be dismissed from this action. The Court dismissed Gracie Mercer after considering the parties' Joint Stipulation of Dismissal. The Court found Davis and King to be inadequate representatives. Though the parties did not stipulate to their dismissal, the Court construes Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief to Certify the Class, also as a motion to dismiss Davis and King from this action. The Plaintiffs are individuals who invested in a 401k plan called the Magna Group of Companies Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan") during their past employment with Magna International of America, Inc. On April 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint for damages allegedly caused when the fiduciaries of the Plan breached their duties under sections 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The Plaintiffs allege that mismanagement of the Plan cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars by investing in poorly performing funds and by paying excess fees. The Plaintiffs define the class as: "All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time between April 30, 2014 through the date of judgment." A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=etugQH at no extra charge.[CC] MAPLE MOON: Greene and White Sue Over Unlawful Labor Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- VLADIMIR GREENE and MHALIK WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAPLE MOON LLC, a California limited liability company; ASHLEY INGRAM, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV03613 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 13, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiff Greene worked for Defendants from November of 2022 until July 16, 2023. White worked for Defendants from January of 2023 to July 20, 2023. They were employed as hourly-paid non-exempt behavioral technicians and regularly worked in excess of eight hours in workday and/or 40 hours in a week and on the seventh consecutive day of the week without receiving mandatory overtime pay. In addition, Defendants edited and/or manipulated Plaintiffs and other class members’ time records to show less hours than those actually worked, says the suit. Maple Moon LLC is engaged in the business of providing drug rehabilitation and addiction treatment services. The company's operations facility is located in Winnetka, county of Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aidin D. Ghavimi, Esq. Diana Zadykyan, Esq. Ilana N. Fine, Esq. STARPOINT, LC 15233 Ventura Boulevard, Suite PH16 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (310) 424-9971 Facsimile: (424) 255-4035 E-mail: service@starpointiaw.com MATCH GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Tinder's Addictive Features ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abbey Bowling, writing for KDAF, reports that in a class-action lawsuit filed on Feb. 14, six dating app users accused Match Group of having a business model that prioritizes profit over the promise to help users find love. Match Group owns and operates several popular dating apps in the U.S., including Tinder, Hinge, The League, Match, OkCupid, and more. The lawsuit stated that the dating apps rely on users' purchases of subscriptions and premium features, drawing users into compulsive usage that does not help them meet their relationship goals. This lawsuit comes a few months after Tinder announced the addition of a $500/month subscription, and The League's cheapest subscription starts at $300 and goes up to $1,000/month. [GN] MATCHGROUP INC: Dating Platforms "Addictive," Oksayan Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- BURAK OKSAYAN, JACK KESSLER, ANDREW ST. GEORGE, BRADFORD SCHLOSSER, ANDREW KARZ, and JAMI KANDEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MATCHGROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00888 (N.D. Cal., February 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law, New York General Business Law, Georgia Deceptive Trade Practice Law, and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, strict products liability, and negligence. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising and marketing of its dating platforms. The Defendant affirmatively represents the platforms as effective tools for establishing off-app relationships. In reality, the platforms are designed to be addictive to erode users' ability to disengage from the platforms and turn users into addicts who will purchase ever-more expensive subscriptions to unlock unlimited and other special features. The Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered injury in fact, have lost money, as a result of the Defendant's unfair conduct. MatchGroup, Inc. is an online dating service company, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. Kelsey J. Elling, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com MEDICAL TRANSPORT: Must Face Class Suit Over Drivers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jennifer Bennett, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a nonemergency medical transportation company challenging what counts as "significant proof" that a policy or practice applied uniformly to all class members failed to convince the US Supreme Court to take a look at the case on Feb. 20. Medical Transport Management Inc., which faces worker allegations of federal and D.C. wage-and-hour violations, urged the justices to weigh in on what plaintiffs must show when class certification is based on allegations that a policy or practice injured a group's members. The workers drive Medicaid users to nonemergency medical appointments. [GN] MEDNAX SERVICES: Court Extends Appointment of Special Mediator -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: Mednax Services, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 0:21-md-02994 (S.D. Fla., June 4, 2021), the Hon. Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II entered an order extending appointment of Special Mediator for Settlement Purposes. On Oct. 26, 2023, the Court entered an Order Appointing Special Mediator for Settlement Purposes and Setting Oral Argument on Class Certification. The Order stated "the Special Mediator's appointment shall be effective as of Oct. 31, 2023 and conclude on Feb. 23, 2024 unless modified by subsequent order of this Court." In light of the ongoing, favorable settlement discussions, the Court finds it advisable to extend the Special Mediator and Assistant Special Mediator Appointments through March 30, 2024. If necessary, the Court will further extend this appointment window by subsequent Order. The nature of suit states Torts - Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury.[CC] MENARD INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Shoemaker Due March 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shoemaker v. Menard Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-04089 (W.D. Mo., Filed Jun 10, 2022), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting motion for extension of time to complete class certification deadlines and conduct mediation. -- All pre-trial discovery as to class March 1, 2024 certification shall be completed by: -- The Plaintiff shall file all motions March 1, 2024 seeking class certification by: -- The Defendants shall file any responsive April 1, 2024 motions objecting to class certification by: The nature of suit states Torts - Personal Property - Property Damage Product Liability. Menard owns and operates home improvement stores.[CC] META PLATFORMS: Settles Suit Over Data Sharing Dispute ------------------------------------------------------ Meta Platforms, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2023, that on December 22, 2022, the parties in multiple putative class actions filed in state and federal courts entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the lawsuit alleging misuse of certain data by developers that shared such data with third parties in violation of its terms and policies, which provides for a payment of $725 million by the company and is subject to court approval. The settlement was approved by the court on October 10, 2023, and the payment was made in November 2023. Said suits started coming in beginning on March 20, 2018 against Meta Platforms, Inc. and certain of its directors and officers, seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. Several of the cases brought on behalf of consumers in the United States were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On September 9, 2019, the court granted, in part, and denied, in part, the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated putative consumer class action. In addition, the platform and user data practices, as well as the events surrounding the misuse of certain data by a developer, became the subject of U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), state attorneys general, and other government inquiries in the United States, Europe, and other jurisdictions. The company entered into a settlement and modified consent order to resolve the FTC inquiry, which took effect in April 2020. Among other matters, our settlement with the FTC required to pay a penalty of $5.0 billion which was paid in April 2020 upon the effectiveness of the modified consent order. The state attorney general inquiry and certain government inquiries in other jurisdictions remain ongoing. Meta Platforms, Inc. is a technology company based in California. It operates under the Facebook platform. MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Drinks --------------------------------------------------------------- Cook County Record reports that a class action lawsuit accuses food and beverage maker Mondelez of allegedly using candy flavors and other enticements to misleadingly market Ghost Beverage line of energy drinks and supplements to children, even though the drinks are allegedly suitable only for healthy adults. On Feb. 12, named plaintiffs Tinamarie Barrales and Michael Williams filed the class action lawsuit in Chicago federal court against Mondelez International Inc. and Ghost Beverages LLC. The complaint accuses Mondelez of licensing its child-friendly brands like Sour Patch Kids, Bubblicious, and Swedish Fish to Ghost for use in marketing these potentially harmful products. Both companies are accused of exploiting children for profit at the expense of their health and wellbeing. The plaintiffs claim they purchased Ghost's Sour Patch Kids products based on misleading advertising suggesting the products were safe for children. However, they allege their children suffered adverse health effects from consuming these products. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief from both defendants due to deceptive, unfair, and misleading promotion of Ghost products using Mondelez branding. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Keith L. Gibson and Bogdan Enica, of Keith L. Gibson Law, of Glen Ellyn and Miami.[GN] MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Continues to Defend Schaub Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Mullen Automotive Inc. 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 the Company continues to defend itself from the Schaub class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On May 5, 2022, Plaintiff Margaret Schaub, a purported stockholder, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court Central District of California against the "Company", as well as its Chief Executive Officer, David Michery, and the Chief Executive Officer of a predecessor entity, Oleg Firer (the "Schaub Lawsuit"). This lawsuit was brought by Schaub both individually and on behalf of a putative class of the Company's shareholders, claiming false or misleading statements regarding the Company's business partnerships, technology, and manufacturing capabilities, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. An amended complaint was filed on September 23, 2022. The Schaub Lawsuit seeks to certify a putative class of shareholders, and seeks monetary damages, as well as an award of reasonable fees and expenses. No loss contingencies have been accrued in respect of this matter as at December 31, 2023, as the Company can reasonably estimate neither probability of the loss, nor their magnitude (if any), based on all available information presently known to management. Mullen Automotive Inc. is an automotive industry company, headquartered in Brea, California. [BN] NATIONAL CREDIT: Faces Blackburn Class Action Suit in E.D. Va. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Credit Adjusters, LLC. The case is captioned as Blackburn, et al. v. National Credit Adjusters, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00015-MHL (E.D. Va., Jan. 9, 2024). The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Judge M. Hannah Lauck. National Credit specializes in purchasing and servicing distressed and non-performing accounts receivables.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. James Patrick McNichol, Esq. Matthew G Rosendahl, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7570 Facsimile: (703) 591-9285 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com pat@kellyguzzo.com matt@kellyguzzo.com - and - Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES 763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com NESTLE HEALTH: Faces Nature's Bounty False Ad Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Anthony Fasce filed a class action lawsuit against Nestle Health Sciences U.S. LLC and its brand Nature's Bounty. Why: Fasce claims Nature's Bounty fish oil supplements are falsely advertised as being beneficial for cardiovascular health. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. Nestle Health Sciences falsely advertises that its Nature's Bounty fish oil supplements help improve heart health, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Anthony Fasce's class action lawsuit claims Nature's Bounty fish oil supplements come in a bottle prominently labeled "heart health," despite randomized trials showing fish oil has no heart-related benefits. "Scientists and consumer health advocates have warned that fish oil labels are misleading, and that consumers are wasting their money," the Nature's Bounty class action states. Fasce is seeking to represent a nationwide class and New York subclass of consumers who have purchased one or more Nature's Bounty fish oil supplements within the applicable statute of limitations period. Nature's Bounty fish oil supplements provide no heart-related benefits, class action claims Fasce argues that, while eating fish promotes cardiovascular health, multiple randomized trials have pitted fish oil against placebos and shown "no evidence of heart-related benefits from fish oil supplements." "(Fasce) would not have purchased the Product if he had known that the Products have not actually been shown to improve cardiovascular outcomes or promote heart health," the class action states. Fasce claims Nestle Health Sciences is guilty of intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranties, and of violating an implied contract, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, New York General Business Law and consumer protection acts in six states. The plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting injunctive relief along with an award of treble and punitive damages for himself and all class members. A separate class action lawsuit filed against Nature's Bounty and The Bountiful Co. in September 2021 accused them of selling fish oil tablets containing neither fish oil nor any other essential omega-3 fatty acids. Have you purchased Nature's Bounty fish oil supplements? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Christin Cho and Simon Franzini of Dovel & Luner LLP and Alan M. Feldman, Zachary Arbitman and Samuel Mukiibi of Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock & Dodig LLP. The Nature's Bounty fish oil class action lawsuit is Fasce v. Nestle Health Sciences U.S. LLC d/b/a Nature's Bounty, Case No. 7:24-cv-01009, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] NESTLE USA: Parties in Falcone Suit Seek Class Cert. Briefing Sched ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIE FALCONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NESTLE USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 to 100, Case No. 3:19-cv-00723-L-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order setting the class certification motion briefing schedule. -- Class Certification Motion (including any Jan. 19, 2024 expert reports Plaintiff intends to rely upon): -- Telephonic Status Conference: March 29, 2024 -- Mandatory Settlement Conference Briefs: April 17, 2024 -- Mandatory Settlement Conference: April 24, 2024 -- Fact Discovery Cutoff: June 14, 2024 -- Initial Expert Witness Designations: June 14, 2024 -- Supplemental Expert Witness Designations: June 28, 2024 -- Initial Expert Disclosures: July 29, 2024 -- Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: Aug. 30, 2024 -- Expert Discovery Cutoff: Oct. 18, 2024 -- Motion Filing Cutoff: Dec. 6, 2024 -- Deadline to Comply with Rule 26(a)(3) March 24, 2025 Pretrial Disclosure Requirements: -- Deadlines for Counsel to Meet Required March 31, 2025 by Local Rule 16.1(f)(4): On Aug. 31, 2023, the Court entered the following briefing schedule for Plaintiff's motion for class certification: The Plaintiff's motion for class certification Nov. 10, 2023 (including any expert reports Plaintiff intends to rely upon for class certification): The Defendant's opposition to class certification Dec. 15, 2023 (including any expert reports Defendant intends to rely upon in opposing class certification): The Plaintiff's reply in support of class Jan. 16, 2024 certification, if any: Nestle is a manufacturer and distributor of food products and non-alcoholic beverages. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wDSQAN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: George V. Granade, Esq. Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515 Los Angeles, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 393-0070 E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com mreese@reesellp.com - and - Helen I. Zeldes, Esq. Joshua A. Fields, Esq. Aya Dardari, Esq. Paul L. Hoffman, Esq. John C. Washington, Esq. Catherine E. Sweetser, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-4990 E-mail: hzeldes@sshhzlaw.com jfields@sshhzlaw.com adardari@sshhzlaw.com hoffpaul@aol.com jwashington@sshhzlaw.com catherine.sdshhh@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Timothy W. Loose, Esq. Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq. Christopher Chorba, Esq. Perlette Jura, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: tloose@gibsondunn.com tboutrous@gibsondunn.com cchorba@gibsondunn.com pjura@gibsondunn.com NESTLE WATERS: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due March 18 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK J. PATANE, JULIE HARDING, HEATHER HARRIGAN, STEPHEN S. SHAPIRO, CATHERINE PORTER, ERICA RUSSELL, TINA MORETTI, BRIDGET KOPET, JENNIFER S. COLE, BENJAMIN A. FLETCHER, DIANE BOGDAN and PARESHKUMAR BRAHMBHATT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-01381-JAM (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to amend the current Scheduling Order as follows: -- Opposition papers responding to Motions for March 18, 2024 Class Certification and for Summary Judgment shall be filed by: -- Reply papers in further support of Motions May 3, 2024 for Class Certification and for Summary Judgment shall be filed by: -- The Joint Trial Memorandum shall be filed June 7, 2024 by the latest of: Nestle Waters is a North American business unit that produces and distributes numerous brands of bottled water. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HKVW9Q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander Schmidt, Esq. ALEXANDER H. SCHMIDT, ESQ. Fairways Professional Plaza 5 Professional Circle, Suite 204 Colts Neck, NJ 07722 Telephone: (732) 226-0004 E-mail: alex@alexschmidt.law - and - Oleg Elkhunovich, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Bryan Caforio, Esq. Jesse-Justin Cuevas, Esq. Max Straus, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 E-mail: oelkhunovich@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com bcaforio@susmangodfrey.com jcuevas@susmangodfrey.com mstraus@susmangodfrey.com - and - Steven N. Williams, Esq. STEVEN WILLIAMS LAW, P.C. 250 W. 55th Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10019 E-mail: swilliams@saverilawfirm.com - and - Christopher K.L. Young, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 E-mail: cyoung@saverilawfirm.com - and - Craig A. Raabe, Esq. Robert A. Izard, Esq. Christopher M. Barrett, Esq. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP 29 S. Main St., Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 E-mail: craabe@ikrlaw.com rizard@ikrlaw.com cbarrett@ikrlaw.com NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Faces Miskey Suit Over Drop of Stock Price -------------------------------------------------------------- DALE MISKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC., THOMAS ROBERT CANGEMI and JOHN J. PINTO, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01118 (E.D.N.Y., February 13, 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 New York Community Bancorp's (NYCB) business, financial condition, and the impact of its acquisitions of Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. and Signature Bridge Bank, NA. As a result of the Defendants' misleading statements, NYCB securities were traded at artificially inflated prices between March 1, 2023 and February 5, 2024. When the truth emerged, the market price of NYCB common stock declined precipitously, falling approximately $4 per share, or 39 percent, to close at $6.47 per share on January 31, 2024, on unusually high trading volume of more than 128.6 million shares traded, or 17 times its average trading volume over the preceding 10 trading days. The market price of NYCB common stock again declined precipitously, falling another $1.20 per share, or 22 percent, to close at $4.20 per share on February 6, 2024, its lowest level since 1997, on unusually high trading volume of more than 147 million shares traded. New York Community Bancorp, Inc. is a bank holding company, headquartered in Hicksville, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Evan J. Kaufman, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com - and - Ralph M. Stone, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 1700 Broadway, 41st Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 292-5690 Facsimile: (212) 292-5680 E-mail: ralphs@johnsonfistel.com NEW YORK, NY: Children's Services Agency Faces Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Jonah E. Bromwich and Andy Newman, writing for The New York Times, report that a sweeping class-action lawsuit filed against New York City on Feb. 20 argues that the agency that investigates child abuse and neglect routinely engages in unconstitutional practices that traumatize the families it is charged with protecting. The lawsuit says that investigators for the Administration for Children's Services deceive and bully their way into people's homes, where they riffle through families' most private spaces, strip-search children and humiliate parents. The agency's "coercive tactics" include threatening to take children away or call the police, telling parents they have no choice but to let them in and making public scenes in hallways, according to the suit, filed in federal court in Brooklyn. Marisa Kaufman, a spokeswoman for the agency, said in a statement on Feb. 19 that A.C.S. would review the lawsuit. "A.C.S. is committed to keeping children safe and respecting parents' rights," she said. She added, "We will continue to advance our efforts to achieve safety, equity, and justice by enhancing parents' awareness of their rights, connecting families to critical services, providing families with alternatives to child protection investigations, and working with key systems to reduce the number of families experiencing an unnecessary child protective investigation." One of the women suing, Ebony Gould, is a single mother of three in Queens who has been investigated by A.C.S. at least 12 times -- each of them found to be baseless. The lawsuit says the investigations, which involved dozens of home visits, were prompted by her abusive ex-partner. Ms. Gould said that often during the repeated investigations, she was made to feel she had no choice but to let A.C.S. in. During one of the first visits, she said, an A.C.S. worker told her, through the closed door, that she was at risk of having her children taken away. "I felt forced," she said. "It almost felt like I was being abused again, but by a stranger." Ms. Gould, 35, and the other plaintiffs are represented by the Family Justice Law Center, an organization dedicated to preventing unnecessary family separation. Its executive director, David Shalleck-Klein, said that the suit was not meant to stop A.C.S. investigations altogether, but to focus on illegal searches. "They open refrigerators, inspect labels in medicine cabinets, tell children to lift up their shirts and pull down their pants," he said. "And it's not just a one-and-done -- they frequently come back, time and time again." There are three legal justifications investigators can use to enter homes: court orders, emergency circumstances or voluntary consent. The lawsuit says that the agency "chooses to almost never seek" court orders and conducts tens of thousands of searches each year in nonemergency circumstances, coercing consent and violating Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. If successful, the lawsuit would require A.C.S. to fundamentally re-envision how it investigates reports of abuse and neglect. The agency investigates over 40,000 allegations each year. Some are genuine emergencies, and the agency has the difficult task of weighing the civil rights of families against the safety of children. When tragedies happen, A.C.S. is frequently blamed for not having stepped in more aggressively. Those rare cases where children have died after investigators intervened minimally or not at all can make it difficult to dial back the agency's powers. Still, criticism of the agency has risen in recent years, especially over the stark racial disparities in its investigations. Black and Hispanic children in the city are about seven times as likely as white children to be the subject of investigations, according to state data. While A.C.S. has reported progress in reducing "the disparities that exist at each of the stages throughout the child welfare system," a Black child still has a nearly 50 percent chance of being caught up in an A.C.S. investigation by his or her 18th birthday, according to one of the agency's own news releases. Ms. Gould, who is Black, said her family has been permanently affected by its experience with A.C.S. All three of her children are now in therapy. She said one investigator asked her 6-year-old daughter if she was suicidal. Her daughter had not previously known the word. "From that day on, she started saying -- when they would come -- she felt suicidal." One night in December 2022, when Ms. Gould's mother was visiting from California, A.C.S. banged on her door at 3 a.m., she said. Ms. Gould told investigators that she did not want to let them in. They threatened to come back with the authorities. "I was shaking so bad, and my mom just started praying and then my kids are like 'Mommy, what's going on?'" she recalled in a recent interview. A veteran A.C.S. employee said that when a family is resistant to home visits and the caseworker has not seen the children for a while, a night-shift caseworker is sometimes sent to assess the children. The employee spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss agency policy. The plaintiffs are asking a judge to declare the agency's tactics unconstitutional and order it to halt those practices. In recent years, A.C.S. has worked to reduce the number of children it removes from their families and places in foster care. There were nearly 40,000 children in foster care in 1999. Now there are under 7,000. The agency is still required to investigate every allegation of possible child abuse or neglect, and each investigation requires home visits. About 30 percent of investigations result in a finding by A.C.S. of abuse or neglect, according to city data. About one in 15 investigations lead to the child being placed in foster care. A couple in Brooklyn who are among those suing the agency said that A.C.S. left them feeling terrorized after they were investigated in 2022. When investigators showed up at the apartment that Mathew Eng shares with his wife, Marianna Azar, and 5-year-old daughter, Mr. Eng said he panicked. They're going to take my daughter away, he thought. The inquiry was prompted by an anonymous complaint that the couple say they were given only scant details about: Someone had accused them of medically neglecting their daughter. Mr. Eng and Ms. Azar gathered doctors' notes and other evidence to show they had not been negligent. Still, for months, different workers showed up at the family's door, demanding to see their daughter and to inspect their home. During the investigation, Ms. Azar underwent abdominal surgery. She was told so little about when A.C.S. might visit or what they were looking for, she said, that she declined to fill a prescription for opioids, not wanting the agency to see the drugs on her bedside table. She said she spent the first two nights after surgery in excruciating pain. One investigator texted Ms. Azar that she was required to let A.C.S. in. Ms. Azar asked if the investigator had a warrant or court order. She was falsely told, according to the suit, that "the agency does not need a warrant or court order to complete a visit." Their daughter, once outgoing and cheerful, has been in therapy, her parents said, and blames herself for the investigations. Ms. Azar explained that her daughter, Y.A. (the children in the lawsuit are identified only by initials), had been asked to write a story about the home investigations. In the story, Ms. Azar said, Y.A. had written, "I am a bad kid" and "I need to behave at school or Mommy and Daddy will be arrested." Ms. Azar, who is a civil servant, said she found it infuriating that her family was harmed by a city agency whose mission is to protect families. She said she often wondered while investigators were in her home, "What was happening with all the kids that actually needed your attention?" [GN] NEWTON TEACHERS: Class Action Over 11-Day Strike Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- Molly Farrar, writing for Boston.com, reports that the class-action lawsuit brought by three Newton families seeking damages connected to the recent 11-day teacher strike was denied by a judge on Feb. 20, the union announced. Lital Asher-Dotan, along with two other parents, allege the Newton Teachers Association's strike pushed parents "to a point of desperation" which was "willful, wanton, and wrong." The suit claims that the teachers denied students their right to education. Middlesex Superior Court Judge Christopher Barry-Smith, who presided over the initial injunction filed to get teachers back into the classroom, dismissed Dotan's motion. "Accordingly, the case is over, and this motion to intervene is denied as moot," Barry-Smith wrote. Dotan's name was included in the original injunction to get teachers back into the classroom. She filed a motion during the strike on behalf of her three children, asking the judge to force the teachers to return to school. Dotan's lawyers, Boston-based Ilya Feoktistov and Chicago-based Daniel Suhr, submitted the motion for damages last week. Suhr filed a similar lawsuit against the Chicago Teachers Union for their 2022 strike this week, using the same graphs and news articles. They are asking for $250 million in damages related to the five-day strike, a local paper reported. "The members of the NTA are also glad to see the end to the politically motivated legal actions taken against our union for going on strike," the union said in a statement. "The national movement aimed at weakening educator unions and other public-sector unions is not welcome here, as it undermines advocacy for the public good." Barry-Smith also ruled that the union must pay $625,000 in fines, the union said. $275,000 will be paid to Newton Public Schools as compensatory fines, and $350,000 to the Commonwealth Treasury in coercive fines. The NTA said they sought this arrangement before returning to work earlier this month. "The Newton Teachers Association is pleased that the court agreed to the terms of the return-to-work agreement sought jointly by our union and the School Committee," the NTA said. "We are at an important point now to move forward with implementing the terms of our new contract, which allows us to better meet the needs of our students." [GN] NISSAN NORTH: 11th Cir. Upholds Ruling in Wage-and-Hour-Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., Alex W. Karasik, Esq., and Nicolette J. Zulli, Esq., of Duane Morris, disclosed that in Ayala v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 23-11027, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 2965 (11th Cir. Feb. 8, 2024), the Eleventh Circuit unanimously upheld a District Court's decision granting Nissan's motion for summary judgment in a wage & hour class and collective action. It held that none of the eight factors for determining joint employment weighed in favor of the company. The Eleventh Circuit further affirmed the District Court's denial of both Rule 23 class action certification and conditional certification of the collective action under the FLSA. The Eleventh Circuit's opinion offers a treasure trove of insights regarding the crucial joint employer issue -- particularly for employers who operate in a business-partnership dynamic where one entity (e.g., a manufacturer or staffing company) maintains oversight and/or indirect influence over the employees of the other entity (e.g., a car dealership or contractor) that handles payroll and/or hiring and firing processes. Case Background Two automotive service employees ("Technicians") working at Florida Nissan dealerships filed suit against Nissan, alleging violations of the FLSA and the Florida Minimum Wage Act ("FMWA"), for failure to pay wages as required by law. Id. at *3. They also sought conditional certification as a collective action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), as well as certification of a class action under Rule 23. The Technicians alleged they performed vehicle repair and maintenance on behalf of Nissan at the dealerships but were not compensated as required by law. Id. Specifically, they pointed to Nissan's Assurance Products Resource Manual ("APRM") and Dealership Agreements, which determined how much Nissan paid dealerships for warranty work conducted by technicians, regardless of how long the work took. Pursuant to the APRM and the Dealership Agreements, Nissan agreed with each dealership to reimburse the dealership according to the "flat-rate" system. Id. at *3. The Technicians argued that -- when the warranty work took longer than the "flat-rate time" determined by Nissan, thus limiting Nissan's reimbursement to the dealership -- the result is that they were underpaid by the dealership. Id. at *4. As a result, the Technicians asserted that Nissan was a joint employer, which Nissan opposed. The District Court agreed with Nissan and granted its motion for summary judgment. The Technicians appealed. Id. at *2. The Eleventh's Circuit's Decision The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's order granting summary judgment and denying class certification under Rule 23 and conditional certification of a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Id. at *20. On appeal, the Technicians argued that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment, because it failed to consider all admissible record evidence that they presented. Id. at *2. They further argued that the District Court erred in denying their motions for certification. First, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the Technicians' argument that summary judgment was improper, after applying the eight-factor test under Layton v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 686 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 2012), which is guided by five principles that are focused on indicators of "economic dependence," for evaluating whether an employment relationship exists under the FLSA. These factors include: (1) The nature and degree of control of the workers; (2) The degree of supervision, direct or indirect, of the work; (3) The power to determine the pay rates or the methods of payment of the workers; (4) The right, directly or indirectly, to hire, fire, or modify the employment conditions of the workers; (5) Preparation of the payroll and payment of wages; (6) Ownership of the facilities where work occurred; (7) Performance of a specialty job integral to the asserted joint employer's business; (8) The relative investments of the asserted joint employer in equipment and facilities used by the workers. Id. at *6-7. The Eleventh Circuit held that none of these factors weighed in favor of a finding that Nissan was a joint employer of the Technicians. Id. at *22. Its analysis greatly emphasized the Technicians' (i) failure to identify any specific, substantive content in Nissan's 233-page APRM or its Anomalous Repair Control Program, and (ii) their reliance on conclusory and uncorroborated allegations in declarations and affidavits. The Eleventh Circuit opined that this was insufficient to show the District Court failed to consider relevant evidence. Id. at *8, *16. The Eleventh Circuit relied primarily upon a comparison to its prior decisions in Layton, Aimable v. Long & Scott Farms, 20 F.3d 434 (11th Cir. 1994), and Martinez-Mendoza v. Champion Int'l Corp., 340 F.3d 1200 (11th Cir. 2003), ultimately concluding that the relevant factors in this case weigh more heavily against joint employment. Id. at *18. The Eleventh Circuit also rejected the Technicians' argument that the District Court erred in denying both certification of a class action under Rule 23 and conditional certification of a collective action under Section 216(b). The Eleventh Circuit opined that the putative class members would be employed by different dealers, making the inquiries about their pay "highly individualized and unwieldy." Id. at *23. This, in turn, meant that the employees would not be similarly situated (as required for a collective action under the FLSA) and that there would not be sufficient common facts (as required for a class action under Rule 23). Id. Implications For Employers The Ayala decision is notable in that it offers a novel glimpse into the Eleventh Circuit's approach to construing the language of employer policies to determine joint-employer status. To that end, the decision not only calls for employers to assess their business relationships to those it considers employees versus contractors, but also highlights the importance of constructing written policies and procedures with an eye toward the eight factors used to determine joint employer status. [GN] NORTH CAROLINA: Faces Doe Class Suit Over Solitary Confinement -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE 1, a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian JANE DOE 1, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00017-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C., Jan. 8, 2024) challenges the Defendants' policies and practices of using solitary confinement at juvenile detention facilities across the state of North Carolina, including the Cabarrus Juvenile Jail and the Dillon Juvenile Jail. According to the complaint, these children have suffered immense physical, social, and psychological harm from solitary confinement, and as such, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief demanding that Defendants cease the challenged unconstitutional policies and practices. The suit contends that solitary confinement has been proven dangerous for all ages, but is especially harmful for juveniles due to their developmental vulnerabilities. It is well established that isolating children and thereby preventing children from having meaningful contact with others increases their risk of suicide and self-harm. Despite the known dangers to the children in their care and their admission of the harm that solitary confinement causes children, the Defendants run the juvenile jails in North Carolina with inadequate staffing that predictably results in children being locked in their cells nearly hours a day. The Defendants have chosen this route in the face of public scrutiny and despite open discussions of the current conditions, says the suit. The Plaintiffs include JOHN DOE 2, a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian JANE DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3, a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian JANE DOE 3. The Defendants include EDDIE M. BUFFALOE, JR., Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, in his official capacity; WILLIAM L. LASSITER, Deputy Secretary of the Division of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, in his official capacity; PETER BROWN, Facility Director of the Cabarrus Regional Juvenile Detention Center, in his official capacity.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Lindholm, Esq. Donna O. Tillis, Esq. Yasmeen Ebbini, Esq. Michelle Campbell, Esq. Matthew G. Lindenbaum, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP One Wells Fargo Center, 23rd Floor 301 South College Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 417-3000 E-mail: robert.lindholm@nelsonmullins.com donna.tillis@nelsonmullins.com yasmeen.ebbini@nelsonmullins.com michelle.campbell@nelsonmullins.com matthew.lindenbaum@nelsonmullins.com - and - Michelle Duprey, Esq. COUNCIL FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS 601 E. Fifth Street, Suite 510 Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 943-9642 E-mail: MDuprey@cfcrights.org NORTHWEST BANK: Faces Tharp Class Suit Over Breach of Contract -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northwest Bank. The case is captioned as Tharp v. Northwest Bank Case No. 5:24-cv-04001-LTS-KEM (N.D. Iowa, Jan. 10, 2024). The nature of suit states Contract: Recovery/Enforcement. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Leonard T. Strand. Northwest Bank is a bank headquartered in Warren, Pennsylvania. It is the leading subsidiary of Northwest Bancshares, Inc.[BN] Plaintiff Lisa Tharp, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Roxanne Barton Conlin, Esq. ROXANNE CONLIN & ASSOCIATES 3721 SW 61st Street, Suite C Des Moines, IA 50321-2418 Telephone: (515) 283-1111 E-mail: efile@roxanneconlinlaw.com NUGS.NET ENTERPRISES: Time to Amend Pleadings Extended to April 7 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McKay v. Nugs.net Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01900 (N.D. Cal., Filed April 20, 2023), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order granting stipulation extending time to amend Pleadings to April 7, 2024. -- The Court is concerned about the pace of Defendant's document production and the lack of a clear timeline for completion of class certification-related discovery. -- For any further extension requests, please contact the Court to set (or advance) a case management conference to discuss the case schedule. Nugs.net is a privately held company focused on digital media distribution for the music industry.[CC] NYC MEDICAL: Bid to Decertify Class in Lawrence Suit Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEYLEE LAWRENCE, COURTNEY BRACCIA, BRIA WARNER, and WENDY ROSADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NYC MEDICAL PRACTICE, P.C. d/b/a Goals Aesthetics and Plastic Surgery, and SERGEY VOSKIN, M.D., Case No. 1:18-cv-08649-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gregory H. Woods entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to decertify the class. -- The Redefined Class is certified as "Ms. Braccia and Ms. Rosado are removed from their roles as class representatives. -- The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 233. The definition of this revised class (the "Redefined Class") is: "All current and former employee receptionists and patient coordinators of Goals who during the period of September 25, 2015 to Oct. 26, 2020, were paid on an hourly basis and were not paid overtime compensation at a rate of 1.5 times their regular rate of pay, for all hours in a workweek in excess of 40." In 2018, four employees of a New York plastic surgery practice filed suit against their employer, alleging that it had violated various provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and the New York Labor Law (the "NYLL"). In 2021, the Court certified a collective action with respect to the employees’ FLSA claims and a F.R.C.P. Rule 23(b) class with respect to their NYLL claims. Ms. Lawrence and Ms. Warner worked as receptionists. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=scvuBe at no extra charge.[CC] PACIFIC MARKET: Krohn Sues Over Undisclosed Lead on Stanley Cups ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBIN KROHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC MARKET INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00200 (W.D. Wash., February 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, manufacturing defect, and violations of the California's False Advertising Law, the Unfair Competition Law, the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Stanley cups. The Defendant negligently misrepresented and failed to fully disclose the presence of lead in Stanley cups sold throughout the United States. The Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers would not have purchased the cups or they would not have paid as much for them if that information was fully disclosed. Pacific Market International, LLC is a food and beverage solutions manufacturer, with its principal place of business in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brendan W. Donckers, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON TOWNSEND PLLC 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 652-8660 Facsimile: (206) 652-8290 E-mail: bdonckers@bjtlegal.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. Mary M. Nikolai, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com - and - Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com rkshelquist@locklaw.com PAPPAS NEW YORK: Nokaj Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------------- ARDIANA NOKAJ, LORIK MEHMETAJ, KRISTO FOTO, XHOVAN KOLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PAPPAS NEW YORK, PAPPAS OG, LLC, PAPPAS TAVERNA, DREAM HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, ABC CORPORATIONS 1-3, GEORGE KARAVIAS, JOSEPH LICUL, DANIELLE JIMENEZ MARINE, and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-4, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01076 (S.D.N.Y., February 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay spread-of-hours premiums, retaliation, misappropriated gratuities, untimely wage payments, nonpayment of wages, civil damages for fraudulent filing of information returns, and discrimination and retaliation in violation of New York City Human Rights Law and New York State Human Rights Law. The Plaintiffs were employed by Pappas starting in or about February 2023 in various positions including servers, cooks, bartenders, and barbacks. Pappas New York is an owner and operator of a Greek restaurant located at 103 MacDougal Street New York, New York. Pappas Og, LLC is an owner and operator of a Greek restaurant located at 103 MacDougal Street New York, New York. Pappas Taverna is an owner and operator of a Greek restaurant located at 103 MacDougal Street New York, New York. Dream Hospitality Group, LLC is a hospitality company doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emre Polat, Esq. EMRE POLAT, PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 1420 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 480-4500 PATELCO CREDIT: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Jani Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ SOPHIE JANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PATELCO CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:24-cv-10073-ADB (N.D. Cal., Jan. 10, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to properly secure and safeguard the customers' personally identifiable information (PII) after an attacker accessed and acquired files that Patelco shared with its vendor containing unencrypted PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members, including their Social Security numbers. On September 20, 2023, Patelco began sending the Plaintiff and other Class Members a Notice of Data Breach informing them that their PII had been exposed as a result of a breach of a tool used by one of Patelco's vendors to store and transfer PII. Noticeably absent from the Notice Letter are details of the root cause of the Data Breach, the vulnerabilities that were exploited, and the remedial measures that Patelco undertook to ensure such a breach does not happen again. To date, these critical facts have not been explained or clarified to the Plaintiff or the Class Members, the suit says. Plaintiff Jani, and her minor daughter, suffered actual injury from having their PII compromised as a result of the Data Breach including damage to and diminution in the value of their PII, violation of their privacy rights; the theft of their PII; and present, imminent and impending injury arising from the increased risk of identity theft and fraud. In fact, because her, and her minor daughter's, Social Security numbers were impacted, the Plaintiff Janina and her minor daughter, face this risk for their respective lifetimes, the suit alleges. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff Jani has also suffered emotional distress as a result of the release of her and her minor daughter's PII, which she believed would be protected from unauthorized access and disclosure, including anxiety about unauthorized parties viewing, selling, and/or using her and her minor daughter's PII for purposes of identity theft and fraud. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII was compromised as a result of the Defendant's failure to: adequately protect the PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members; warn the Plaintiff and Class Members of the Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and effectively secure hardware and software containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. Plaintiff Jani is and has been a citizen of Oakland, California and has provided her PII, at Patelco's request, when she opened her account with the Defendant in mid-2019. She also provided her minor daughter's PII, at Patelco's request, when she opened an account for her minor daughter in late-2020. The Defendant is a full-service, not-for-profit financial cooperative based in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 239-4778 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com bjack@justice4you.com PIONEER BANCORP: Continues to Defend BYP Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Pioneer 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 Brandes & Yancy PLLC class suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County. On September 2, 2022, a putative class action complaints was filed against the Pioneer Parties in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County. The complaint was filed by Brandes & Yancy PLLC and Ricardo’s Restaurant, Inc., two alleged clients of Southwestern which seek to assert claims on behalf of all current or former Southwestern clients based on the same set of facts as the DOJ, AXH, and Granite Solutions complaints as described above, and the alleged taxes sought in the DOJ, Southwestern, and NatPay complaints. The two named plaintiffs seek to assert claims on behalf of all current or former Cloud Payroll clients based on the same set of facts as the DOJ, AXH, and Granite Solutions complaints as described above, and the alleged taxes sought in the DOJ, Southwestern, and NatPay complaints. It asserts claims against the Pioneer Parties for conversion, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, money had and received, tortious interference with contract, aiding and abetting fraud, and a declaratory judgment. It seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, plus pre-judgment interest, costs, expenses, disbursements, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. The Pioneer Parties acknowledged service of the complaint as of December 30, 2022. On February 28, 2023, the Pioneer Parties filed motions to dismiss the complaint. On April 7, 2023, the plaintiffs filed amended complaint that assert the same causes of action but include additional allegations. On April 27, 2023, the Pioneer Parties elected to withdraw their pending motions to dismiss and file renewed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. The Pioneer Parties filed renewed motions to dismiss on June 26, 2023. On August 25, 2023, plaintiffs in both putative class actions filed their responses to the renewed motions to dismiss filed by the Pioneer Parties. On October 6, 2023, the Pioneer Parties filed their reply to the response of the plaintiffs. The motion remains pending before the Court. Pioneer Bancorp, Inc. is a mid-tier stock holding company whose wholly owned subsidiary is Pioneer Bank. The Bank is a New York State chartered savings bank whose wholly owned subsidiaries are Pioneer Commercial Bank, Anchor Agency, Inc. and Pioneer Financial Services, Inc. It provides diversified financial services through the Bank and its subsidiaries, with 22 offices in the Capital Region of New York State. PIONEER BANCORP: Seeks Dismissal of O'Malley's Oven Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Pioneer 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 O'Malley's Oven class suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County. The Pioneer Parties filed renewed motions to dismiss on June 26, 2023. On September 2, 2022, a putative class action complaints were filed against the Pioneer Parties in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County. The complaint was filed by O'Malley's Oven LLC and Legat Architects, Inc., two alleged clients of MyPayrollHR.Com, LLC and ProData Payroll Services, Inc., affiliates of Cloud Payroll, LLC (collectively, “Cloud Payroll”). The two named plaintiffs in the second complaint seek to assert claims on behalf of all current or former Cloud Payroll clients based on the same set of facts as the DOJ, AXH, and Granite Solutions complaints as described above, and the alleged taxes sought in the DOJ, Southwestern, and NatPay complaints. It asserts claims against the Pioneer Parties for conversion, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, money had and received, tortious interference with contract, aiding and abetting fraud, and a declaratory judgment. It also seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, plus pre-judgment interest, costs, expenses, disbursements, and reasonable attorneys' fees. The Pioneer Parties acknowledged service of the complaints as of December 30, 2022. On February 28, 2023, the Pioneer Parties filed motions to dismiss the complaint. On April 7, 2023, the plaintiffs filed amended complaint that assert the same causes of action but include additional allegations. On April 27, 2023, the Pioneer Parties elected to withdraw their pending motions to dismiss and file renewed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 25, 2023, plaintiffs in both putative class actions filed their responses to the renewed motions to dismiss filed by the Pioneer Parties. On October 6, 2023, the Pioneer Parties filed their reply to the response of the plaintiffs. The motion remains pending before the Court. Pioneer Bancorp, Inc. is a mid-tier stock holding company whose wholly owned subsidiary is Pioneer Bank. The Bank is a New York State chartered savings bank whose wholly owned subsidiaries are Pioneer Commercial Bank, Anchor Agency, Inc. and Pioneer Financial Services, Inc. It provides diversified financial services through the Bank and its subsidiaries, with 22 offices in the Capital Region of New York State. PORT AUTHORITY: Meinert Seeks More Time for Class Cert Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB MEINERT as Class Representative individually and on behalf of those Plaintiffs who submitted a religious exemption and were fired; NICHOLAS SCHALLUS, as Class Representative individually and on behalf of those Plaintiffs who submitted a medical exemption and were fired, v. Port Authority of Allegheny County d/b/a Pittsburgh Regional Transit (PAT), Case No. 2:22-cv-01736-RJC (D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending discovery on the issue of class certification for 60 days. -- The Class Action Complaint stems from the Defendant's illegal mandate which resulted in 85 Plaintiffs being wrongfully terminated. -- All Plaintiffs in this class action had valid sincerely held religious beliefs and/or doctor's opinions against Covid 19 vaccination. Port Authority provides bus and light rail service in Allegheny County. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AcWq6L at no extra charge.[CC] POWER ELECTRONICS: Underpays Industrial Technicians, Hoff Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- NATHAN HOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWER ELECTRONICS USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00098-jdp (W.D. Wis., February 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked as an industrial service technician for Power Electronics from July 2023 until his termination in December 2023. Power Electronics USA, Inc. is a power electronics company, with its principal place of business in Gilbert, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron J. Bibb, Esq. David C. Zoeller, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. Post Office Box 2155 Madison, WI 53701 Telephone: (608) 257-0040 Facsimile: (608) 256-0236 E-mail: abibb@hq-law.com dzoeller@hq-law.com PREMIUM MORTGAGE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- ClassAction.org reports that a a proposed class action accuses Premium Mortgage Corporation of failing to protect the personal data of roughly 10,000 individuals during an August 2023 cyberattack. The 56-page lawsuit shares that after the New York-based mortgage lender discovered unusual activity on parts of its network last year, a subsequent investigation determined that an unauthorized third party had accessed certain business email accounts between August 24 and August 31, 2023. As a result, the names and Social Security numbers of current and former customers were compromised, the data breach suit says. Despite the mortgage lender's duty to protect sensitive customer information in its care, the company stored the data unencrypted and "in a reckless manner" in its computer system, the case alleges. Per the complaint, the defendant could have prevented the cyberattack entirely had it followed proper encryption protocols. What's more, the Premium Mortgage Corporation notice letter sent to victims lacked critical details about the incident, the filing contends. As the lawsuit tells it, the notice failed to explain how cybercriminals gained access to the company's network and what steps are being taken to safeguard stored data in the future. "Without these details, [the plaintiff's] and Class Members' ability to mitigate the harms resulting from the Data Breach is severely diminished," the suit adds. The case claims that victims like the plaintiff -- a Premium Mortgage Corporation customer residing in New York -- now face a substantially increased risk of identity theft, fraud and other illegal schemes as a result of the company's negligence. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States whose personal information was accessed and/or acquired by an unauthorized third party as a result of the data breach reported by Premium Mortgage Corporation in January 2024. [GN] PRIMOS LIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Araus Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- LUDIN ARAUS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIMOS LIVE POULTRY INC. d/b/a VIVERO PRIMO #2, PRIMOS LIVE POULTRY 1 INC. d/b/a : VIVERO PRIMO #2, PEDRO ENRIQUES RODRIGUEZ, ABDUNASER SALEM, and ADEL SALEM, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01044 (S.D.N.Y., February 13, 2024) seeks to recover all available relief from Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Defendants employed Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt poultry handler/cutter and customer attendant at the Hatchery from in or about 2017 until on or about December 23, 2023. However, the Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff his lawfully earned minimum wages in direct contravention of the NYLL. In addition, Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff his lawfully earned overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL, says the suit. Based in New York, NY, Primos Live Poultry owns and operates a live poultry hatchery and retail store located at 148 Post Avenue, New York, NY 10034. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino (Justin) Cilenti, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street – 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN: Bid to Seal Docs OK'd in Knight Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Knight v. Progressive Northwestern Insurance Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-00203 (E.D. Ark., Filed Aug. 4, 2022), the Hon. Judge James M. Moody Jr. entered an order granting motion to seal document. -- The Plaintiff is given leave to file the unredacted version of her motion to certify class under seal. -- The redacted version will remain as Doc. No. 41. The nature of suit states Contract – Insurance -- Declaratory Judgment. Progressive provides different types of insurance policies, including automotive, home, and business insurance policies. [CC] PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN: Knight Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIK KNIGHT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00203-JM (E.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for class certification: "All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by Progressive Northwestern Insurance Company to an Arkansas resident where the claim was submitted from August 4, 2017, through the date an order granting class certification is entered, and Progressive determined that the vehicle was a total loss and based its claim payment on an Instant Report from Mitchell where a Projected Sold Adjustment was applied to at least one comparable vehicle." Accordingly, classwide adjudication is the superior method for resolving this dispute. The case is one of many virtually identical cases against Progressive currently pending in courts around the country. Six courts addressing materially identical claims and evidence as are presented here have found class certification appropriate. The Plaintiff’s PSA damages are $376.91. This amount is small relative to the cost of litigating against a large insurance company. In Amchem, the Supreme Court noted that the central policy underlying the class action mechanism is "to overcome the problem that small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his or her rights." Progressive provides different types of insurance policies, including automotive, home, and business insurance policies. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c1MrrA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Lowther, Esq. Hank Bates, Esq. Tiffany Oldham, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 West Seventh Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 E-mail: llowther@cbplaw.com hbates@cbplaw.com toldham@cbplaw.com - and - Christopher Berman, Esq. Edwin Eliu Elliott, Esq. Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: cberman@shamisgentile.com edwine@shamisgentile.com ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Christopher Gold, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9471 E-mail: chris@edelsberglaw.com - and - Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175 Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 E-mail: josh.jacobson@normandpllc.com PUBLIC STORAGE: Ikener and Adams Sue Over Labor Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- RAMONA IKENER, an individual, ASHLEY ADAMS, an individual, in their individual capacity and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PUBLIC STORAGE, a Real Estate Investment Trust; PSCC, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV03622 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 13, 2024)arises out of, among other things, Defendants' failure to reimburse business expenses incurred by Plaintiff and class members and failure to compensate them for the appropriate minimum wages, overtime wages and for meal and rest breaks. Plaintiff Ikener was employed by Defendants as a property manager who lived in Public Storage provided housing on the property from approximately July 8, 2010 through January 31 2022. The Plaintiff was also employed by Defendants as a property manager who lived in Public Storage provided housing on the property from approximately April 12, 2019 through June 10, 2023. Headquartered in Glendale, CA, Public Storage is a Real Estate Investment Trust that owns and operates self-storage facilities throughout California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 514-5681 Facsimile: (213) 514-5682 E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com at@haffnerlawyers.com vh@haffnerl awyers. com - and - Michael Palitz, Esq. Alan Quiles, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 477 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com aquiles@shavitzlaw.com RETAIL EMPLOYEES: Faces Suit Over Income Protection Premiums ------------------------------------------------------------ Chloe Walker, writing for Financial Standard, reports that Shine Lawyers filed a class action on behalf of Rest members who may have had income protection premiums wrongfully deducted from their superannuation accounts. The class action alleges that from December 2008 to June 2019, Rest automatically enrolled new members in income protection insurance without their active consent. It also claims that when members didn't make any contribution to their Rest account for 13 continuous months or more, the default income protection insurance policy didn't provide the member with any coverage and when members held multiple income protection insurance policies at the same time, the policy provided little to no coverage. Court documents show Rest has until March 28 to file its defence. The first case management hearing is scheduled for May 10. According to Shine Lawyers' practice leader Hadi Boustani, up to 500,000 Rest members may be affected. "This was money down the drain for fund members who paid a premium for no benefit," Boustani said. "As a result, we're seeking compensation for insurance premiums which we allege were unfairly deducted, as well as investment returns and administration costs." The action is being funded by Woodsford. "Everyday Australians trust their superannuation funds to look after their hard-earned dollars which they have invested for their retirement," Woodsford Australia director and head of origination Clare Owen said. "Having sufficient superannuation to fund retirement is so important. "Woodsford is pleased to be supporting this action to assist those everyday Australians in recouping losses to their superannuation which has been unfairly eroded." Shine Lawyers client Jarrod Lane has registered for the class action to demand accountability from his super fund. Lane did not earn an income for over three years between 2018-2021 but was charged for income protection insurance that he could never claim on. "I felt it was important to join this class action because what Rest has done is wrong and they should compensate those who were affected," Lane said. A spokesperson for the super fund said it intends to defend the action in the Federal Court. "As a profit-to-member fund, Rest has at all times focussed on the best financial interests of members," the spokesperson said. "Rest's group insurance cover is and has always been designed to meet the needs of our members." Rest's spokesperson added that offering default income protection cover to members is a highly valuable benefit and supports members who are unable to work due to illness or injury. "Many Rest members work part time and would not be able to obtain income protection cover by any other means or at a reasonable cost," they said. "Last financial year we paid out around $222 million in benefits to members across more than 10,000 income protection claims." [GN] RIVIANA FOODS: Does Not Have Lactation Accommodations, Jeffers Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kenisha Jeffers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Riviana Foods, Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00028-LPR (E.D. Ark., February 13, 2024) arises out of the Defendant's alleged violations of the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Jeffers accuses the Defendant of failing to provide a reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk and of failing to provide sufficient lactation accommodations. The Plaintiff was an employee of Riviana at a facility located at 25 West Oak Street in Brinkley, AR. She had her baby on July 12, 2023 and, after taking several weeks off from work, returned to work on August 14, 2023. However, upon returning to work, Riviana failed to provide her with any accommodation to pump. Moreover, Plaintiff brings this collective action lawsuit against Defendant to seek a remedy that requires Defendant to comply with the law. Headquartered in Houston, TX, Riviana is a leading processor, marketer, and distributor of rice and rice products. Its product lines include Mahatma, Carolina, Minute, and others. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa R. Considine, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMST AD LLP 745 Fifth A venue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 E-mail: lconsid ine(@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com ROIVANT SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Immunovant Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roivant Sciences Ltd. 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 Immunovant-related securities class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. In February 2021, a putative securities class action complaint was filed against Immunovant and certain of its current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired Immunovant's securities from October 2, 2019 and February 1, 2021. The complaint alleged that Immunovant and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making false and misleading statements regarding the safety of batoclimab and sought unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. In December 2021, the U.S. District Court appointed a lead plaintiff. In March 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding both (i) the Company and (ii) Immunovant's directors and underwriters as defendants, and asserting additional claims under Section 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on behalf of a putative class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Immunovant's securities pursuant and/or traceable to Immunovant's follow-on public offering on or about September 2, 2020. In February 2023, after further briefing on the amended complaint the U.S. District Court issued an order permitting the lead plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. That second amended complaint was filed in March 2023. The defendants' served motions to dismiss the second amended complaint on April 28, 2023. The fully briefed motions to dismiss, including defendants' opening briefs, lead plaintiff's opposition and defendants' replies, were filed with the court on June 30, 2023. No hearing date has yet been set. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the case and has not recorded a liability related to this lawsuit because, at this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate possible losses or determine whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote. Roivant Sciences Ltd. builds biotech and healthcare technology companies (â€œVantsâ€) and deploys technology to drive greater efficiency in research and development and commercialization. It also builds technology Vants focused on improving the process of developing and commercializing medicines. ROMEO POWER: $14.9MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 10 ------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE ROMEO POWER INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 1:21-cv-03362-LGS SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who, during the period between October 5, 2020 and August 16, 2021 inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded: (i) RMG Acquisition Corp. ("RMG") Class A common stock or Romeo Power, Inc. ("Romeo") common stock; (ii) RMG warrants or Romeo warrants; and/or (iii) RMG units, and were injured thereby (the "Settlement Class")1: PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $14,900,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A telephonic hearing will be held on July 10, 2024 at 3:45 p.m., at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Courtroom 1106, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Individual Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. The call-in number is (888) 363-4749, and the access code is 558-3333. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against making audio or video recordings of court proceedings. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form") can be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.RomeoPowerSecuritiesSettlement.com. You may also obtain copies of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re Romeo Power Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq Systems, Inc., PO Box 3719, Portland, OR 97208-3719, toll-free 877-915-1127. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form online or postmarked no later than May 29, 2024. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than June 19, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Individual Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than June 19, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, the Individual Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP Kara M. Wolke, Esq. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (888) 773-9224 settlements@glancylaw.com Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: In re Romeo Power Inc. Securities Litigation c/o Epiq Systems, Inc. PO Box 3719 Portland, OR 97208-3719 877-915-1127 www.RomeoPowerSecuritiesSettlement.com By Order of the Court 1 All capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated December 7, 2023 (the "Stipulation"), which is available at www.RomeoPowerSecuritiesSettlement.com. URL: www.RomeoPowerSecuritiesSettlement.com RYDER SYSTEM: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Vilensky, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Ryder System Inc. and investors who sued the transportation and logistics company persuaded a federal judge to preliminarily approve a proposed $45 million class action settlement, bringing the litigation closer to an end. Investors, who filed a complaint in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, allege Ryder violated the Securities Exchange Act by artificially inflating its stock price through misleading statements to investors about the value of its vehicles. The proposal was preliminarily approved on Feb. 20 by Judge Aileen M. Cannon. [GN] SCOOBY AGGREGATOR: Kaur Sues Over Unlawful Stockholder's Agreement ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHAMANDEEP KAUR, Plaintiff v. SCOOBY AGGREGATOR, LP, RONALD COUGHLIN, JR., CAMERON BREITNER, GARY BRIGGS, NISHAD CHANDE, CHRISTY LAKE, DAVID LUBEK, CHRISTOPHER J. STADLER, SABRINA SIMMONS, MARY SULLIVAN, R. MICHAEL MOHAN, and IRIS YEN, Defendants, and PETCO HEALTH AND WELLNESS COMPANY, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2024-0129 (Del. Ch., February 13, 2024) is a class action seeking declaratory relief invalidating a provision of the stockholder's agreement between Petco and Scooby dated January 19, 2021. The said stockholder's agreement gives Scooby a veto right over the Board's ability to hire or fire the Petco's Chief Executive Officer and any other executive officers of the Petco. Moreover, Plaintiff Kaur alleges that the agreement's Executive Approval Right provision violates Section 141(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Scooby is a Delaware limited partnership and Petco's controlling stockholder. Scooby is a special purpose vehicle controlled by certain funds affiliated with CVC Capital Partners and CPP Investments, the investment arm of the Canada Pension Investment Board. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Evans, Esq. Lindsay K. Faccenda, Esq. Irene R. Lax, Esq. Robert Erikson, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 499-3600 E-mail: kim@blockleviton.com lindsay@blockleviton.com irene@blockleviton.com robby@blockleviton.com - and - Jason Leviton, Esq. Saranna Soroka BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 JULIE & HOLLEMAN LLP - and - Douglas E. Julie, Esq. W. Scott Holleman 157 East 86th Street, 4th Floor New York, NY 10028 Telephone: (929) 415-1020 SEABOARD CORP: Settlement in Antitrust Suit for Court Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Seaboard 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 the pork compensation antitrust class suit settlement is subject to the approval of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. On November 11, 2022, three employees of pork or beef processing plants filed a class action complaint (the “Class Action”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (the “Court”) individually and on behalf of all other employees at such plants (the “Class”), against several pork and beef processors and their subsidiaries and related companies, including Seaboard Foods. The complaint alleges, among other things, that beginning in January 2014, the defendants conspired in violation of antitrust laws to fix and depress the compensation paid to the Class by, among other things, participating in third-party compensation surveys and exchanging wage-related information through a third-party benchmarking service. The relief sought includes treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. On June 23, 2023, Seaboard Foods reached a settlement with the Class to settle the Class Action for an immaterial amount, which settlement is subject to approval of the Court. Members of the Class will have the opportunity to opt-out of the Class and commence their own actions. Seaboard Corporation operates as a diverse agribusiness and transportation company worldwide. The company's Pork division produces and sells fresh pork products, such as loins, tenderloins, and ribs, as well as frozen pork products to further processors, food service operators, grocery stores, distributors, and retail outlets. Seaboard Corporation was founded in 1918 and is headquartered in Merriam, Kansas. SECRIST MARKETING: Case Management Plan Entered in Goudelias Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GOUDELIAS v. SECRIST MARKETING STRATEGIES, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08928 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 11, 2023), the Hon. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. entered an order on case management plan as follow -- The parties shall provide the Court with a April 29, 2024 joint status update on: -- Amended Pleadings due by: April 1, 2024 -- Joinder of Parties due by: April 1, 2024 -- Deposition due by: April 25, 2024 -- Discovery due by: April 25, 2024 Secrist is doing business of marketing consulting services.[CC] SLEEPING BABY: Carrero Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------- KIMARY CARRERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SLEEPING BABY ROCKY MCROCKFACE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:24-cv-00320 (M.D. Fla., February 13, 2024) alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by engaging in unsolicited text messaging to consumers that have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. On or about July 25, 2023, July 28, 2023, July 31, 2023, August 2, 2023, and September 2, 2023, Defendant sent a text message solicitation to Plaintiff's cellular telephone to sell goods, services or products in Florida. However, Plaintiff never signed any type of authorization permitting or allowing Defendant to send her text message solicitations, says the suit. Based in Florida, Sleeping Baby Rocky Mcrockface LLC sells sleepwear for babies throughout United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces Aragon Wage-and-Hour Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRENDA ROMERO ARAGON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV03746 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California's Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages owed every pay period, failure to pay wages when employment ends, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in the kitchen/housekeeping department in or around July 2023 until January 2024. Southern California Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists is a Seventh-Day Adventist church in Glendale, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 SOUTHWEST ENERGY: Faces Rice Class Action Suit in Kansas -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwest Energy, L.P. et al. The case is captioned as Rice et al. v. Southwest Energy, L.P. et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-01005-DDC-ADM (D. Kan., Jan. 10, 2024). The suit alleges violation of fraud related laws demanding $75M in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Crabtree. Southwest serves crude oil, natural gas, risk management, and NGL marketing.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James P. Zakoura, Esq. Jay F. Fowler, Esq. Lee M. Smithyman, Esq. Samuel J. Walenz, Esq. Scott C. Nehrbass, Esq. FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP 7500 College Blvd., Suite 1400 Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: (913) 253-2142 Facsimile: (913) 498-2101 E-mail: jzakoura@foulston.com jfowler@foulston.com lsmithyman@foulston.com swalenz@foulston.com snehrbass@foulston.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian L. White, Esq. Casey L. Jones, Esq. HINKLE LAW FIRM LLC 1617 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 400 Wichita, KS 67206-6639 Telephone: (316) 660-6200 Facsimile: (316) 660-6024 E-mail: bwhite@hinklaw.com cjones@hinklaw.com - and - Andrew J. Ennis, Esq. POLSINELLI PC 900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900 Kansas City, MO 64112-1895 Telephone: (816) 374-0567 Facsimile: (816) 817-0175 E-mail: aennis@polsinelli.com STAKE CENTER: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Loonsfoot --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL LOONSFOOT, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. STAKE CENTER LOCATING, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-03171-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered a scheduling and discovery order as follows: The parties should note that they may, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29, modify discovery dates set in the Joint Report by written stipulation, except that they may not modify a date if such modification would impact (1) the date of any court appearance, (2) the deadline for completing the mandatory mediation session or the mandatory mediation process (if applicable), (3) the deadline for completing all discovery, or (4) the deadline for filing dispositive motions. Stake Center is a utility locating powerhouse operating in 48 states. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rdyfiu at no extra charge.[CC] SULLIVAN & CROMWELL: Group of FTX Investors File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- David Thomas, writing for Reuters, reports that a group of FTX investors has filed a proposed class action lawsuit against U.S. law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, claiming it participated in the defunct cryptocurrency exchange's multibillion-dollar fraud before further enriching itself as FTX's bankruptcy counsel. Sullivan & Cromwell, which did legal work for FTX during the company's rise, had unique insight into the exchange's "convoluted organizational structure, abject lack of internal controls, and dubious business practices," the investors said in a 75-page lawsuit, opens new tab filed on Feb. 16 in Miami federal court. Lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell, a prominent New York-founded firm, "were eager to craft not only creative, but misleading strategies that furthered FTX's misconduct," the lawsuit said. A spokesperson for Sullivan & Cromwell declined to comment. The firm has previously defended its work relating to FTX, saying it had a "limited and largely transactional" relationship with the exchange before the bankruptcy and had never served as primary outside counsel to any FTX entity. The investors' lawyers at the Moskowitz Law Firm could not immediately be reached for comment. The same firm is already waging a separate class action investor lawsuit accusing law firm Fenwick & West of aiding fraud at the company. Fenwick denies the allegations. A federal judge on Feb. 20 said the lawsuit against Sullivan & Cromwell will proceed as part of multi-district litigation over the FTX collapse that is already pending in Miami federal court. FTX filed for bankruptcy in November 2022 in the wake of claims that the company misused and lost billions of dollars worth of customers' crypto deposits. FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried was found guilty a year later of charges that he defrauded FTX customers by using their funds to prop up his own risky investments. The new lawsuit partly takes aim at Sullivan & Cromwell's work as court-approved counsel advising FTX in its bankruptcy, arguing the firm knew FTX was in financial trouble but "realized it stood to gain hundreds of millions more from their work in bankruptcy." The firm has earned more than $180 million in fees for its FTX bankruptcy work, equaling about 10% of its 2022 revenue, the lawsuit said. Some FTX creditors and U.S. lawmakers had unsuccessfully opposed Sullivan & Cromwell's bid to serve as bankruptcy counsel, arguing that the firm's ties to FTX and past work for the company created conflicts of interest. FTX's former U.S. general counsel, Ryne Miller, was a former partner at Sullivan & Cromwell. The U.S. Trustee, the Justice Department's bankruptcy watchdog, had initially opposed Sullivan & Cromwell's appointment until the firm and FTX provided additional disclosures about Sullivan & Cromwell's pre-bankruptcy work. The case is Edwin Garrison, et al., v. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 1:24-cv-20630. [GN] SUNNOVA ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on April 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROSEN, A LEADING LAW FIRM, Encourages Sunnova Energy International Inc. Investors with Losses in Excess of $100K to Secure Counsel Before Important Deadline in Securities Class Action -- NOVA WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of Sunnova Energy International Inc. (NYSE: NOVA) between February 25, 2020 and December 7, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 16, 2024. SO WHAT: If you purchased Sunnova securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Sunnova class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=22626 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 16, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Sunnova routinely engaged in predatory business practices against disadvantaged homeowners and communities, the same groups that Project Hestia, an agreement with Sunnova and the U.S. Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office to support solar loans originated by Sunnova under a new solar loan channel, was purportedly intended to benefit; (2) the foregoing conduct subjected Sunnova to a heightened risk of regulatory and/or governmental scrutiny, as well as significant reputational and/or financial harm; and (3) as a result, Sunnova's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Sunnova class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=22626 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] TALIS CORP: Parties Seek Order on Class Certification Experts ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: TALIS BIOMEDICAL SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:22-cv-00105-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulated and agreed, subject to order of the Court, as follows: (1) The Defendants no longer seek exclusion of the Mitts Report as untimely but preserve the remainder of their objection pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(d)(1); and (2) The Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants' motion for leave to file an expert report responding to the Mitts Report, but reserves the right to object to Defendants' expert report pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(d)(1) on grounds other than timeliness. Talis Corp is engaged in developing and commercializing products designed to enable molecular testing for infectious diseases and other conditions at the point-of-care. A copy of Parties' motion dated Jan. 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bMGptW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph A. Fonti, Esq. Evan A. Kubota, Esq. Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 7 Times Square, 27th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 789-1340 Facsimile: (212) 205-3960 E-mail: jfonti@bfalaw.com ekubota@bfalaw.com lweaver@bfalaw.com - and - Brian Schall, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 303-1964 E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com - and - Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. James M. LoPiano, Esq. Jonathan D. Park, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlopiano@pomlaw.com jpark@pomlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Patrick E. Gibbs, Esq. Shannon M. Eagan, Esq. Jessie Simpson LaGoy, Esq. Zachary Sisko, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 843-5000 Facsimile: (650) 849-7400 E-mail: pgibbs@cooley.com seagan@cooley.com jsimpsonlagoy@cooley.com zsisko@cooley.com TD BANK: $16-M Settlement on Illegal Bank Fees Suit Gets Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Haute Lawyer reports that in a recent legal development, Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD Bank) has settled a class-action lawsuit, agreeing to pay nearly $16 million in compensation for non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees. This settlement, approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, comes as part of a growing trend of legal scrutiny over banking practices, particularly the charging of such fees. The lawsuit, launched in 2021 and led by Toronto law firm Koskie Minsky LLP, alleges that TD Bank unlawfully charged customers multiple NSF fees on a single payment or check. While TD Bank denies any wrongdoing or liability, the court has granted approval for the settlement, emphasizing its overall excellence and being in the best interests of the affected class. The approved settlement aims to compensate customers who were double-charged a $48 fee, with an estimated $88 to be directly deposited into eligible accounts. This legal resolution signifies an ongoing focus on consumer protection in the financial sector. The lawsuit sheds light on the practice of charging fees twice for the same purchase, particularly if a merchant attempts a second payment. Lead plaintiff Tyler Dufault's experience, where being 45 cents short on a PayPal bill resulted in $96 in fees from TD, exemplifies the financial impact on consumers. Adam Tanel, a partner at Koskie Minsky, reveals that approximately 105,000 individuals who were double-charged are expected to receive compensation. In addition to the monetary settlement, TD Bank has committed to amending some practices surrounding these fees. This legal action aligns with a broader movement addressing financial institutions' practices, with the federal government pushing for lower fees. The settlement also follows another recent approval by the Superior Court of Quebec for a $22-million class-action settlement involving TD Bank, highlighting the heightened scrutiny across the banking industry. As consumers increasingly demand transparency and fairness, this legal resolution signals a step toward accountability and reform in the banking sector. The ongoing class actions against other major banks in Canada for similar double-charge issues further underscore the need for comprehensive reform and improved consumer protection measures. [GN] THOUGHTWORKS HOLDING: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Thoughtworks Holding, Inc. (NASDAQ: TWKS) resulting from allegations that Thoughtworks may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Thoughtworks' securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=22590 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On February 12, 2024, after market hours, Thoughtworks filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC announcing its "previously issued unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements as of and for the quarterly periods ended June 30, 2023 and September 30, 2023 (collectively, the 'Non-Reliance Periods') included in the Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 'SEC') for the Non-Reliance Periods, (1) should no longer be relied upon due to an inaccurate presentation of the change in cash flows ascribed to operating activities in the condensed consolidated statement of cash flows, as further described below, and (2) will require restatement. Similarly, any previously issued or filed reports, earnings releases, and investor presentations or other communications describing the Company's condensed consolidated unaudited financial statements and other related financial information covering the Non-Reliance Periods should no longer be relied upon." On this news, Thoughtworks' stock price fell 6% to close at $4.14 per share on February 13, 2024, the next trading day. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] TJ INSPECTION: Court OK's Bid to Extend Deadlines in Cox Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN COX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TJ INSPECTION, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00187-G (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Charles B. Goodwin entered an order granting joint motion to extend deadlines filed by the Parties on Jan. 25, 2024. The Court further entered an order that the remaining deadlines are stayed and the current trial setting is stricken. Within 14 days of the disposition of the motion to certify class, the parties will confer and submit a joint scheduling proposal (with the parties’ respective positions presented therein if they cannot reach agreement), the Court says. TJ is an oil & energy company offering inspection services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EiXTCV at no extra charge.[CC] TRANCO LOGISTICS: Fails to Properly Pay Yard Drivers, Nelson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS NELSON and JAIMIE NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRANCO LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00064 (E.D. Tenn., February 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs Thomas and Jaimie Nelson worked for the Defendant as yard drivers in June of 2022 and in October of 2022, respectively. Tranco Logistics, LLC is a logistics company, with its principal place of business in Chattanooga, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donna J. Mikel, Esq. MIKEL & HAMILL PLLC 620 Lindsay St., Suite 200 Chattanooga, TN 37402 Telephone: (423) 541-5400 Facsimile: (423) 541-5401 E-mail: dmikel@mhemploymentlaw.com TRANS VALLEY: Mendoza Seeks Initial OK of Revised Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE MARIO MENDOZA, v. TRANS VALLEY TRANSPORT et al, Case No. 3:22-cv-07164-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting preliminary approval of the revised class action settlement reached with the defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff moves for an order: 1) preliminarily finding, for the purposes of giving members of the Settlement Class notice of the Revised Settlement and the opportunity to request exclusion from the Revised Settlement or object to the Revised Settlement, that: a) the Settlement Class, comprised of all persons who worked as truck drivers for Trans Valley Transport and/or FTU Labor Contractors, Inc. at any time between May 26, 2011 and Feb. 28, 2015 who did not enter into arbitration agreements, meets all the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure; and b) the Revised Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2) appointing Plaintiff as representative for the Settlement Class. 3) appointing Gregory N. Karasik of Karasik Law Firm, and Santos Gomez of Law Offices of Santos Gomez as counsel for the Settlement Class. 4) appointing Atticus Administration as the Settlement Administrator. 5) directing the Settlement Administrator to provide notice to members of the Settlement Class as set forth in the Settlement. 6) establishing the deadline for members of the Settlement Class to opt out of the settlement or to object to the Settlement. 7) establishing the deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for an award of attorney's fees, costs and a service payment. 8) scheduling a final approval and fairness hearing on a date approximately 120 days after preliminary approval of the Revised Settlement to consider whether the Revised Settlement should be finally approved as fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the purposes of judgment and to rule on Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, costs and a service payment. Trans Valley is a transportation/trucking/railroad company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b3iYoi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. KARASIK LAW FIRM 16021 Aiglon St. Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 Telephone: (310) 463-9761 Facsimile: (310) 943-2582 E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com - and - Santos Gomez, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SANTOS GOMEZ 1003 Freedom Boulevard Watsonville, CA 95076 Telephone: (831) 228-1560 Facsimile: (831) 228-1542 E-mail: santos@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com TVI INC: Fails to Pay Wages on a Weekly Basis, Hauser Says ---------------------------------------------------------- TRAVIS HAUSER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TVI, INC. d/b/a SAVERS, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01126 (E.D.N.Y., February 13, 2024) seeks to recover damages for delinquent wage payments made to workers who qualify as manual laborers and who were employed at any time by Defendant TVI, INC. between March 18, 2017 and the present in the State of New York. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly employee during the period between January 2021 and September 2022. The Plaintiff typically performed physical tasks for more than of 25% of his workday and is qualified as a manual laborer under the New York Labor Law. However, he was compensated every other week, rather than weekly, by Defendant throughout the entirety of his employment, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Washington, TVI, Inc. owns and operates thrift department stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 UNISYS CORP: Pennsylvania Tosses Securities Fraud Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP on Feb. 15 disclosed that on February 1, 2024, Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against an IT solutions company that provides digital communication, cybersecurity and IT consulting services, its CEO and current and former CFOs. Connor v. Unisys Corp., et al., No. 22-4529 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that defendants made false representations about the Company's disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Court dismissed the amended complaint, holding that plaintiff failed to adequately allege falsity, scienter and loss causation. Plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who allegedly purchased Company stock between February 22, 2022, and November 7, 2022, alleged that the Company made several false or misleading statements in certain of its public filings in 2021, specifically by touting that the Company had "effective" disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. According to plaintiff, on November 7, 2022, the Company issued a press release stating it would be unable to file its Form 10-Q for the third quarter of 2022 because the audit committee of the board of directors was conducting an internal investigation regarding the Company's disclosure controls. The Company's stock price allegedly fell 48% the following day. Plaintiff alleged that two weeks later, the Company filed a Form 8-K disclosing that the audit committee found material weaknesses in the Company's disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, which the investigation attributed to the design and maintenance of effective policies and procedures governing the timely communication of information within the Company's departments and management. As a result, the Company amended its Forms 10-K and 10-Qs to include remedial measures, such as implementation of stricter controls, training and enhancing the Company's relevant written policies. The Court dismissed plaintiff's claims on several bases. First, the Court held that plaintiff failed to adequately allege falsity with respect to alleged statements regarding the Company's disclosure controls -- such as "management assessed the effectiveness" of such controls -- because plaintiff failed to articulate how such statements were indeed false at the time they were made. The Court noted that plaintiff failed to cite contemporaneous sources indicating the statements were untrue, and instead relied on hindsight arguments -- for example, that the Company could not have conducted a good faith evaluation of its controls based on the remedial measures put in place following the audit committee report -- which failed to sufficiently allege falsity. Second, the Court held that plaintiff failed to adequately allege scienter. Plaintiff alleged that the Company and individual defendants were "personally responsible" for designing disclosure and internal controls, and any statements made about their design "were made on the basis of personal knowledge." The Court held that such allegations were "all speculation," and that despite plaintiff's allegation that defendants "had access to contrary facts," plaintiff did not identify any evidence of that. Rather, plaintiff pointed to defendants' later admission of error, which the Court held is insufficient to give rise to a strong inference of scienter. The Court reasoned that "treating [plaintiff's] allegations as sufficient would allow plaintiff[] to always speculate that control deficiencies missed initially but discovered later were within company knowledge from the start" and that "[a]ccordingly, some allegation 'that the defendant knew he was signing a false SEC filing or recklessly disregarded inaccuracies' is needed" because "[r]easoning otherwise would equate simple or 'inexcusable negligence' with recklessness, in contravention of Third Circuit precedent." Third, the Court held that plaintiff failed to adequately allege loss causation. In so holding, the Court reasoned that while the announcement of an investigation, standing alone, does not qualify as a corrective disclosure, it can form the basis of a viable loss causation theory if the complaint also alleges a subsequent corrective disclosure by the defendant and, in such instance, "no stock price drop need accompany the subsequent corrective disclosure." Thus, the Court held that plaintiff's allegations that defendants misrepresented the effectiveness of the Company's controls, followed by the announcement of the audit committee investigation, and subsequent findings of material weakness, would plausibly establish loss causation "[h]ad [plaintiff] adequately alleged falsity and scienter." Finally, having found no primary liability under Section 10(b), the Court dismissed plaintiff's derivative claim under Section 20(a) against the individual defendants. The Court did, however, grant plaintiff leave to amend. Connor v. Unisys Corp., et al. [GN] UNITED AIRLINES: Class Settlement in Ward Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES E. WARD, et al., v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-02309-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order as follows: (1) Granting the Plaintiff's motion for final Approval of Settlement; (2) Granting the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, costs, and service awards, and (3) Denying the Defendant's motion to approve consent decree. The order awards the Plaintiffs' counsel attorney's fees of $2,790,597.65 and $81,953.13 in litigation costs and expenses, to be paid from the settlement fund. The Plaintiffs' counsel shall be awarded the $81,953.13 as well as 50 percent of the attorney's fees now; the remaining 50 percent may be recovered only after counsel certifies that the fund is completely wound up. If problems do arise, and if management of this fund so necessitates, any shortfall in funds to pay class members may be deducted from the unpaid attorney's fees. Mr. Ward is awarded a class representative service award of $500. The Named plaintiff Bruce Richards is awarded a class representative service award of $250. Both are to be paid from the settlement fund. Consistent with the court of appeals' mandate, the class was redefined to include: "All pilots employed by United Airlines, Inc., at any time between April 3, 2014, up to the time of the final judgment (the Covered Time Period), who have or had a designated home-base airport in California at any time during the Covered Time Period, and who, at any time during the Covered Time Period, either worked the majority of their time in California or did not work the majority of their time in any one state." United Airlines is a major American airline headquartered at the Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 24, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v3Aqqa at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED BEHAVIORAL: LD Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LD, et al., v. United Behavioral Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-02254-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The relief Plaintiffs request in this motion is an order: (1) certifying the proposed class defined as: "Any member of a health benefit plan administered or issued by United and governed by ERISA, where the member's plan utilized United's "Reasonable and Customary" program for out-of-network benefits, and whose claim(s) for intensive outpatient services were billed with HCPCS H0015 and/or revenue code 0906 as an all-inclusive per diem, priced by MultiPlan's Viant methodology, and never adjusted, during the class period from Jan. 1, 2015, to the present;" (2) appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class; and (3) appointing Plaintiffs' counsel, Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, as class counsel for the Class, as well as any other relief that this Court deems appropriate and proper. This case is about Defendants' scheme to reap inflated profits by underpaying over 88,000 medical claims. The Plaintiffs and the putative class members consist of at least 11,280 patients with employer-sponsored health plans administered by Defendants UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company and United Behavioral Health. These patients received valid, medically necessary out-of-network ("OON") intensive outpatient program services ("IOP") for mental health or substance use disorders ("MH/SUD"). Their IOP claims were submitted to United for payment under Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System ("HCPCS") code H0015 or revenue code 0906. United Behavioral provides management services on a contract and fee basis. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DwdBDT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew M. Lavin, Esq. ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 350S Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 677-4030 Facsimile: (202) 677-4031 E-mail: matt.lavin@agg.com - and - David M. Lilienstein, Esq. Katie J. Spielman, Esq. DL LAW GROUP 345 Franklin St. San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 678-5050 Facsimile: (415) 358-8484 E-mail: david@dllawgroup.com katie@dllawgroup.com UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Hearing ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY JONES, through her agent, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Case No. 3:19-cv-06999-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulated and agreed that, subject to the approval of the Court: 1. UBH's deadline to file a Reply in support of its Motion for Class Decertification and its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Modify the Class Certification Order is continued to Feb. 9, 2024. 2. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a Reply in support of her Motion to Modify the Class Certification Order is continued to March 15, 2024. 3. The hearing on UBH's Motion for Class Decertification and on Plaintiff's Motion to Modify the Class Certification Order is continued to April 11, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. United Behavioral provides management services on a contract and fee basis. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XlUR50 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq. D. Brian Hufford, Esq. Jason S. Cowart, Esq. M Moore, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 100 East Pratt Street Suite 2440 Baltimore, MD 21202-1031 Telephone: (410) 332-0444 Facsimile: (410) 659-0436 - and - Meriam Bendat, Esq. PSYCH-APPEAL, INC. 7 West Figueroa Street, Suite 300 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (310) 598-3690 The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer S. Romano, Esq. Andrew Holmer, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 515 South Flower Street, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 622-4750 Facsimile: (213) 622-2690 E-mail: JRomano@Crowell.com AHolmer@Crowell.com US IMMIGRATION: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JIMENEZ, et al., v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-06353-RMI (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their second motion to enlarge time to respond to the Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction and class certification motions declaration of Michelle M. Ramus proposed order. Pursuant to Local Rule 6-3, Defendants hereby move for the second time to enlarge their time to respond to the Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction and class certification motions. The Defendants request that this Court extend the deadline for Defendants' responses to Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction and class certification motions until Feb. 26, 2024. In this case, the Plaintiffs allege that "Defendants have failed to provide proven, effective treatment options for COVID-19 infections to medically vulnerable immigrants that they hold in detention." One of Plaintiffs' allegations is that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") "does not include any of the antiviral medications approved or authorized for the treatment of COVID-19 [Paxlovid, Lagevrio, and Veklury] on their formulary." The Plaintiffs also requested in their motion for a preliminary injunction that the Court order Defendants to stock these medications at Golden State Annex. US Immigration enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jFVal9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Anna L. Dichter, Esq. Shane A. Young, Esq. Alexa S. White, Esq. Michelle M. Ramus, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 532-4525 Facsimile: (202) 305-7000 E-mail: Michelle.M.Ramus@usdoj.gov VALLEE LOGISTICS: Merridith Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- PERETHA MERRIDITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALLEE LOGISTICS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00227 (E.D. Mo., February 13, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a delivery driver from April 2023 until August 2023. Vallee Logistics LLC is a package delivery service provider doing business in Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 E-mail: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com VAXART INC: Seek Class Cert Evidentiary Hearing in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Himmelberg v. Vaxart, Inc. et al. (VAXART, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 3:20-cv-05949-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Armistice Defendants request that the Court schedule an evidentiary hearing for a half-day on March 21, 2024 (when the hearing on the Motion is currently scheduled) or on a date thereafter as convenient for the Court and that each side be allotted up to two hours to present evidence and make arguments. The Defendants move for an evidentiary hearing regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives, and Appointment of Class Counsel. Vaxart is an American biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of oral recombinant vaccines administered using temperature-stable tablets. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yDNkqe at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Neal R. Marder, Esq. Joshua A. Rubin, Esq. Sina Safvati, Esq. Lillian Rand, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 E-mail: nmarder@akingump.com rubinj@akingump.com ssafvati@akingump.com lrand@akingump.com VETERANS SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Premiums, Cole Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Daquane Cole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Veterans Security Services, LLC, Jason Alexander, individually, and Steve Allan Gibson, individually, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00223 (E.D. Mo., February 13, 2024) arises from the Defendants' payroll policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law. Despite working substantial overtime as a security officer, Defendants do not pay Plaintiff Cole an overtime premium for his hours worked over 40 in a workweek; instead, Defendants pay Plaintiff a flat hourly rate of $20.00 for all hours worked, says the suit. Based in South Carolina, Veterans Security Services provides security services to businesses, retail developments, and other corporate clients in Florida, Kansas, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Virginia. The company is co-owned by Jason Alexander and Steve Allan Gibson, [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip E. Oliphant, Esq. THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC 88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 737-7740 Facsimile: (901) 474-7926 E-mail: poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com VIPKID INT'L: Wins Bid to Dismiss Meehan Suit --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin J. Meehan, v. VIPKID; VIPKIDS INTERNATIONAL, INC., aka VIPKID, aka VIPKID INTERNATIONAL, INC; BEIJING DAMI TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., aka BEIJING DA MI TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., aka VIPKID; BEIJING DAMI FUTURE TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., aka BEIJING DA MI FUTURE TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.; TENCENT HOLDINGS LTD.; CLOUD & SMART INDUSTRIES, TENCENT HOLDINGS LTD., aka CLOUD & SMART INDUSTRIES AT TENCENT HOLDING LTD.; TENCENT AMERICA LLC; TENCENT CLOUD LLC; CHINA RENAISSANCE HOLDINGS LTD., aka CHINA RENAISSANCE SECURITIES, aka CHINA RENAISSANCE; SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS LLC; VIPKID HK LIMITED; VIPKID CLASS HK LIMITED; and VIP TEACH INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-06370-JS-LGD (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Joanna Seybert entered an order as follows: -- The Plaintiff's Objections are overruled, and the R&R is adopted in its entirety. -- The Dami Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration is granted. -- The Tencent Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted. -- China Renaissance's Motion to Dismiss is granted. -- Sequoia's Motion to Dismiss is granted. The Plaintiff Meehan commenced this putative class and collective action against VIPKid and a dozen other companies purportedly affiliated with VIPKid, alleging: (1) common law fraud; (2) common law fraud in the inducement; (3) common law conversion; (4) deceptive business practices under N.Y. General Business Law The Plaintiff is a domiciliary of Nassau County, New York, who performed work for VIPKid from October 2016 to June 2020. VIPKid is a Hong Kong corporation that maintains "an internet platform enabling American teachers to connect remotely with students in China to provide English language instruction." A copy of the Court's memorandum & order dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gBKjdg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lakshmi Gopal, Esq. MUCIRI LAW PLLC 305 Broadway, Floor 7 New York, NY 10007 The Defendants are represented by: Kevin R. Vozzo, Esq. EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 - and - Andrew P. Marks, Esq. David S. Warner, Esq. DORF & NELSON LLP 555 Theordore Fremd Avenue Rye, NY 10580 - and - Jay L. Pomerantz, Esq. Katherine A. Marshall, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041 - and - Neal F. Kronley, Esq. Richard F. Hans, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 - and - Harry A. Olivar, Jr., Esq. QUINN EMMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 WALMART INC: $45MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 12 ---------------------------------------------------------- CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP ANNOUNCES A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT IN KUKORINIS V. WALMART INC., CASE NO. 8:22-CV-02402-VMC-TGW, SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP ANNOUNCES A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT IN KUKORINIS V. WALMART INC., CASE NO. 8:22-CV-02402-VMC-TGW, SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: All Persons who Purchased Weighted Goods and/or Bagged Citrus in-person at a Walmart retail store, supercenter, or neighborhood market in the United States or Puerto Rico ("Walmart Store") from October 19, 2018 through and including January 19, 2024 (the "Settlement Class Period"). YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR A CASH PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, that a hearing will be held on June 12, 2024, at 10:00 am, before the Honorable Virginia M. Hernandez Covington in Courtroom 14B of the Sam M. Gibbons United States Courthouse, 801 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33602, for the purpose of determining (1): whether the proposed Settlement of this Action, reached between the parties, consisting of Forty-Five Million Dollars ($45,000,000)(the "Class Settlement Amount") in cash, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement dated November 15, 2023, should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to Class Members; (2) whether the release by Class Members of claims as set forth in the Settlement Agreement should be authorized; (3) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (4) whether to approve Class Counsel's request for an award of award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses seeking fees up to, but not to exceed, 20% of the Class Settlement Amount, plus reimbursement of costs and expenses (which costs and expenses will not exceed $200,000) incurred in connection with prosecuting the Action, plus any interest on such attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses at the same rate and for the same periods as earned by the Class Settlement Fund (until paid); (5) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Walmart Inc.; and, (6) whether the Judgment and Order of Dismissal should be entered. The date, time, and location of the settlement hearing are subject to change without further notice; any change to the date, time or location of the settlement hearing will be posted on the Settlement website at www.WalmartWeightedGroceriesSettlement.com. A Settlement was reached in a class action that alleged that persons who purchased in-person at Walmart Stores certain sold-by-weight meat, poultry, pork, and seafood products (called "Weighted Goods") and certain organic oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and navel oranges sold in bulk in mesh or plastic bags (called "Bagged Citrus") paid more than the lowest in-store advertised price for those products. Walmart denies these allegations and that it did anything wrong. The Settlement website, www.WalmartWeightedGroceriesSettlement.com, contains product descriptions and a searchable list of UPC Codes for the Weighted Goods and Bagged Citrus, and examples of those products can be viewed in the FAQs and in the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on the Settlement website, www.WalmartWeightedGroceriesSettlement.com. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASE AND SETTLEMENT, INCLUDING HOW TO FILE A CLAIM, A COPY OF THE DETAILED NOTICE DISCUSSING THE SETTLEMENT AND YOUR RIGHTS, INFORMATION ABOUT THE WEIGHTED GOODS AND BAGGED CITRUS PRODUCTS, AND A COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ARE AVAILABLE AT: www.WalmartWeightedGroceriesSettlement.com or call toll-free 1-833-987-9998. If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim online or, if mailed, postmarked no later than June 5, 2024. No supporting documentation is required to be eligible to receive a payment: You may submit a Claim even if you no longer have receipts. You can submit your Claim online at www.WalmartWeightedGroceriesSettlement.com. You may also download the Claim Form from the Settlement Website, or call the Claims Administrator toll-free 1-833-987-9998 to get a paper copy of the Claim Form, and mail your Claim Form to the Claims Administrator. Unless the deadline is extended, your failure to submit your Claim by the above deadline will preclude you from receiving any payment from the Settlement. If you are a Class Member and you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion, such that it is postmarked no later than May 22, 2024, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice, available at www.WalmartWeightedGroceriesSettlement.com. All Class Members who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action. If you exclude yourself from the Class, you will not receive any payment from the Settlement. If you are a Class Member and want to object to the Settlement or Class Counsel's fee and expense application, the objection must be in the form and manner explained in the detailed Notice, which is available at www.WalmartWeightedGroceriesSettlement.com. Your objection must be mailed to each of the following recipients, such that it is postmarked no later than May 22, 2024: Court Clerk: Clerk, United States District Court Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division 801 North Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 Class Counsel: Kimberly M. Donaldson-Smith Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith, LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Defense Counsel: Naomi G. Beer Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1144 15th Street, Ste. 3300 Denver, Colorado 80202 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, WALMART, OR DEFENSE COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact Class Counsel at the address listed above. Additional information about the Settlement can be found at www.WalmartWeightedGroceriesSettlement.com or by calling toll-free 1-833-987-9998. DATED: January 19, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA [GN] WALMART INC: Fact Discovery in Ramos Class Suit Extended to May 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMOS v. WALMART INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-13827-BRM-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Freda L. Wolfson entered an order setting the following status conference date and discovery deadlines as follows: 1. The stay of discovery is hereby lifted, and the Parties may proceed with discovery. 2. By March 1, 2024, the Parties must submit briefing on outstanding discovery disputes. 3. An in-person status conference/hearing is scheduled for March 7, 2024 at 10:30 am in the Roseland Office. 4. Pre-class certification fact discovery in this matter shall be extended from October 31, 2023, to May 31, 2024. Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0dGdqY at no extra charge.[CC] WILMINGTON TRUST: Parties Must Submit Dispute Briefing by March 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMERITAS LIFE INSURANCE CORP. v. WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., Case No. 2:19-cv-18713-MEF-ESK (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Freda L. Wolfson entered an order setting the following a status conference date and discovery deadlines as follows: 1. The stay of discovery is hereby lifted, and the Parties may proceed with discovery. 2. By March 1, 2024, the Parties must submit briefing on outstanding discovery disputes. 3. An in-person status conference/hearing is scheduled for March 7, 2024 at 10:30 am in the Roseland Office. 4. Pre-class certification fact discovery in this matter shall be extended from October 31, 2023, to May 31, 2024. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dmJjkN at no extra charge.[CC] WORK NUMBER: Faces Class Suit Over Accuracy on Consumer Data ------------------------------------------------------------ Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action alleges consumer reporting agency The Work Number fails to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the employment-related consumer data it sells to third parties. The 22-page lawsuit claims defendant Equifax Workforce Solutions -- which does business as The Work Number -- "fell short" of its duties under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act when it disseminated "nonsensical, contradictory, and unverified information" about the plaintiff, a Virginia resident who discovered in 2021 that she was a victim of identity theft. The company, which receives consumer data from its employer customers, regularly maintains and reports information that is plainly false, the suit contends. "The Work Number accepts the consumer information it receives from employers at face value, and does not take any steps to review, analyze, or filter the data for accuracy," the case charges. For instance, a report the company sent to the Virginia Department of Social Services -- from which the plaintiff received regular benefits -- indicated the woman was employed full-time at a poultry processing plant in Alabama, though she had never lived or worked in the state, the complaint says. Per the filing, the inaccurate report also "nonsensically" stated that the plaintiff lived simultaneously in Florida and had been employed at a Walmart there, and later at a local Amazon location, within the last few months. "The Work Number employs no substantive procedures to filter or parse data to prevent reporting of simultaneous employment which would be impossible because of geographic distance between employment or residence location, time constraints, or even common sense," the lawsuit argues. "It also employs no procedures to prevent reporting of employment at a location hundreds or even thousands of miles from the consumer's residence." What's more, when the plaintiff disputed the false employment data in her report, she was informed by The Work Number that she would first need to provide proof of address in the form of several official documents, among other "onerous requirements," before the company would initiate the reinvestigation, the suit shares. The case alleges the reporting agency creates such "burdensome" barriers to reduce the number of consumer disputes it has to process. As the complaint tells it, although The Work Number is aware the data it maintains and reports can be false, it "chooses to flout its legal obligation" to ensure maximum possible accuracy of the information and acts with "reckless disregard" for consumers' rights under federal law. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who was the subject of a consumer report published by The Work Number within the past five years, whose report contained employer information originating from an employer who submitted a W-2 that was posted to the Social Security Administration's Earning Suspense File, and who have consumer files at The Work Number that reflect simultaneous employment by separate employers who provided employee addresses in different states. The suit also seeks to cover those for whom the company refused to conduct a reinvestigation of a dispute until and unless the consumer provided proof of address documentation following The Work Number's receipt of the dispute. [GN] ZOLL MEDICAL: Martin Appointed as Interim Lead Class Counsel ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT SMITH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-10575-IT (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani entered an order as follows: A. The court appoints Jean S. Martin as interim lead class counsel to act on behalf of a putative class of all persons residing in the United States whose PII or PHI was impacted by the Data Exposure—including all persons to whom Defendant sent a notice of the Data Exposure. B. The court appoints Jason M. Leviton as Interim Liaison Counsel. C. The Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated complaint within 30 days of this order. ZOLL develops and markets medical devices and software solutions that help advance emergency care and save lives. A copy of the Court's memorandum & order dated Jan. 25, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p3iIe6 at no extra charge.[CC] [*] CA Supreme Court Limits Manageability Defense to PAGA Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kaleb N. Berhe, writing for Foley, reports that on January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated decision in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., determining whether trial courts can dismiss Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims as unmanageable. The Court ultimately concluded that dismissing PAGA claims solely on manageability grounds -- even if those claims are complex or time-intensive -- is not among the tools that trial courts possess but left various other means for limiting or dismissing PAGA claims undisturbed. PAGA Claims - A Reminder As many California employers are aware, PAGA allows employees to bring claims on behalf of the state to recover civil penalties for violations of the California Labor Code. In a successful PAGA action, the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency is entitled to 75% of the recovered penalties, and the remaining 25% goes to the "aggrieved employees." The Split in the California Courts of Appeal The California Supreme Court's decision resolved a split between the Courts of Appeal in the Second District and the Fourth District over the question of whether courts have the inherent authority to dismiss PAGA claims with prejudice on manageability grounds.[1] Procedural History of Estrada Royal Carpet Mills, a California carpet manufacturer, employed Jorge Luis Estrada at one of its two Orange County facilities. Estrada initially filed a complaint against Royalty alleging various class action claims based on alleged violations of the California Labor Code, as well as a PAGA representative claim seeking penalties for various alleged Labor Code violations. Subsequently, twelve additional employees joined Estrada as named plaintiffs. The trial court certified a subclass of employees to determine the meal period claims, and a bench trial was held where the plaintiffs presented live testimony from twelve of the thirteen named Plaintiffs, deposition testimony from Royalty's managers, officers, and human resources employees, and testimony from an expert witness. At trial, Royalty presented testimony from two former employees and an expert witness. Following the bench trial, the trial court decertified the meal period subclass, reasoning there were "too many individualized issues to support class treatment." Relatedly, the trial court dismissed the PAGA claim for meal period violations with prejudice, stating it was "unmanageable" for similar reasons. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Fourth Appellate District, which reversed the trial court and held that manageability is not a valid basis for dismissing PAGA claims, despite the Second District's 2021 decision in Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC, which held that PAGA claims are subject to manageability requirements and could be dismissed on that basis. The California Supreme Court Ruling The California Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth District Court of Appeal decision in Estrada, holding that "trial courts lack inherent authority to strike PAGA claims on manageability grounds." The Court highlighted the various differences between class action claims and representative PAGA claims and rejected the trial court's reasoning that a lack of "predominance" for class claims meant that PAGA claims were unmanageable for the same reasons and should be dismissed. The Limited Impact of Estrada While the Supreme Court's decision in Estrada dealt yet another blow to California employers, it did not necessarily amount to the sweeping destruction of PAGA defenses that many among the plaintiff's bar had hoped or predicted. Indeed, the Court "le[ft] undisturbed various case management tools" short of dismissing claims outright, such as narrowing the scope of PAGA claims and limiting evidence presented at trial. Moreover, the Court reiterated the use of "[r]epresentative testimony, surveys, and statistical analysis, along with other types of evidence" to ensure that "PAGA claims are effectively tried." The Court also left the door open for lower courts to dismiss PAGA claims on due process grounds, though it stopped short of elaborating on the nature of circumstances where such dismissals could be proper. Additionally, the Court emphasized that its decision does not impact various other existing means to dismiss PAGA claims, such as showing the individual employee is not aggrieved, an argument that can be asserted at the summary judgement stage to obtain a dismissal of PAGA claims. [GN] [*] Plaintiffs Seek Prelim. Nod of $9M Deal in Unsolicited Ads Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that on February 8, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington received an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement against a broker-dealer alleging that the defendant violated the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA) by having consumers send "unsolicited advertising text messages" to other Washingtonians through a referral program. The proposed settlement would establish a $9 million settlement fund that would compensate an estimated one million affected class members, consisting of consumers who received a referral program text message during the relevant period, were Washington residents, and did not "clearly and affirmatively" consent to receive referral program text messages. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***