/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240621.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 21, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 125 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Bass Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Beatty Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Bell Legal Files 57 Lawsuits for Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Buettner Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Cover Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ACELLA PHARMA: Agrees to Settle False Ad Claims for $41.4 Mil. ADVANCED LENDING: Leon Suit Removed to S.D. Florida AGBA GROUP: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Triller Corp ALASKA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Medicaid Delays AMAZON.COM INC: UK Retailers Sue Over Misuse of Non-Public Data BILL MATRIX: Sandford Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. CARHARTT INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website COLUMBIA DEBT RECOVERY: Abbink Files FCRA Suit in W.D. Washington CONAGRA BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Additives in Frozen Fish EASTBROOK, ME: Cookson Sues Over Unlawfully Taken Property ECOMM CONSULTING: Zinger Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ERNEST HEALTH: Weaver Sues Over Failure to Implement Data Security FAT BRANDS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit FAVORITE WORLD: Faces Class Action Over Fake Discounts Online FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach GENERAL MOTORS: Cogle Sues Over Violation of Privacy GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Consumer Data Privacy GMS MINE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bolyard Alleges GRAND CANYON: Sued Over Racketeering Scheme in Doctoral Degrees GRITSTONE BIO: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements ICC HOLDINGS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Mutual Capital IVAN MONTENEGRO: Santana Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. JOOLA USA: Faces Class Action Over Pickleball Paddle Fraud KELLER WILLIAMS: Ronayne Sues Over Breach of Contract KLAVIYO INC: Desta Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation KOHL'S CORPORATION: Jones Suit Removed to C.D. California LAKESIDE PLASTICS: Court Grants Motion For Summary Judgment LENOVO INC: Parties Must Submit Exhibits & Briefing LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Pike Class Suit Settled, Investors' Suit Dropped LIBERTY MUTUAL: Underpays Insurance Benefits Due, Class Suit Says LLOYD AUSTIN: Court Stays Briefing on Class Cert Bid LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action LUMIO HX: Smith Seeks Production of Docs Related to Class Status MARINUS PHARMA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set August 2 MARK CUBAN: Class Settlement in Karnas Suit Gets Initial Nod PERFICIENT INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With BPEA PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Kirsila Sues Over Unlawful Detention PLAYAGS INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Brightstar QG PRINTING II LLC: Pulido-Peredo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RTX CORP: Faces Class Action Over Age Discrimination in Job Ads RW SUPPLY: Faces Class Action Over Design Misrepresentation SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug 2 SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Hialeah Sues Over Drop in Share Price SNAPFISH LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fernandez Suit TESLA INC: Ball Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties TOYOTA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Coolant Bypass Valve Defect UNIBLUE CORPORATION: Ferreira Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. UNIQUE VINTAGE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Suit Says UNITED STATES: Parties Seek to Unseal Docs in Sexual Assault Suit UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS: Faces Acker Suit Over Abrupt Closure WASHINGTON NATIONALS: Snyder Suit Removed to D. Columbia WELLS FARGO: Files Motion to Dismiss Racial Disparity Class Action WESTJET AIRLINES: Settles Checked Baggage Fees Class Action Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Panel Upholds $2.6MM J-M Mfg. Verdict ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Reaches $700MM Talc Case Settlement ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Awards $10MM Verdict Against Pneumo Abex ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wisconsin Court Affirms $26.45MM Asbestos Verdict ********* 3M COMPANY: Bass Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------ Isaac Bass, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), Case No. 2:24-cv-02547-RMG (D.S.C. April 24, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendant collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise inappropriately disposed of PFAS chemicals with knowledge that it was highly toxic and bio persistent, which would expose plaintiff to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendant knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous PFAS in his drinking water and unaware of the toxic nature of the Defendant's PFAS in general. Plaintiff's consumption of PFAS from Defendant's contamination and inappropriate disposal caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendant's PFAS at various locations. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was exposed to PFAS chemicals through drinking water both at home and at his place of work, due to contamination on behalf of the 3M plant in Decatur, Alabama and potential AFFF sources, and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendant's PFAS contamination. The Defendant is a designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor, releaser, promotors and seller of PFAS chemicals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 - and - Hunter Garnett, Esq. GARNETT PATTERSON INJURY LAWYERS 100 Jefferson St S #300 Huntsville, AL 35801 Phone: 256-539-8686 3M COMPANY: Beatty Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- John C. Beatty, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.); CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY); FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ANSUL COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX CORPORATION); VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02381-RMG (D.S.C., April 22, 2024), 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 extremely hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires"). AFFF 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, individually and collectively, designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on, produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled, used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. 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 Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused Plaintiff significant and devastating injury. 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 and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq. WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC 3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 499-7900 Facsimile: (202) 478-1795 - and - Jim Hood, Esq. Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq. 1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Phone: (601) 803-5001 3M COMPANY: Bell Legal Files 57 Lawsuits for Toxic Aqueous Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bell Legal Group, LLC filed 57 lawsuits seeking class action status against the Defendants 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. Each of the complaints are stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. 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, the military, and/or training. 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. All of the complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The complaints were filed in April 26, 2024. The Plaintiffs are: Nicholas Linebaugh. Case No. 2:24-cv-02694-RMG. Michael Pompeo. Case No. 2:24-cv-02691-RMG. Sam Hsu. Case No. 2:24-cv-02715-RMG. Scott Jeffe. Case No. 2:24-cv-02717-RMG Stephen Hendricks. Case No. 2:24-cv-02718-RMG. Timothy Johnson. Case No. 2:24-cv-02719-RMG. Wally Lujan. Case No. 2:24-cv-02720-RMG. Allen Jeffers. Case No. 2:24-cv-02621-RMG. Bradley Rose. Case No. 2:24-cv-02624-RMG. Bruce Sherwood. Case No. 2:24-cv-02625-RMG. Carl Schlueter. Case No. 2:24-cv-02627-RMG. Cecil Kennedy. Case No. 2:24-cv-02628-RMG. Charles Kemp. Case No. 2:24-cv-02629-RMG. Daniel Longe. Case No. 2:24-cv-02647-RMG. Darnell Lomax. Case No. 2:24-cv-02648-RMG. David Kathios. Case No. 2:24-cv-02649-RMG. Donald Lasher. Case No. 2:24-cv-02650-RMG. Edgar Shilling. Case No. 2:24-cv-02652-RMG. Franklin Schaffer. Case No. 2:24-cv-02653-RMG. Frederick Kopetz. Case No. 2:24-cv-02655-RMG. John Hawthorne. Case No. 2:24-cv-02667-RMG. Paul Hoyle. Case No. 2:24-cv-02697-RMG. Jeffrey Hulsey. Case No. 2:24-cv-02663-RMG. Joseph Intile. Case No. 2:24-cv-02672-RMG. James Simon. Case No. 2:24-cv-02662-RMG. Jerold Parker. Case No. 2:24-cv-02665-RMG. Joshua Rogers. Case No. 2:24-cv-02677-RMG. Keith Snyder. Case No. 2:24-cv-02678-RMG. John Kennon. Case No. 2:24-cv-02669-RMG. Robert Kent. Case No. 2:24-cv-02707-RMG. Michael Kowrach. Case No. 2:24-cv-02684-RMG. Christopher Krueger. Case No. 2:24-cv-02644-RMG. Lloyd Sexton. Case No. 2:24-cv-02681-RMG. Paul Loiselle. Case No. 2:24-cv-02698-RMG. Lowell Pool. Case No. 2:24-cv-02682-RMG. Marion Lewis. Case No. 2:24-cv-02683-RMG. Norman Kaprelian. Case No. 2:24-cv-02695-RMG. Odes Lane. Case No. 2:24-cv-02696-RMG. Charles Paul. Case No. 2:24-cv-02642-RMG. Robert Peworchik. Case No. 2:24-cv-02709-RMG. John Pierce. Case No. 2:24-cv-02671-RMG. Gary Popielarczyk. Case No. 2:24-cv-02658-RMG. Randall Lowe. Case No. 2:24-cv-02699-RMG. Raymond Peabody. Case No. 2:24-cv-02703-RMG. Joseph Intile. Case No. 2:24-cv-02672-RMG. Kenneth Rhoades. Case No. 2:24-cv-02679-RMG. Richard Langley. Case No. 2:24-cv-02704-RMG. Christopher Robertson. Case No. 2:24-cv-02646-RMG. Ronald Johnson. Case No. 2:24-cv-02712-RMG. Robert Ross. Case No. 2:24-cv-02711-RMG. Roy Hatfield. Case No. 2:24-cv-02714-RMG. Michael Saal. Case No. 2:24-cv-02693-RMG. Joseph Sailor. Case No. 2:24-cv-02674-RMG. Joseph Saucier. Case No. 2:24-cv-02676-RMG. Gary Shephard. Case No. 2:24-cv-02659-RMG. James Shipley. Case No. 2:24-cv-02661-RMG. Kenneth Simpson. Case No. 2:24-cv-02680-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: 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 3M COMPANY: Buettner Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Phillip Troy Buettner, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.); CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY); FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ANSUL COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX CORPORATION); VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02580-RMG (D.S.C., April 25, 2024), 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 extremely hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires"). AFFF 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, individually and collectively, designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on, produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled, used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. 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 Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused Plaintiff significant and devastating injury. 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 and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis and testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq. WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC 3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 499-7900 Facsimile: (202) 478-1795 - and - Jim Hood, Esq. Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq. 1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Phone: (601) 803-5001 3M COMPANY: Cover Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nathaniel Joseph Cover, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.); CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY); FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ANSUL COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX CORPORATION); VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02579-RMG (D.S.C., April 25, 2024), 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 extremely hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires"). AFFF 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, individually and collectively, designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on, produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled, used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. 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 Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused Plaintiff significant and devastating injury. 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 and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis and testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq. WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC 3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 499-7900 Facsimile: (202) 478-1795 - and - Jim Hood, Esq. Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq. 1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Phone: (601) 803-5001 - and - Stephen A. Weisbrod, Esq. 506 2nd Ave., Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 990-0390 ACELLA PHARMA: Agrees to Settle False Ad Claims for $41.4 Mil. -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Acella agreed to a $41.4 million NP Thyroid settlement to resolve claims it falsely advertised the thyroid medication as containing a specified amount of the active ingredient. The settlement benefits individuals who received a dispensed prescription for NP Thyroid between May 12, 2018, and April 30, 2021, whether Acella recalled the NP Thyroid lots or not. According to the false advertising class action lawsuit, Acella's NP Thyroid had an inconsistent amount of the active ingredient. Some batches of the medication allegedly contained too much of the active ingredient while other batches contained too little, making the medication ineffective or unsafe. To receive NP Thyroid settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Nov. 30, 2024. Who's Eligible Individuals who received a dispensed prescription for NP Thyroid between May 12, 2018, and April 30, 2021, whether Acella recalled the NP Thyroid lots or not Potential Award $50 Proof of Purchase Documentation of filled prescriptions (pharmacy receipt, pharmacy records and records from insurance providers) Claim Form Deadline 11/30/2024 Case Name Faulkner, et al. v. Acella Pharmaceuticals LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00092-RWS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Final Hearing 05/14/2024 Settlement Website NPTSettlement.com Claims Administrator AF9 Claims Administrator P.O. Box 301172 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1172 info@nptsettlement.com (877) 519-1122 Class Counsel Aaron Block Max Marks THE BLOCK LAW FIRM LLC 309 East Paces Ferry NE, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30305 Phone: (404) 997-8419 Email: contact@blockfirmllc.com Defense Counsel David F Norden TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 600 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 3000 Atlanta, GA 30308 Phone: (404) 885-3000 [GN] ADVANCED LENDING: Leon Suit Removed to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Christopher Leon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADVANCED LENDING SOLUTIONS COMPANY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Case No. 2023-007800-CA-01 was removed from the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 24, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-21578-KMW. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant violated only the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (the "FTSA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Keith D. Silverstein, Esq. Jose A. Peralta, Esq. ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 355 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (786) 822-3700 Telecopier: (305) 675-3605 Email: ksilverstein@atllp.com jperalta@atllp.com miamiefiling@atllp.com AGBA GROUP: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Triller Corp -------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: AGBA Group Holding Limited (NASDAQ: AGBA), relating to its proposed merger with Triller Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, Triller shareholders will own 80% of the post-Merger Group, and AGBA shareholders will own 20% of the post-Merger Group. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: -- Do you file class actions and go to Court? -- When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? -- What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] ALASKA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Medicaid Delays ------------------------------------------------------- Claire Stremple, writing for Wrangell Sentinel, reports that on a life-flight from Fairbanks to Anchorage, Sierra Ott's newborn son Liam would not stop bleeding from a routine needle prick. Doctors in the Anchorage neonatal intensive care unit diagnosed him with a blood clotting disorder. Without medication, he is at risk of extreme joint pain and even bleeding out from what would not normally be serious injuries. Ott said that without health insurance from her husband's military service, the pills would cost the family about $8,000 a month. At the urging of her case worker, Ott applied for Medicaid for her son's disability. Liam will have to take the medication for the rest of his life, and she wanted to make sure there would never be gaps in his coverage. In addition to bleeding, hemophilia can cause debilitating joint pain. Ott applied last October. She is still waiting. Her family is one of thousands caught in a backlog of Medicaid applications in Alaska. "I know that we're not the only family who has been waiting for answers that are just not coming," Ott said. The Otts filed a class-action lawsuit against the state on June 6, with the Northern Justice Project, a civil rights law firm that represents low- and middle-income Alaskans. It alleges the state has failed to provide timely access to Medicaid to eligible Alaskans who have a dire need for health care coverage. The lawsuit is one of at least four pending against the Department of Health because the state agency is not processing applications for federal benefits in a lawful amount of time. James Davis Jr., a founding partner for the Northern Justice Project, said they took on the case because he is fed up with dysfunction in the state agency, which has wrestled with backlogs of crisis proportions since 2022. "I've never in 20 years seen repeated systemic problems of such a broad scope," he said. "I mean, we're talking thousands of families waiting for food stamps and thousands of families waiting for Medicaid." Davis plans to ask the court for "summary judgment," or to judge the case without a time-consuming trial. He said he hopes to get relief for families in a matter of months rather than waiting what could be more than a year for a trial. He said his firm gets about a call a week from families with disabled children that have waited months for the state agency to give them a Medicaid determination. "That entire time they can't get their children medical coverage," he said. In an article from Alaska Public Media that detailed the state's Medicaid backlog, Division of Public Assistance Director Deb Etheridge said eligible Alaskans can access care as long as they have submitted an application and that Medicaid will retroactively reimburse them. Davis said he was infuriated by the state's response: "The fact of the matter is, most of us can't afford to pay out of pocket for our kids -- most of us aren't rich." [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: UK Retailers Sue Over Misuse of Non-Public Data --------------------------------------------------------------- New Law Journal reports that UK retailers have launched a class action for GBP1bn damages against Amazon at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). The claim is being brought by the British Independent Retailers Association (BIRA) on an opt-out basis, under which all UK retailers who have lost out are automatically included in the claim unless they explicitly opt out. The retailers allege that, since October 2015, Amazon has misused non-public data belonging to the retailers to boost its own sales and price-setting of rival products. Boris Bronfentrinker of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, acting for BIRA, said: 'This is precisely the sort of claim that the new collective action regime was brought in for, to enable small and medium-sized businesses to be able to recover damages caused to them by a huge multinational.' Amazon has consistently denied the allegations. [GN] BILL MATRIX: Sandford Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BILL MATRIX CORPORATION. case is styled as Robert Sandford, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. BILL MATRIX CORPORATION, Case No. 2024-007289-CA-01 (Del. Chancery Ct., April 22, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Civil Complaint." BillMatrix Corporation -- https://www.fiserv.com/en/billmatrix-consumer.html -- provides electronic bill payment solutions. The Company offers out source payment solution that allows customers to get immediate credit for bills paid online or over the phone using electronic checks, debit, and credit cards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th St., Ste. 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 754-444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com CARHARTT INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Carhartt Inc., d/b/a Carhartt Retail LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-01494-PAM-TNL (D. Minn., April 24, 2024), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.carhartt.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind. The Defendant offers clothing, footwear, and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, jeans, overalls, shirts, sweatshirts, jackets, bibs, scrubs, boots, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC Jason Gustafson (#0403297) 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com COLUMBIA DEBT RECOVERY: Abbink Files FCRA Suit in W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Columbia Debt Recovery LLC. The case is styled as Bryce Abbink, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Columbia Debt Recovery LLC doing business as: Genesis, Case No. 2:24-cv-00557-GJL (W.D. Wash., April 22, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Columbia Debt Recovery LLC doing business as Genesis -- https://www.genesiscred.com/ -- specializes in collections for the multi-family industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Phone: (720) 213-0676 Fax: (303) 927-0898 Email: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com - and - Michael P. Matesky, II, Esq. MATESKY LAW PLLC 4500 9th Ave. NE, Ste. 300 Seattle, WA 98105 Phone: (206) 701-0331 Fax: (206) 701-0332 Email: litigation@mateskylaw.com CONAGRA BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Additives in Frozen Fish -------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Brynes, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that three seafood consumers filed a federal class action against Conagra Brands in Chicago accusing the Fortune 500 company of "short weighting" its frozen fish products. The three plaintiffs from California, New York and Massachusetts claim that despite the Chicago-based company marketing its Van de Kamp's and Mrs. Paul's fish products as healthy, environmentally conscious and "100% whole fish," those products are actually stuffed to the gills with excess water and a chemical known as sodium tripolyphosphate. "Defendant claims that its popular Van de Kamp and Ms. Paul's brand frozen fish products are '100% Whole Fish.' That statement is false," the plaintiffs wrote in their 25-page complaint. "The truth is, defendant pumps up those fish with an industrial filler called sodium tripolyphosphate and extra water to artificially add weight, which may then ooze out as a white goo when the fish is cooked." Sodium tripolyphosphate is a commercial compound with a variety of uses. It can be found in detergents and water softeners, and is listed as a pesticide by the University of California's Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. It is also commonly used as a preservative for fish and meat, helping the flesh retain moisture and firmness. It is generally considered safe for human consumption in small amounts by the FDA and European Food Safety Authority, though a 2019 study by the authority found that in high quantities chemicals of its type may have adverse effects on kidney health. The plaintiffs who filed the class action also claim that sodium tripolyphosphate is a suspected neurotoxin. Courthouse News saw the same claim repeated on several healthy eating and consumer advisory websites, but could not find any scientific source corroborating it. Health effects aside, the plaintiffs claim that Conagra is filling its frozen fish with an exorbitant amount of the chemical -- enough that sodium tripolyphosphate solutions may add 13% or more weight to the products. When cooked, the plaintiffs claim, the solution can ruin the fish's quality. "Not only do consumers end up paying more money for STPP- treated seafood because of the added water weight, but the seafood decreases in size and changes in texture when the water is cooked out. Excessive STPP treatment destroys the quality of the protein during the cooking process and can create a 'soapy' flavor and mushy texture." The frozen products oversaturated with industrial additive, the plaintiffs claim, include fish sticks, breaded haddock fillets and beer battered fillets. These products' packaging acknowledge that sodium tripolyphosphate is added to the fish to retain moisture, but only in the fine print. The company's claim of using "100% whole fish," meanwhile, is prominently displayed on the front of the box and accompanied by equally-large proclamations that the fish is "good for you," "good for the environment" and "wild caught." This disparity, the plaintiffs claimed, is intentionally misleading. "A reasonable consumer has no reason to check what a product is 'composed' of when the product labeling is replete with representations that it is '100% Whole Fish,' healthy, and caught in the wild. Any consumer would reasonably assume without having to check parentheticals in the ingredient list that the products contain 100% Whole Fish, and not some fish and STPP and water pumped into the products in a processing plant," the three plaintiffs argued. The trio now seeks injunctive relief against the company, as well as over $5 million in damages for their proposed class. Their complaint outlines nine counts for fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of warranty and several violations of California, New York and Massachusetts state law. Conagra did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the litigation.[GN] EASTBROOK, ME: Cookson Sues Over Unlawfully Taken Property ---------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Cookson, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. TOWN OF EASTBROOK individually and on behalf of those Similarly Situated, Case No. 1:24-cv-00136-NT (D. Maine, April 23, 2024), is brought on behalf of all the other Maine residents who have had their property unlawfully taken as a penalty by the Town of Eastbrook, or by other municipalities in Maine. Without a class, many Maine residents who have lost their property will never be able to recover just compensation for their properties. Maine's municipalities have been extracting a heavy price if a Maine landowner is unable to pay their property or other local taxes. The municipalities take a landowner's entire property even if the property value is tens of thousands of dollars more than what is owed. For many years, the Town of Eastbrook, Maine, and other municipalities in Maine have been unlawfully taking tens of millions of dollars from Maine property owners in this same way. The Plaintiff is a person who lost property which was worth over $40,000 because he was unable to pay $2600 in taxes. The Town of Eastbrook sold the property for $2,900. The Plaintiff is unfortunately not alone. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other Maine residents who have lost their property in the same way. Many are the poorest and most vulnerable Mainers whose only wealth was their property, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the personal representative and sole heir of the Estate of Cynthia Crosby. Town of Eastbrook is a municipality located in Hancock County, Maine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Z. Steed, Esq. ISLAND JUSTICE P.O. Box 711 Stonington, ME 04681 Phone: (207) 200-7077 Email: john@islandjusticelaw.com ECOMM CONSULTING: Zinger Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecomm Consulting Corporation. The case is styled as Dmitry Zinger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ecomm Consulting Corporation doing business as: Gene Guard, Case No. 2:24-cv-00362-JES-KCD (M.D. Fla., April 22, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Ecomm Consulting Corporation doing business as Gene Guard -- https://gene-guard.com/ -- delivers world class diagnostics and utilize technology to improve the delivery of care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com kaufman@kaufmanpa.com ERNEST HEALTH: Weaver Sues Over Failure to Implement Data Security ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cynthia Weaver, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ERNEST HEALTH, INC., Case No. DC-24-05972 (Tex. Dist. Ct., April 26, 2024), is brought arising from the Defendant's recent data breach ("Data Breach") resulting from its failure to implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices. The Plaintiff brings this Petition against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including, but not limited to, Social Security numbers ("Private Information"). Upon information and belief, former and current patients and employees at Ernest Health's hospitals are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private Information, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities. Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Plaintiff received a Notice of Data Breach letter (the "Notice Letter") from Defendant's subsidiary, Trustpoint Rehabilitation Hospital of Lubbock, on or about March 29, 2024. According to this Notice Letter, Defendant learned of a cybersecurity incident on February 1, 2024, and pursued an investigation into the threat. The investigation ultimately "determined that an unauthorized party gained access to our IT network between the dates of January 16, 2024 and February 4, 2024." The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiffs and Class Members' Private Information--and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and their utter failure to protect its employees' and patients' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiffs and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard its employees' and patients' Private Information and give the victims timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received the Notice Letter, via U.S. mail, from the Defendant's Trustpoint Rehabilitation Hospital of Lubbock, dated March 29, 2024. The Defendant "is a network of rehabilitation and long-term acute care hospitals" operating 36 hospitals throughout 13 different states and providing healthcare services to thousands Of patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC - DALLAS 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (214) 744-3000 Fax: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 651-3700 Fax: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com FAT BRANDS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of FAT Brands, Inc. (NASDAQ: FAT, FATBB, FATBP, FATBW) between March 24, 2022 and May 10, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 6, 2024 in the securities class action first filed by the Firm. SO WHAT: If you purchased FAT Brands 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 FAT Brands class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3635 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@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 August 6, 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 throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) defendants failed to disclose that Andrew A. Wiederhorn, the Company's Chairman and former CEO, had received improper payments from the Company, exposing FAT Brands to criminal liability; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the FAT Brands class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3635 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@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. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. 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. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] FAVORITE WORLD: Faces Class Action Over Fake Discounts Online ------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges the company behind Shapermint.com has misled consumers by listing products on its online store with fake "regular" prices and corresponding false discounts, giving the impression of savings. The 30-page lawsuit says that defendant Favorite World, LLC, which sells women's undergarments, swimwear and shapewear through Shapermint.com, frequently promotes discounts of up to 70 percent off its purported "regular" prices and prominently displays a timer that counts down to the latest offer's expiration. However, the suit claims the apparent discounts are meant to mislead shoppers, as the company's products are continuously on sale and never offered at the original price advertised in strikethrough font. In addition, the limited-time sale events are hardly time-barred, the case contends, arguing that the offers do not end even when the countdown clock runs out. "Instead, they are immediately replaced by a different sale offering comparable discounts or [Shapermint] simply restart[s] the timer and begin[s] the countdown to a false end date," the complaint charges. The filing asserts that once a sale has run for more than 90 days, Shapermint merely retitles the offer in connection with a different theme, holiday or season, with each allegedly separate sale proceeding "immediately into the next." According to the lawsuit, Shapermint's conduct has violated two California laws that prohibit companies from advertising purported former prices that were not the products' "prevailing market prices" within the preceding three months. Moreover, the suit takes issue with the website's use of a "fake" timer at checkout that says it reserves a shopper's order for 59 minutes. The case contests that the checkout timer is "just another ruse, like the fake limited sales it advertises, which seeks to manipulate consumers into finalizing a purchase without second guessing, comparison shopping, or considering any of [Shapermint's] hidden terms and conditions, any of which might dissuade consumers from completing the purchase." The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who, while in California, purchased one or more products advertised at a discount on Shapermint.com at any time in the past four years. [GN] FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Kan, of uk.pcmag.com/, reports that Frontier Communications subscribers are suing the ISP for losing their Social Security numbers to hackers in a data breach. At least three users filed class-action lawsuits in a Texas district court -- a few days after the company disclosed that hackers had stolen names and Social Security numbers from 751,895 subscribers during a cyberattack in April. Frontier customers will receive "one year of complimentary credit monitoring and identity theft resolution services." However, the subscribers behind the class-action lawsuits demand the ISP do more and pay "restitution and damages" to the affected victims. "Plaintiff anticipates spending considerable time and money on an ongoing basis to try to mitigate and address harms caused by the data breach," says one of the lawsuits, which also notes that affected victims "will continue to be at increased risk of identity theft and fraud for years to come." The risk of the stolen data being exploited is especially high considering the ransomware group behind the hack is currently trying to auction off the stolen data to the highest bidder. The hacking group, known as RansomHub, also claims to have stolen dates of births and phone numbers. "We gave frontier 2 months to contact us but they don't care about clients data," the group claimed over its website. "Now anyone who wants to buy this data can contact our blog support, we only sell it once." Frontier Communications didn't immediately respond to a request for comment, making it unclear how the hackers breached its systems. But the consumers behind the class-action lawsuits allege that the data breach underscores the poor security at Frontier. They're now suing the company on charges including negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Two of the lawsuits propose a "nationwide" class-action against the ISP to provide financial relief for all affected customers. Another one also urges the court to force Frontier to implement stronger security standards, including encrypting user data. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Cogle Sues Over Violation of Privacy ---------------------------------------------------- Colin Cogle, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, ONSTAR, LLC, and LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-11062-JJCG-APP (E.D. Mich., April 22, 2024), is brought seeking relief on behalf of himself and other similarly situated persons in the United States ("Class Members") who purchased or leased a GM vehicle and had their location and driving-behavior data transmitted to LexisNexis as a result of the Defendants violation of federal and state privacy and consumer protection laws. GM owns and operates OnStar, which provides subscription-based services offered in GM vehicles. By default, GM installs OnStar hardware and software in leased or purchased GM vehicles manufactured in model year 2015 or newer. OnStar offers a variety of safety and connectivity-based services to customers who subscribe. OnStar provides GM vehicle owners and lessees a free program, known as the "OnStar Smart Driver Program," which collects and stores detailed information about their driving behavior. OnStar represents that it only collects this information from customers who consent and enroll in the program. GM and OnStar nevertheless tracked information about Plaintiff's and Class Members' driving behavior in granular detail, including their speed, location, acceleration, and braking behaviors, even though they did not subscribe to the OnStar Smart Driver program. GM and OnStar transmitted Plaintiff's and Class Members' driving information to third-party data brokers, including LexisNexis, which subsequently sold it to auto insurance companies, which used it to raise insurance premiums for drivers such as Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and Class Members did not consent to GM or OnStar collecting and profiting from data collected from their GM vehicles related to their driving. At no point did GM or OnStar disclose to Plaintiff or Class Members that it would collect and sell information about their driving behavior to third parties such as LexisNexis, who would in turn provide it to their insurers. GM's and OnStar's undisclosed monitoring and sale of Plaintiff's and Class Members' driving-behavior data to LexisNexis violates their reasonable expectations and violates federal and state privacy and consumer protection laws. Plaintiff and Class Members accordingly seek appropriate damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a 2019 Chevy Bolt EV in November 2022 from Premier Kia in Branford, Connecticut. GM is a multinational automotive manufacturing company that manufactures and sells vehicles throughout the United States and around the world, including Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, and Cadillac branded vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Emily E. Hughes, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Phone: 248-841-2200 Email: epm@millerlawpc.com eeh@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com - and - Adam E. Polk, Esq. Jordan Elias, Esq. Anthony Rogari, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 981-4800 Email: apolk@girardsharp.com jelias@girardsharp.com arogari@girardsharp.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Consumer Data Privacy ------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Hallenbeck, writing for youerie.com, reports that General Motors is under fire for their alleged handling of data collection in a class-action lawsuit against General Motors; Onstar; and LexisNexis Risk Solutions. According to a press release from the Schmidt National Law Group, the case fundamentally centers around consumer data privacy. When some GM vehicles are driven, the built-in OnStar system collects data on the driver's habits, even if the customer thinks they have "opted out" or have disabled the internal tracking device. OnStar collection data includes, but is not limited to: -- How many trips per day -- Start and stop times of the GM vehicle -- Total distance driver, per trip and total mileage accrued -- An accounting of any "speeding of 80mph or greater, hard breaking, and/or sharp accelerations" The press release goes on to say that GM customers have come forward stating that after purchasing and using new GM vehicles, their insurance rates increased, with some seeing 20-25% increases, and others even claimed to have their policies canceled. New lawsuit claims nearly $1 million embezzled from Pittsburgh nonprofit The lawsuit alleges that the three companies shared sensitive driver data without consent, including details about mileage, speed, braking and acceleration. The data was then allegedly used by LexisNexis to generate a "risk score" for insurers, which can lead to increased insurance premiums or even denial of coverage. After reports came out in March of this year, GM announced the discontinuation of the OnStar Smart Driver service. They also ended all partnerships with both LexisNexis and Verisk, and data sharing ceased on March 20, 2024. In addition to the change of partnerships, they aimed to enhance privacy controls aimed at increasing transparency. Finally, they announced a change of leadership, with Alisa Bergman joining General Motors as the new Chief Trust and Privacy Officer. An official from General Motors gave a statement saying in part: At GM, we believe that vehicles are not just modes of transportation -- they're also technology platforms that can enrich our customers' lives. Vehicles have become increasingly connected, intelligent, and personalized with features that improve the overall driving experience and safety on every journey. As our technology progresses, we are committed to being transparent in our privacy practices and empowering customers with control of their data. The full statement can be found here. According to court documents, seven cases across five districts will have their suits consolidated in a Georgia federal court. Since the notice was filed, the panel has been notified of 20 potentially related cases. The panel stated that the Northern District of Georgia is an appropriate venue as it is the location where LexisNexis is headquartered. The panel said in a statement: These putative class actions share complex factual questions arising from allegations that General Motors equipped its vehicles with sensors and computer modules to collect information about personal driving behavior, and that it sold that information to data analytics companies like LexisNexis and Verisk, which then created reports of individuals' driving history and sold them to automobile insurance providers. We reached out to LexisNexis Risk Solutions for comment but have not heard back. [GN] GMS MINE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bolyard Alleges ---------------------------------------------------- GEORGE BOLYARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GMS MINE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00818 (W. Pa., June 6, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Bolyard was employed by the Defendant as a miner. GMS MINE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE, INC. provides mining services. The Company provides labor, mine construction, conveyor belt, man doors, belt scrapers, and maintenance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Geist, Esq. William F. Goodrich, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, PC 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com bill@goodrichandgeist.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com GRAND CANYON: Sued Over Racketeering Scheme in Doctoral Degrees --------------------------------------------------------------- FOX10 reports that a class-action lawsuit was filed against the for-profit arm of Grand Canyon University, alleging marketing for doctoral degrees was a, "racketeering scheme to induce students." Grand Canyon Education Inc., or GCE, is the for-profit marketing company of the university. Attorneys for two doctoral students say GCE lied about degree costs, using marketing materials and recruitment practices that hid the true price. The plaintiffs claim the allegations were so sophisticated that the company used GCU more like a "RICO enterprise." For example, the university estimated degrees cost $39,000 for 60 credit hours. Students in the case say they were charged thousands in extra fees and "continuation courses." FOX 10 reached out to GCU for comment, and their Chief Marketing Officer sent us this statement. The Department of Education hit GCU last year with a $37-million fine for the practice. Grand Canyon University immediately appealed the fine. Back in March, FOX 10 reported findings from a state audit on the matter, which found no wrongdoing by GCU. University President Brian Mueller said at the time that the school would not be paying the fine. [GN] GRITSTONE BIO: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements ------------------------------------------------------------ Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased securities of Gritstone bio, Inc. ("Gritstone" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GRTS) between March 9, 2023 and February 29, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Gritstone would be unable to launch the Phase 2b CORAL Study in the timeframe it had represented to investors; (2) the foregoing would impair Gritstone's ability to obtain external funding in connection with the Phase 2b CORAL Study, thereby negatively affecting Gritstone's ability to maintain its balance sheet and cash position; (3) accordingly, Gritstone overstated its ability to successfully develop and commercialize its products; and (4) as a result, Gritstone'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. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Gritstone should contact the Firm prior to the August 6, 2024 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN] ICC HOLDINGS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Mutual Capital ------------------------------------------------------------------ Monteverde & Associates PC, headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, investigates ICC Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:ICCH), relating to its proposed merger with Mutual Capital Holdings, Inc., and Mutual Capital Merger Sub, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, ICC Holdings shareholders will receive $23.50 in cash for each share they own. Also investigated by Monteverde & Associates are: Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. (NYSE:DO), relating to its proposed merger with Noble Corp plc. Under the terms of the agreement, each share of Diamond Offshore Drilling stock will be converted into the right to receive $5.65 in cash and 0.2316 shares of Noble stock. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:PWSC), relating to its proposed merger with Bain Capital Private Equity, LP. Under the terms of the agreement, PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. shareholders will receive $22.80 in cash for each share they own. About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] IVAN MONTENEGRO: Santana Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against IVAN MONTENEGRO, et al. The case is styled as Alexandra Santana, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IVAN MONTENEGRO, an individual, SYNC STAFFING INC., a Nevada Corporation, WILLIAMS FURNACE CO., a Delaware Corporation, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2414973 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Bernardino Cty., April 26, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Unlimited."[BN] JOOLA USA: Faces Class Action Over Pickleball Paddle Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------- Clara Longo de Freitas of The Baltimore Banner, reports that a Montgomery County-based pickleball equipment company is the center of a prospective class-action lawsuit, with JOOLA standing accused of making paddles that were not approved by the sport's governing body. The plaintiffs are seeking refunds and compensatory damages and costs for "economic loss, restitution and disgorgement of all profits." The case was filed June 5 in U.S. District Court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Gregory Matus, a Fort Lauderdale resident, said in the lawsuit that Sport Squad, Inc., which does business as JOOLA, marketed and sold pickleball paddles as if USA Pickleball had approved them. If approved by a federal judge, the class could represent more than 5,000 buyers from more than 16 states, including Maryland. The plaintiffs are seeking more than $5 million in damages. Plaintiffs are asking courts to determine whether JOOLA knew or should have known about an "administrative error" and whether the company failed to disclose material facts about the paddle. Plaintiffs say that JOOLA defrauded buyers and that they are "trapped" with premium paddles that they otherwise would not have bought -- paddles that cannot be used in sanctioned events or local courts. On June 5, USA Pickleball said in the lawsuit that it delisted the paddles after JOOLA notified the body that it had submitted the wrong paddles for certification. USA Pickleball said it tested the newly submitted paddles, but it did not approve them. The national governing body also runs an equipment evaluation committee that works with NTS Technical Systems to dictate rigorous standards. JOOLA has been selling the Gen3 paddles for $279.95 since the company obtained the approval in November 2023. But in May, the national governing body said JOOLA submitted the wrong paddles for certification and removed the paddles from their list. JOOLA said in a statement that the company had made an "administrative error" during their testing process. Court records say the company is still marketing and selling the paddles with the approval designation imprinted on them. Plaintiffs are calling the move a "bait and switch scheme." Pickleball has grown popular in the past few years, and is the "fastest growing sport" in the country, according to court records. "News of the de-certification of the Subject Paddles sent shockwaves through the pickleball community, causing panic for players registered to compete as both amateurs and professionals in USAP sanctioned events," the plaintiffs' attorneys said in the lawsuit. JOOLA maintains that the paddles that were initially approved in November are "materially the same" as other certified models and that they are "fully compliant with USAP's standards." The company said it is in the process to approve more than 40 paddles and is offering refunds to customers who purchased Gen3 paddles between April 16 and June 15. "While we are confident the current Gen3 paddles are materially and structurally the same as those approved by USAP in September 2023 and therefore comply with USAP standards, we care deeply about our customers and the inconvenience and confusion the USAP decision has caused," JOOLA said in a statement June 5. The company refiled the Gen3 paddles for expedited testing a few days after the national governing body decertified them. USA Pickleball has not been able to give them a timeline on when they may recertify the paddles. [GN] KELLER WILLIAMS: Ronayne Sues Over Breach of Contract ----------------------------------------------------- Louis Ronayne and Deborah Ronayne on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-11103-BRM-EAS (E.D. Mich., April 25, 2024), is brought arising from a breach of contract by Keller Williams, unjust enrichment to Keller Williams relating to payments owed under the Keller Williams Profit Sharing Program, declaratory judgment seeking a declaration of this Court that any changes reducing Profit Sharing Program distributions earned by and owed to vested Profit Sharing Program participants cannot be made retroactive, and temporary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Keller Williams from reducing the Profit Sharing Program distributions to vested plan participants. The Profit Sharing Program was developed to be a way to reward those associates who helped build the company. Keller Williams used the Profit Sharing Program as a way to encourage the recruitment of top associates to Keller Williams by Keller Williams associates. The Profit Sharing Program was designed to be an open-ended profit sharing program that allowed Keller Williams associates, investors, Team Leaders, Market Center staff, Keller Williams staff, and Regional Directors to participate in profits they helped to create without assuming any financial risk. According to the Policies & Guidelines Manual, Keller Williams did not have the right to amend any aspect of the Profit Share Program method of calculating a Market Center's Profit Sharing Contribution or a recruiting sponsor's profit sharing distribution except as specifically directed by the International Associate Leadership Counsel ("IALC"). The IALC changed the terms of the Profit Sharing Program for Effected Participants and reduced the monthly Profit Sharing distribution from down to 5% of what they are owed. They are owed the full amount because they are vested and earned this amount when they recruited sales associates to join Keller Williams. In an effort to force Effected Participants to return to work with Keller Williams, the IALC included a provision that Effected Participants could return to Keller Williams within six months of receiving notice that their Profit Sharing Program was to be reduced and have the distribution reinstated to 100% payment. Anticipating that the changes to the Profit Sharing Program were a breach of contract or other actionable conduct, the IALC added a provision in the section regarding termination or amendment of the Profit Sharing Program that stated "Administration and Defense of the Profit Sharing Program. Any and all funds in the Profit Share program may be utilized by KWRI for administration or defense of the Profit Share program, including to cover all costs, attorneys' fees, expenses, sums of money, debts, interest, losses, damages, settlements, fines, penalties, assessment, and judgments incurred, levied or resulting from any claims or disputes relating to the Profit Share program," says the complaint. The Plaintiff was an agent and then a team leader with Keller Williams from July 2000 to September 2014. Keller Williams has its corporate headquarters in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth B. McClain, Esq. Kevin D. Stanley, Esq. Jonathan M. Soper, Esq. HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & McCLAIN, P.C. 221 W. Lexington Street, Suite 400 Independence, MO 64050 Phone: (816) 836-5050 Fax: (816) 836-8966 - and - David M. Kramer, Esq. DAVID M. KRAMER, PLLC 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI 48067 Phone: (248) 210-6757 Email: david@dmkramerlaw.com KLAVIYO INC: Desta Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Nebiy Desta and Andrew Laplante, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KLAVIYO, INC., (Commonwealth of Mass., April 26, 2024), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime compensation. The Plaintiffs and BDRs were paid on a salary, plus incentive and/or commission basis. The Defendant imposes sales quotas on BDRs, and regularly evaluates metrics like the time it takes BDRs to respond to incoming leads generated through Klaviyo's website and the number of meetings booked. BDRs' sales goals and the corresponding metrics imposed by Defendant sometimes require BDRs to work significant hours, including time worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more individual workweeks. The Plaintiffs and other BDRs often could not perform their jobs and complete their required job duties in a traditional 40-hour workweek. The Defendant does not maintain or possess timekeeping records that show with precision the number of hours Plaintiffs or other BDRs worked in individual workweeks. The Plaintiffs and other BDRs worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more individual workweeks. The Defendant did not pay overtime compensation to Plaintiffs or other BDRs for the time they worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more individual workweeks. By failing to provide BDRs overtime compensation for hours they worked over 40 in one or more individual workweeks, Defendant violated the FLSA. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an Inside Business Development Representatives and Outside Business Development Representatives (collectively, "BDRs") in the prior three years. Klaviyo represents that it is a cloud-based software company that provides marketing automation platforms to manage data and "efficiently automate workflow across marketing channels."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Kramer, Esq. Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Email: akramer@flsalaw.com dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com KOHL'S CORPORATION: Jones Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Minnie Jones, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KOHL'S CORPORATION and VWK LICENSING, LLC, Case No. 24STCV06350 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 22, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03319-FMO-AS. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants falsely advertise the thread count on certain Vera Wang bed sheet products sold by Kohl's. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that she "purchased approximately three sets of Simply Vera Wang bed sheet Products labeled as having a '800 Thread Count,'" but that "independent laboratory testing" of a set of 800-thread-count Vera Wang sheets found that the sheets had a thread count of 538. According to Plaintiff, she "suffered injury in fact when she spent money to purchase the Products she would not have purchased, or would have paid less for, absent Defendants' misconduct," because she "would not have purchased the Products, or would have paid less for the Products, had she known that the products have a lower than advertised thread count."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Cortlin H. Lannin, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP Salesforce Tower 415 Mission Street, Suite 5400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2533 Phone: + 1 (415) 591-7078 Facsimile: + 1 (415) 591-6091 Email: clannin@cov.com LAKESIDE PLASTICS: Court Grants Motion For Summary Judgment ----------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Tiffany E. Alberty and George J. Schaller of Duane Morris report that in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Lakeside Plastics, Inc., No. 1:22-CV-01149 (E.D. Wis. June 3, 20244), Judge William C. Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the EEOC's motion for partial summary judgment. The Court reasoned that the single use of a racial slur in the workplace without direction to an African-American employee was not sufficient to show severe and pervasive harassment for a hostile work environment claim. The Court also held that a supervisor is not a similarly-situated comparator to a subordinate, regardless if they were subject to the same standards and engaged in similar conduct, dismissing the EEOC's wrongful termination claim. Case Background The EEOC filed suit on behalf of Brian Turner, an African-American worker, for alleged violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") against Lakeside Plastics, Inc. ("Lakeside"). Id. at 1. The EEOC alleged Turner was discriminated against when he was subject to a hostile work environment and his employment with Lakeside was terminated based upon his race, or alternatively that Turner's employment termination was in retaliation for engaging in protected activity. Id. Turner was employed by temporary staffing firm QPS Employment Group ("QPS") and began his employee assignment at Lakeside on June 6, 2010, as a Production Technician I. Id. at 3. On three separate occasions, Turner asserted that he experienced verbal harassment from another production technician named Curt Moraski. First, during work Turner and Moraski discussed being from Milwaukee and in their conversation Moraski commented racial slurs about his time in the area. Turner reported this conversation to one of his team leads. Second, in an offsite incident, Turner alleged he was traveling home when Moraski pulled up, threated Turner, and directed racial slurs at Turner. Finally, after the offsite incident, Turner reported to Lakeside that he did not feel comfortable working around Moraski. Lakeside assigned Turner to label boxes for the day with Moraski; no issues arose at that time. On July 1, 2019, Lakeside ended Turner's assignment based on "holistic considerations," including a review of his attendance records and a note from team lead, Max Berndt, that demonstrated Turner's poor performance, poor attendance, inability to take direction, and inability to get along with others. That same day QPS informed Turner that he was terminated from his Lakeside assignment. Shortly thereafter, Lakeside received a complaint from Alex Adams, a white employee, made about Moraski "threatening [Adams]." Lakeside also received complaints from other employees about Moraski's behavior. Moraski denied making any threats against anyone. Moraski was subsequently terminated on Aug 1, 2019, due to his violation of Lakeside's workplace violence policy. On Aug. 1, Lakeside advised a QPS representative that Moraski threatened additional employees, aside from Turner, around the time of Turner's employment. QPS inquired whether Turner could return to work at Lakeside, to which Lakeside responded that it was open to rehiring Turner. Following discovery, Lakeside brought a motion for summary judgment on all of the EEOC's claims and the EEOC filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment as to Lakeside's affirmative defenses. The Court's Decision The Court granted Lakeside's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Lakeside did not subject Turner to a hostile work environment, did not terminate Turner because of his race, and did not retaliate against Turner for his complaints of harassment. The EEOC asserted that Lakeside discriminated against Turner by subjecting him to a hostile work environment based on his race. The EEOC argued that Moraski's exchanges with Turner, at both on-site and off-site locations, created a hostile work environment. Central to the EEOC's assertions was that "harassment involving the N-Word is sufficiently severe to create a hostile work environment." The Court reasoned that "a single, isolated event can be found to create a hostile work environment," but the EEOC must present evidence "which a factfinder could reasonably conclude that the harassing conduct was severe or pervasive." In this instance, the Court disagreed that the EEOC showed Moraski's alleged use of racial slurs was sufficiently severe or pervasive. The Court determined Moraski "did not direct" racial slurs at Turner during the conversation at Lakeside and the racial slurs directed at Turner off-site were reported to Turner's lead, who immediately took preventative measures by assigning Turner to a new work location. Similarly, Moraski's instruction on labeling boxes did not create "a reasonable inference that any hostility Turner encountered was connected to his race." The Court opined that "Moraski's conduct was undoubtedly offensive and inappropriate, and he was ultimately terminated by Lakeside based on complaints of similar behavior . . . but with no racially derogatory component." Given the totality of the circumstances, the Court concluded that Moraski's conduct was not severe or pervasive such that a jury could reasonably conclude that Lakeside's work environment was "permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult." Therefore, the Court granted Lakeside's summary judgment motion as to the EEOC's hostile work environment claim. The EEOC next asserted that Lakeside terminated Turner because of his race. The Court reviewed Turner's termination under the "holistic approach" standard relied on by the EEOC and focused on whether a reasonable jury could conclude that Turner "suffered the adverse employment action because of his . . . protected class." The Court agreed with Lakeside's legitimate business reason for terminating Turner based on "poor attendance, an inability to take direction, and an inability to get along with others." In so holding, the Court determined that Lakeside took a holistic approach in reviewing Turner's performance and took Turner's attendance into consideration despite the fact that no one recommended to human resources that Turner be terminated based on his attendance. Accordingly, the Court granted Lakeside's motion for summary judgment on the EEOC's wrongful termination claims. The Court also granted Lakeside's motion for summary judgment on the EEOC's alternative retaliation claim and held that Lakeside had an "independently sufficient reason to terminate Turner's assignment" through Turner's "violations of the attendance policy on three days." The Court further found that the EEOC could not establish retaliation on the basis that Lakeside refused to rehire Turner, because Lakeside was open to rehiring Turner, although a position was not extended. Implications For Employers Employers that are confronted with EEOC-initiated litigation involving allegations of race discrimination should recognize this opinion draws a fine line on what courts may consider pervasive in terms of the frequency, location, and direction of discriminatory comments. Further, from a practical standpoint, employers should ensure workplace policies are in place for employees to report any instance of discrimination, including race discrimination, and provide procedures for employers to promptly investigate those allegations. [GN] LENOVO INC: Parties Must Submit Exhibits & Briefing --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW AXELROD, et al., v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered an order directing the parties to submit chambers copies of their briefing and all exhibits on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The chambers copies must be securely bound at the top or on the side, either with staples, "ACCO" fasteners, or velo-binding, or shall be submitted in binders. Binder clips, paper clips, and rubber bands will not satisfy this requirement. The Court further orders that the parties shall not submit chambers copies of redacted versions of the documents. They shall only submit the sealed version with the material proposed to be sealed clearly highlighted. If any of the chambers copies to be submitted are more than two inches thick, the parties should submit the chambers copies of the document in multiple volumes that do not exceed two inches. When a declaration or other document includes exhibits, parties shall submit chambers copies of the documents which include tabs that separate each exhibit. The Court also encourages the parties to submit double-sided copies of all documents, but if they follow that request, the document should be bound on the side not at the top. The Court reserves the right to reject non-conforming chambers copies and to require the party to re-submit them in accordance with this Order. Lenovo operates as a software and hardware reseller. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6svd9D at no extra charge.[CC] LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Pike Class Suit Settled, Investors' Suit Dropped ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Gross, writing for rochesterfirst.com, reports that News 8 learned of two legal proceedings regarding Canadian battery recycler Li-Cycle: The company has settled a claim that was filed against local builder Pike Conductor, and a class-action suit that was filed against the company was dropped. Early this year, Li-Cycle sued Pike for more than $50 million. The suit was related to claims that the construction company could not meet their end of a construction agreement. The company paused construction of the Rochester Hub in the fall of last year due to ballooning construction costs. Li-Cycle then entered into a new plan to restart construction, which included some layoffs, securing investments, and more. Additionally, a federal court has dropped a class-action suit filed against the company in the fall. The complaint in the lawsuit alleges that Li-Cycle made misleading and incorrect statements and did not share facts about its operations. A judge ruled that investors can't sue Li-Cycle because there no evidence of false or misleading statements. You can see the court ruling below. Li-Cycle says it continues to work with the federal government on the conditional $375 million loan. President and CEO of Li-Cycle, Ajay Kochhar, said this, in part, in a prepared statement: Could attribute this quote to Ajay Kochhar (Li-Cycle President and CEO): "We are pleased with the court's decision to dismiss the class-action lawsuit. We are also pleased to settle with Pike Conductor and move to a ground lease for the Rochester Hub warehouse, which Li-Cycle now owns. Both are positive steps for the company as we continue to focus on completing our comprehensive review of the Rochester Hub go-forward plan and working closely with the DOE on key technical, financial, and legal workstreams to advance toward definitive financing documentation required for a loan for gross proceeds of up to $375 million." [GN] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Underpays Insurance Benefits Due, Class Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lurah Lowery, writing for Repairer Driven News, reports that a bad faith class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Mutual and its subsidiaries in Arizona that alleges insurance companies have barred or not informed policyholders of their ability to use both uninsured and underinsured coverages. In allegedly doing so, Liberty Mutual "breached its contractual and legal duties to its customers, including underpaying the benefits due," the lawsuit states. "Because UM/UIM coverage is personal coverage -- despite being associated with a vehicle -- it covers the person, not the vehicle. "When there are multiple vehicles, multiple UM/UIM coverages exist, and unless the insurer disclaims stacking, those coverage limits are added together to provide 'stacked' benefits for a single claim. "Each separate coverage limit can be accessed to provide benefits for the same covered loss. When stacking coverages, the coverage limit is determined by adding together the UM/UIM benefits limits available under each vehicle's UM/UIM coverage. . . In handling UM/UIM claims for its customers with multiple covered vehicles, defendants breached each of these duties as well as the insurance contracts themselves." None of the defendants had filed a response to the lawsuit. The proposed class, which hasn't been certified yet, is made up of more than 100 policyholders, including plaintiff Daniel Capane, insured by at least one policy by any of the defendant companies on multiple vehicles in Arizona and who experienced a covered loss in which the insured person received UM/UIM benefits and either: -- "The UM/UIM benefits were limited to the limits of coverage of a single vehicle, or -- "The UM/UIM benefits were reduced due to apportionment among multiple claimants, with the collective claim limited to the limits of coverage of a single vehicle." The monetary amount in question exceeds $5 million on policies issued since Jan. 1, 2006 to the date of judgment entry. The lawsuit alleges, according to an Arizona state law as amended in 1997, that insurers are allowed to prohibit UM/UIM stacking but only under a strict method. "Insurers wishing to prohibit stacking must clearly disclaim stacking multiple policies and coverages as well as informing insureds of their right to select which policy or coverage will apply to the accident by either drafting the policy to 'contain a statement that informs the insured of the insured's right to select one policy or coverage as required by this subsection,' or, absent such policy language, 'within thirty days after the insurer receives notice of an accident. . . notify the insured in writing of the insured's right to select one policy or coverage.'" Specific to Capane's claim, its alleged in the suit that Liberty Mutual was "responsible for disclosing and providing UM/UIM coverage up to the stacked limits required by Arizona law and the properly construed insurance policy but failed to do so." "As a matter of uniform and standard practice and procedure. . . no defendant (1) included clear and unambiguous policy language disavowing the insured's ability to stack multiple policies or coverages or (2) informed the customer of the right to select which coverage to apply to the accident under either of the methods prescribed by statute. . . It merely states that the limit of liability for uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage is 'shown in the declarations for each person for underinsured motorists coverage,' no matter how many vehicles are listed. . . " The suit alleges as well that Capane wasn't informed his policy didn't contain any of the requisite disclosures, and notice wasn't sent to him of his right to select coverage to apply to his claim within 30 days. The class seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as a jury trial and a declaratory judgment that the class is entitled to stacked UM/UIM coverages under their policies. [GN] LLOYD AUSTIN: Court Stays Briefing on Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FEDS FOR FREEDOM, et al., v. LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05490-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David Estudillo entered an order granting the Defendants' unopposed motion to stay briefing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The court further entered an order that further briefing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is stayed pending resolution of the Defendants' motions to dismiss. If the motions to dismiss are denied in whole or in part, the Parties are directed to meet and confer and file a proposed briefing schedule within fourteen days of that decision. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SqmcBK at no extra charge.[CC] LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that on May 31, 2024, Judge Julie S. Sneed of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against an autonomous vehicle technology company (the "Company"), certain of its officers, and an officer of one of the Company's subsidiaries. Alms v. Luminar Technologies, Inc., et al, No. 6:23-cv-982-JSS-LHP (M.D. Fla. May 31, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by allegedly making false statements in an investor presentation regarding plans to economize its newly developed technology. The Court dismissed plaintiff's amended complaint, holding that plaintiff failed to adequately plead a false statement of a material fact and scienter. According to the amended complaint, on February 28, 2023, the Company presented to investors about its plans to scale its newly developed autonomous vehicle technology. One of the slides in the investor presentation allegedly included a picture of a competitor's microchip. Two weeks after the presentation, a news article was published accusing the Company of using the competitor's image. Following this revelation, the Company allegedly removed the image from the investor materials online, replaced the picture with one of its own microchips, and published a letter to shareholders on its website addressing the competitor's complaint and threat of legal action. In particular, the Company claimed that the picture was merely intended to serve as a generic illustration in one slide out of a 165-page presentation, and not an attempt to pass off the competitor's technology as its own. Upon issuing the statement, the Company's stock price fell. Plaintiff -- on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's stock between February 28, 2023 and March 17, 2023 -- filed a complaint against the Company alleging that it made a misstatement of a material fact in its investor materials by including the competitor's "much more sophisticated looking" microchip, which ultimately caused the shareholders losses. The Court dismissed the claim, holding first that plaintiff failed to adequately plead materiality. The Court initially determined that a reasonable investor would not expect pictures of products on a slide presenting a company's plans for manufacture of those precise products to contain a picture of a competitor's product as a general example. In finding that the investor slide was misleading, the Court noted that "[t]o place a picture of a competitor's product next to pictures of the company's own products on an investor presentation slide, displayed during a discussion of the company's specific manufacturing capabilities and plans, marked as the company's copyright, would lead a reasonable investor to infer the company owns the pictured product." Nonetheless, the Court held that the misleading graphic was immaterial in this instance because it did "not convey anything about the capabilities" of the Company's overall product, and therefore could not be considered significant to a trading decision of a reasonable investor. The Court noted that plaintiff "leaves unexplained how the small, professional-looking graphic on a single slide communicated to investors any impression regarding the quality, capabilities, or 'sophisticat[ion]' of" the competitor's microchip that plaintiff claimed the Company allegedly tried to pass off as its own. Accordingly, the Court concluded that plaintiff provided no basis to believe a reasonable investor's trading decision would have been affected if the Company had placed the photograph of its own chip on the presentation slide initially. The Court then turned to the issue of scienter, holding that plaintiff failed to adequately plead scienter. The Court found that the complaint lacked any allegations to establish that the Company and its executives had a fraudulent motive to include the picture in the presentation. Specifically, the Court held that plaintiff "never identifie[d] who prepared the slide, [and] simply claiming the named executives must have known and signed off on it by nature of their positions within the [C]ompany . . . typically is insufficient to establish scienter." The Court further held that it is "more likely" that the Company inadvertently used the picture rather than intentionally using it to artificially inflate the stock price by conveying superior capabilities, as evidenced by the fact that none of the analyst reports or news articles following the revelation highlighted the microchip. Having found that plaintiff did not adequately plead a misstatement of a material fact or scienter, the Court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. [GN] LUMIO HX: Smith Seeks Production of Docs Related to Class Status ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHOSHANA SMITH, SORAIDA CORDERO, CHRISTIE ALVAREZ, BRIANA GRAYBUSH, and RICHARD GAYLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LUMIO, HX, INC., ATLANTIC KEY ENERGY, LLC, FIFTH THIRD BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION d/b/a DIVIDEND FINANCE, and DIVIDEND FINANCE, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00849-SPC-KCD (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the motion to compel Defendants to produce documents relevant to the issue of class certification. Since the filing of the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, the Plaintiff's counsel has attempted to confer with defense counsel on the status of discovery, specifically to discovery related to the issue of class certification. While Plaintiff's position is that Lumio is past-due on almost all the discovery requests, class certification is particularly problematic because the current deadline for class certification is set for Aug. 2, 2024. As of the date of this motion, the Plaintiff Smith has yet to receive a single document or other meaningful piece of information responsive to the requests aimed as class certification discovery. After numerous unsuccessful conferrals and pleas for production, the instant Motion to Compel became necessary. Ms. Smith served two rounds of discovery on Lumio in January 2023, which included requests specifically aimed at discovering information relevant to issues of class certification. After receiving extensions, Lumio provided written responses and objections on February 23, 2024. To date, the only documents that have been produced by Lumio are documents included in Plaintiff Smith's individual project file and an incomplete copy of an asset purchase agreement between Lumio and Defendant Atlantic Key Energy. Lumio has refused to produce any information related to the relevant issue of class certification. Lumio is in the residential solar industry. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3fgb08 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amy L. Judkins, Esq. William C. Ourand, Esq. NEWSOME MELTON 201South Orange Avenue, Suite 1500 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 648-5977 Facsimile: (407) 648-5282 E-mail: ourand@newsomelaw.com ajudkins@newsomelaw.com bnagi@newsomelaw.com lusardi@newsomelaw.com MARINUS PHARMA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set August 2 ------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: MRNS) securities between March 17, 2021 and May 7, 2024. Marinus describes itself as a "commercial-stage company dedicated to the development of innovative therapeutics for the treatment of seizure disorders, including rare genetic epilepsies and status epilepticus, which includes the use of ZTALMY® (ganaxolone)." For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (MRNS) Misled Investors Regarding the Viability of its Drug Candidate According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose that (1) defendants understated the risk of failure to meet the early-stopping criteria in the RAISE trial, and (2) defendants did not disclose that a possible consequence of failing to meet the early stopping criteria in the RAISE trial would be that Marinus would stop the separate Phase 3 RAISE II trial. On April 15, 2024, Marinus announced that the RAISE trial had not met early stopping criteria and that the Company would implement cost-saving measures. On this news, the price of Marinus stock fell $6.22 per share, or 82.7%, to close at $1.30 per share on April 15, 2024. Then, on May 8, 2024, Marinus announced cost cutting measures, including to stop "the Phase 3 Raise II trial in RSE; future development in RSE will be assessed following review of the RAISE topline data[.]" That same day, Fierce Biotech published an article sharing that "Marinus lays off 20% of staff to steady ship after IV seizure med's phase 3 struggles." On this news, the price of Marinus stock fell $0.14 per share, or 8.91%, to close at $1.43 on May 8, 2024. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Marinus Pharmaceutials, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must file their motions with the court by August 2, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click here. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over $1 billion for shareholders. To be notified if a class action against Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 adumas@robbinsllp.com (800) 350-6003 www.robbinsllp.com [GN] MARK CUBAN: Class Settlement in Karnas Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINIK KARNAS, et al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. MARK CUBAN, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-22538-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy Altman entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' renewed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement as to certain defendants is granted. 2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and Parties to this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1331, 1332, including jurisdiction to approve and enforce the Settlement and all orders and decrees that have been entered or which may be entered pursuant thereto. 3. The Court preliminarily certifies, for purposes of settlement only, the following class: a. All persons or entities in the United States who, from Oct. 23, 2019, to the date of preliminary approval, purchased or enrolled in an EPA or VGX Tokens. b. Excluded from the Class are the Settling Defendants and their officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, and employees, the Voyager Defendants and their officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, and employees, any governmental entities, any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff. Also, excluded are, any Settlement Class Member who properly excludes themselves from these settlements. 4. The Court preliminarily finds that, for purposes of settlement only, the Lawsuit satisfies the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under FED. R. CIV. P. 23. 5. The Settlements are conditional on the Court’s approval. 6. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Court hereby appoints, for purposes of settlement only, the Class Representatives to serve as Class Representative Plaintiffs and Adam Moskowitz of the Moskowitz Law Firm PLLC and David Boies of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP to serve as CoLead Class Counsel pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c). 7. The Plaintiffs have asked that the Court defer formal notice of the Settlement Agreement to the Settlement Class until the Plaintiffs' claims against the non-settling Defendants have been resolved. The Court agrees that this is the most practical path forward. 8. The Court approves the Notice Plan. Notice will be transmitted through the Class Member emails contained in Voyager's client records. 9. The Court shall maintain continuing jurisdiction over these settlement proceedings to assure their enforcement. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qmRTO0 at no extra charge.[CC] PERFICIENT INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With BPEA ---------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Perficient, Inc. (Nasdaq: PRFT), relating to its proposed merger with BPEA Private Equity Fund VIII ("EQT Asia"), part of EQT AB. Under the terms of the agreement, Perficient stockholders will receive $76.00 per share in cash for each share of common stock owned as of the closing of the transaction. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Kirsila Sues Over Unlawful Detention ------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Kirsila and Otis Williams, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, Case No. 3:24-cv-05314-DGE (W.D. Wash., April 25, 2024), is brought as a civil rights action pursuant to redress violations of rights under the United States Constitution along with the rights of a proposed class who were unlawfully detained in the same manner. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that any individual arrested by police must be released from detention unless a judicial officer has determined, either prior to the arrest or "promptly" after, that there is probable cause for the allegations. Pierce County, Washington has a policy and practice of disregarding this simple obligation and failing to ensure that warrantless detention is based on a timely probable cause hearing. Pierce County does not offer probable cause hearings or determinations on Saturdays, Sundays, or court holidays. As such, the County all but guarantees that anyone arrested without a warrant on a Friday—or most of Saturday—and held in jail until their arraignment will be unconstitutionally detained. For those arrested before court holidays, this warrantless detention without probable cause can exceed five days. In January 2023, the Plaintiffs were detained for at least 86 and 93 hours, respectively, without a probable cause determination, in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were detained for more than 48 hours by the Pierce County Sheriff's Department. Pierce County is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Zhang, Esq. QIU-QIU LAW 5020 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd, Ste S Portland, OR 97211 Phone: 908-938-6683 Email: michael@qiu-qiulaw.com - and - Sade A. Smith, Esq. QIU-QIU LAW 4301 NE 4th St P.O. Box 2767 Renton, WA 98059 Phone: 206-715-4248 Email: sade@thesmithlaw.com - and - Akeeb Dami Animashaun, Esq. QIU-QIU LAW 355 S Grand Ave, Ste 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 929-266-3971 Email: dami@animashaun.me - and - Thomas Harvey, Esq. QIU-QIU LAW 1316 Calle Castano Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Phone: 314-482-3342 Email: tbh1910@gmail.com - and - Shakeer Rahman, Esq. QIU-QIU LAW 838 E 6th St Los Angeles, CA 90021 Phone: 323-546-9236 Email: shakeer@loosr.net - and - Ezra Ritchin, Esq. QIU-QIU LAW 25 Marlborough Road Brooklyn, NY 11226 Phone: 646-427-7840 Email: ezraritchin@gmail.com PLAYAGS INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Brightstar ------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm") headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City is investigating PlayAGS, Incorporated (NYSE: AGS), relating to its proposed merger with affiliates of Brightstar Capital Partners ("Brightstar"), a middle market private equity firm. Under the terms of the agreement, AGS shareholders will receive $12.50 per share in cash for each share of common stock owned as of the closing of the transaction. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: -- Do you file class actions and go to Court? -- When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? -- What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] QG PRINTING II LLC: Pulido-Peredo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against QG PRINTING II LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jose Pulido-Peredo, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QG PRINTING II LLC, et al., Case No. 24CV007904 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 22, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." QG Printing II Corporation provides printing services. The Company offers inventory management, binding, monitoring, tracking, publishing, and logistics services.[BN] RTX CORP: Faces Class Action Over Age Discrimination in Job Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeanne Sahadi of CNN reports that a class action lawsuit filed alleges that RTX Corporation, the multinational aerospace and defense systems giant formerly known as Raytheon Technologies, has been discriminating against job seekers who are 40 years or older. The complaint, filed by the AARP Foundation and two law firms at the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, asserts that the language used in certain Raytheon job ads indicates a preference for younger workers in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act and the Virginia Human Rights Act. The company had been headquartered in Massachusetts and recently relocated to Virginia. "The language and content of these job advertisements discourages and deters many older workers from even applying for the Recent Graduate Positions and prevents older workers who do apply from advancing in the hiring process because too much time has passed since they graduated . . . and/or entered the workforce," the complaint said. The ads that refer to "Recent Graduate Positions" indicate that applicants should either have graduated from college or graduate school very recently or have no more than 12 or 24 months of related work experience. While the positions may be lower level, they are not necessarily low paying, with salary ranges that can run north of $100,000. In response, RTX rejected the premise of the allegations. "RTX complies with all relevant age discrimination laws and we're committed to maintaining a diverse workforce. We believe these claims are entirely without merit and we will actively defend our hiring practices," company spokesman Chris Johnson told CNN. The suit currently has just one named plaintiff -- Mark H. Goldstein -- but is brought on behalf of "all others similarly situated." More named individuals may join the suit later, said Peter Romer-Friedman, one of the lead lawyers on the case. Goldstein, 67, has roughly four decades of experience in "project management, cybersecurity, technology, risk management, security engineering, sales, marketing, engineering, business, and consulting," according to the complaint. In addition, it said, Goldstein has experience as a contractor for the US Department of Homeland Security, has held a federal government security clearance and has two key information security and privacy certifications. Between 2019 and 2023, Goldstein applied to at least seven of Raytheon's recent graduate positions for which he met all the qualifications save those requiring the newness of his degrees or the short duration of work experience. "Despite the fact that Mr. Goldstein has been genuinely interested in a position with Raytheon, committed to relocating, if necessary, and has skills that Raytheon needs to address a years' long labor shortage, Raytheon has not hired Mr. Goldstein for any of the positions to which he applied, has never offered him an interview, and has failed to seriously consider Mr. Goldstein's applications based on his age," the complaint said. Goldstein had filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2019. In 2021, the EEOC declared in a letter that its "investigation revealed that [Mr. Goldstein] was denied the opportunity to be considered for the [Recent Graduate Positions] he had applied for because of his age, and not because he did not meet the minimum qualifications required for the jobs," according to the complaint. "It also found that Raytheon's discriminatory advertisements had violated the ADEA, explaining that: 'EEOC believes [Raytheon's] job advertisements included language that violates the ADEA in that it indicated a hiring preference for applicants who are not in the protected age group.'" In response to the EEOC's 2021 determination, Raytheon tweaked some language in job ads, but in ways that still discriminate against older job seekers, the complaint alleges. Goldstein filed a second charge of discrimination with the EEOC in July 2023. The agency is still investigating that matter, Romer-Friedman noted. [GN] RW SUPPLY: Faces Class Action Over Design Misrepresentation ----------------------------------------------------------- Floor Daily reports that a class action lawsuit has been launched against RW Supply and Design for the misrepresentation of the geographic origin of its Teckton wood flooring, according to ClassAction.org. While the company claimed the engineered wood was an American product, it was actually imported from countries such as Guatemala, Cambodia and China. According to the suit, the company manufactured its own engineered hardwood in the only 2000s but then sought cheaper sources to maximize profits. [GN] SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of those who acquired The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company ("Scotts Miracle-Gro" or the "Company") (NYSE: SMG) securities during the period of November 3, 2021 and August 1, 2023, inclusive ("the Class Period"). Investors have until August 2, 2024 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On June 8, 2022, Scotts Miracle-Gro issued a press release admitting that replenishment orders from its U.S. retailers were more than $300 million below target in the month of May. The Company told investors that its full-year 2022 earnings would be roughly half its prior guidance and announced plans to take on additional debt to cover restructuring charges. On this news, the price of Scotts Miracle-Gro shares declined by $9.05 per share, from $102.18 per share on June 7, 2022, to close at $97.13 per share on June 8, 2022. On August 2, 2023, Scotts Miracle-Gro issued a press release announcing its financial results for its fiscal year 2023 third quarter ended July 1, 2023. In the press release, the Company disclosed that it had amended its debt covenants, with the most significant amendment being that the Company had to modify its debt covenants to permit a 7.00 times debt-to-EBITDA ratio, from the original covenant that only permitted a 6.25 times debt-to-EBITDA ratio. The same day, Scotts Miracle-Gro held earnings call to discuss the Company's financial results. Scotts Miracle-Gro revealed that quarterly sales for its fiscal third quarter had declined by 6%, and gross margins fell by 420 basis points. The Company also slashed fiscal year EBITDA guidance by 25% and announced a $20 million write down for "pandemic driven excess inventories." On this news, the price of Scotts Miracle-Gro shares declined by $13.58 per share, or approximately 19%, from $71.44 per share on August 1, 2023, to close at $57.86 per share on August 2, 2023. According to the lawsuit, Scotts Miracle-Gro had an oversupply of inventory that exceeded consumer demand. Scotts Miracle-Gro executives engaged in a scheme to saturate the Company's sales channel with more product than those retailers could sell through to end users, a practice that required Scotts Miracle-Gro sales personnel to pressure retailers to purchase more inventory than they wanted or needed. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Scotts Miracle-Gro 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. Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W. Elrod, Esq. 212-699-1180 https://www.kmllp.com investigations@kmllp.com [GN] SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Hialeah Sues Over Drop in Share Price --------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF HIALEAH EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO COMPANY; JAMES HAGEDORN; CHRISTOPHER J. HAGEDORN; MATTHEW E. GARTH; DAVID C. EVANS; and CORY J. MILLER, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03132-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, June 6, 2024) is a class action brought on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Scotts common stock between November 3, 2021, and August 1, 2023, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, on August 2, 2023, the Defendants revealed that quarterly sales for its fiscal third quarter had declined by 6 percent, and that gross margins fell by 420 basis points. The Company also slashed fiscal year EBITDA guidance by a staggering 25 percent and announced a $20 million write down of "pandemic driven excess inventories." The Company also disclosed that it had to modify its debt covenants to 7 times debt-to-EBITDA ratio, from the former ratio of 6.25 times debt-to-EBITDA ratio. These disclosures caused the price of the Defendants common stock to decline by $13.58 per share, or 19 percent, from a closing price of $71.44 per share on August 1, 2023, to a closing price of $57.86 per share on August 2, 2023. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the resulting decline in market value of Scotts common stock, the Plaintiff and other class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. THE SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO COMPANY markets branded consumer lawn and garden products, as well as a full range of products for professional horticulture. The Company manufactures and markets fertilizers, pest controls, plant foods, gardening soils, grass seed, and other products in North America and Europe. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Camillus, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN C. CAMILLUS LLC P.O. Box 141410 Columbus, OH 43214 Telephone: (614) 992-1000 Facsimile: (614) 559-6731 Email: jcamillus@camilluslaw.com - and - Hannah Ross, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. Scott R. Foglietta, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 Email: hannah@blbglaw.com avi@blbglaw.com scott@blbglaw.com - and - Robert D. Klausner, Esq. Stuart A. Kaufman, Esq. KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON, P.A. 7080 Northwest 4th Street Plantation, FL 33315 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 Email: bob@robertdklausner.com stu@robertdklausner.com SNAPFISH LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fernandez Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SNAPFISH, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04214 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2024) asserts that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.snapfish.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was allegedly injured when the Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on Jan. 12, 2024 to access the Defendant's Website from the Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for the Defendant's products. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a personalized gift from the website (custom throw pillow). Despite the Plaintiff's efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred the Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience, the suit says. The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, alleges the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Snapfish is a photo sharing and hosting service that allows individuals to create customized digital prints and gifts using their photos.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com TESLA INC: Ball Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------- DONALD BALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TESLA, INC.; ELON MUSK; ROBYN DENHOLM; IRA EHRENPREIS; JOE GEBBIA; JAMES MURDOCH; KIMBAL MUSK; JB STRAUBEL; and KATHLEEN WILSON-THOMPSON, Defendants, Case No. 2024-0622 (Del. Ch., June 6, 2024) is an action to (i) remedy Tesla's breach of its Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation dated August 4, 2022 (the "Charter") in connection with a stockholder vote scheduled for June 13, 2024, regarding the reincorporation of Tesla from a Delaware corporation to a Texas corporation; (ii) Tesla's invalid attempt to "ratify" an equity-compensation package for Musk that this Court already rescinded because it resulted from breaches of fiduciary duties; (iii) Musk's coercion of Tesla's stockholders in connection with the June 13, 2024 vote; and (iv) the Director Defendants' breach of fiduciary duties based on materially misleading and incomplete disclosures in connection with the June 13, 2024 vote. Tesla Inc. operates as a multinational automotive and clean energy company. The Company designs and manufactures electric vehicles, battery energy storage from home to grid-scale, solar panels and solar roof tiles, and related products and services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Uebler, Esq. Brian V. DeMott, Esq. Adam J. Waskie, Esq. Terisa A. Shoremount, Esq. Allison Neff, Esq. MCCOLLOM D'EMILIO SMITH UEBLER LLC 2751 Centerville Road, Suite 401 Wilmington, DE 19808 Telephone: (302) 468-5960 - and - D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 Telephone: (888) 715-1740 TOYOTA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Coolant Bypass Valve Defect ------------------------------------------------------------------ Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Toyota class action alleges some vehicles contain defective coolant bypass valves. Toyota coolant bypass valves class action lawsuit overview: Who: Geri Barrientos and Michael Foerst filed a class action lawsuit against Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A Inc., Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Motor North America Inc. Why: Barrientos and Foerst claim Toyota failed to disclose a coolant bypass valve defect affecting its model year 2019-2023 RAV4 and Corolla vehicles. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. Toyota failed to disclose that its model year 2019-2023 RAV4 and Corolla vehicles contain defective coolant bypass valves that fail prematurely, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiffs Geri Barrientos and Michael Foerst's class action lawsuit claims Toyota "actively concealed material facts about the defect from consumers, including, among other things, that the vehicles were prone to the defect and require costly fixes to repair. "At all relevant times, Defendants knew, or through the exercise of reasonable care had reason to know, that the coolant bypass valves in the Class Vehicles were defective and that the existence of this Defect would materially affect Plaintiffs and the Class's . . . decision to purchase the Class Vehicles," the Toyota class action says. Barrientos and Foerst want to represent a nationwide class and Florida and California subclasses of consumers who bought or leased a model year 2019-2023 Toyota RAV4 or Corolla vehicle. Barrientos and Foerst argue Toyota is unable or unwilling to "adequately repair" the Corolla and RAV4 vehicles when the alleged coolant bypass valve defect manifests, despite allegedly being obligated to by warranty. "Despite the existence of the Warranties, Toyota failed to inform Plaintiffs and Class Members of the Defect and failed to adequately repair the Defect," the Toyota class action says. Barrientos and Foerst claim Toyota is guilty of breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment, and of violating the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of punitive damages for themselves and all class members. A consumer filed a separate class action lawsuit against Toyota earlier this year over claims the automaker falsely advertises the value of its prepaid ToyotaCare Plus maintenance plan. The plaintiffs are represented by Alison M. Bernal of Nye, Stirling, Hale, Miller & Sweet, LLP and Matthew D. Schelkopf and Joseph B. Kenney of Sauder Schelkopf. The Toyota coolant bypass valves class action lawsuit is Barrientos, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-06770, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] UNIBLUE CORPORATION: Ferreira Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uniblue Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Mariana A. Ferreira, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Uniblue Corporation, et al., Case No. 24CV008155 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 24, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Uniblue Systems Ltd, a leading software vendor, delivering innovative system utilities to improve your computer's performance.[BN] UNIQUE VINTAGE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIQUE VINTAGE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-04216 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.unique-vintage.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was allegedly injured when the Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on Jan. 12, 2024 to access the Defendant's Website from the Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for the Defendant's products. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase the vintage all black Holloway wiggle dress from the Website, as she is interested in this retro style. Despite the Plaintiff's efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred the Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience, the suit says. The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, the suit claims. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant is a vintage clothing shop that caters to women of all shapes and sizes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com UNITED STATES: Parties Seek to Unseal Docs in Sexual Assault Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Fernandez, writing for FOX KTVU, reports that a legal advocacy group called Public Justice and the ACLU of Northern California filed a motion to unseal court records and preserve public access to hearings in the class action lawsuit that survivors of sexual assault at FCI Dublin brought against the federal Bureau of Prisons. Many of the court records thus far have been public, which have exposed years of sexual abuse and retaliation at the now-shuttered FCI Dublin. Yet, with little explanation, U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted several motions to seal records in the case -- and many of the motions themselves are under seal -- leaving the public and the press in the dark, the ACLU and Public Justice stated in a news release. The judge allowed the documents to be sealed shortly after the prison shut down in April and 605 women were transferred to prisons around the country. Shortly after the prison closed, Rogers held a series of closed hearings to address what happened. These hearings took place without prior notice, and in many instances, the docket does not reflect that they even occurred, the ACLU and Public Justice noted. KTVU tried to attend one of the first such hearings on the day FCI Dublin closed and was told to leave the Zoom hearing. "The First Amendment protects the right of public access to court records and judicial proceedings," said Jackie Aranda Osorno, senior attorney at Public Justice. "This right is a fundamental check on what the government does in our name and serves to ensure public confidence in our legal system." While the Bureau of Prisons has argued that some court records should be sealed to protect the "safety and security" of FCI Dublin, the two agencies argued that these concerns are irrelevant now that the prison has closed. Unless there is a compelling reason to maintain secrecy, the court should make the previously sealed documents available to the public immediately, both organizations argued. The motion asks the court to unseal records in California Coalition for Women Prisoners v. United States of America Federal Bureau of Prisons when there is no compelling reason to keep them secret; explain the basis for keeping any remaining records sealed; issue minute orders for any closed hearings; and provide advance notice of closed proceedings in the future so that interested parties have an opportunity to object. The motion does not seek to disclose the names of sexual assault survivors or invade their privacy. In August 2023, the California Coalition for Women Prisoners and eight women formerly incarcerated at FCI Dublin filed California Coalition for Women Prisoners v. United States of America Federal Bureau of Prisons alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment, due process, and federal law. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS: Faces Acker Suit Over Abrupt Closure ------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM ACKER; MICHAEL AMENDOLA; AIDEN ANKLI; LYRA BUTLER-DENMAN; TENARA CALEM; TYLER CATANELLA; GRAHAM COOK; RYANN COOPER; ELIZABETH FEINSCHREIBER; FRANCIS GORMLEY; MIRANDA KRAMER; ARIANNA OLIVIERI; DEREK SMITH; and EVA SOLANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02468 (E.D. Pa., June 6, 2024) alleges that the Defendant violated the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were given no prior warning of the decision of the Defendant to close, which was apparently made in a short amount of time by the most senior leadership of the Defendant, and without input from students, faculty, or other stakeholders. The closure of the Defendant's University leaves students with great uncertainty about the future of their education and careers as well as severe financial hardship from having spent effort, time, and money to attend the University and to live in the Philadelphia area while attending the University and having to continue paying for living expenses while not earning their degree, says the suit. University of the Arts (UArts) was a private arts university in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Its campus made up part of the Avenue of the Arts cultural district in Center City, Philadelphia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel C. Levin, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 WASHINGTON NATIONALS: Snyder Suit Removed to D. Columbia -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Nick Snyder and David Coyne, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Washington Nationals Baseball Club LLC, Case No. 2024-CAB-001961 was removed from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, in Washington, D.C., to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on June 22, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01182-CJN. The Plaintiffs bring this action under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act ("DCHRA"), and the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act ("DC CPPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: George Ingham, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 2004 Phone: (202) 637-5600 Fax: (202) 637-5910 Email: George.Ingham@hoganlovells.com - and - Michael DeLarco, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 390 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10017 Email: Michael.DeLarco@hoganlovells.com WELLS FARGO: Files Motion to Dismiss Racial Disparity Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hannah Levitt, Shawn Donnan and Ann Choi of Bloomberg News report that Wells Fargo & Co. faces a decision on whether a lawsuit over its pandemic-era mortgage denials to non-White applicants gets class-action status, a key turning point in a high-profile and potentially costly case. The bank, which was long the biggest US mortgage lender until a recent pullback under Chief Executive Officer Charlie Scharf, has asked a federal judge in California to deny the motion the plaintiffs filed earlier this year. The case consolidates a number of lawsuits brought before and after Bloomberg News reported in 2022 that Wells Fargo rejected a majority of Black homeowners who applied to refinance mortgages in 2020, the only big bank to deny more Black applicants than it accepted. At the heart of the case is a dispute over a credit-scoring algorithm that plaintiffs say disparately impacted minority applicants, creating a potential class of at least 119,100 people. All non-White applicants who applied for a refinance, home purchase or home equity line of credit and were initially "approved" by Fannie Mae's, Freddie Mac's or Wells Fargo's own internal underwriting system but ultimately denied from 2018 through 2022, the plaintiffs argue, are entitled to damages. The plaintiffs say that a proprietary model Wells Fargo uses to assign prospective borrowers to one of four risk groups disproportionately sent Black and Latino applicants to higher-risk classes, subjecting them to more scrutiny from underwriters than applicants in other classes. The model, called Enhanced Credit Score, generates a score measuring each applicant's likelihood of default, resulting in higher denial rates, they say. "Wells Fargo discriminated against the minority applicants by subjecting them to its discriminatory loan policies," Dennis Ellis, the lead class counsel, wrote in an April motion. "The lost opportunities of potential wealth building derived from homeownership and access to favorable financing will, unfortunately, have generational consequences for these families." He said in an interview that the credit ratings "were treated like a gold star or a scarlet letter." Wells Fargo called the conflation of the firm's front-end loan platform, internal and external underwriting systems and thousands of additional rules and policies "counterfactual and logically incoherent," and it said the proposed class was "overbroad and ill-defined." In the bank's telling, the scoring model is a workflow tool and there is no such thing as approval through the Fannie and Freddie underwriting systems or its own -- the systems merely indicate whether an applicant's mortgage would be eligible for purchase by Fannie or Freddie. If so, the application moves on to the underwriting phase, in which Wells Fargo underwriters verify documentation such as an applicant's income, employment and credit history. The internal model just sorts applicants by the strength of their credit profile, with higher-risk applicants assigned to "more skilled" underwriters. "This case has no merit, and we will continue to vigorously defend ourselves," Wells Fargo said in a statement. "Our underwriting practices are consistently applied regardless of race or ethnicity of the applicant. Any suggestions otherwise are simply inaccurate." Document Trove A trove of documents and emails turned over by Wells Fargo in the discovery phase of the case sheds additional light on what happened when the San Francisco-based bank reviewed its mortgage operations in 2022. One study conducted in February 2022 by the bank's fair-lending analysts looked at the outcomes for mortgage applicants by race in 2020. It found that Black applicants were approved at less than 90% of the rate of White ones with broadly similar credit profiles, which the analysts said merited further investigation. Another study done in March of that year found that the credit-scoring model gave disproportionately lower scores to applicants in four out of five classes protected by fair-lending laws because of their race, gender or age. The document did not specify which classes were affected. The bank's analysts then zeroed in on which criteria were having the biggest impact, identifying three: the age of an applicant's other credit lines, signs they had applied for more in the past six months, and any debts that were 90 days delinquent. But the bank concluded that those were legitimate indicators of creditworthiness and kept the system in place. What those documents mean has become a point of contention. The plaintiffs' lawyers said in their filing that it shows the firm knew its practices adversely affected certain protected classes and did nothing about it. In its filings, Wells Fargo said it "uses a simple, race-neutral scoring system" and that its reviews "consistently confirm that minority applicants were denied for legitimate credit-related reasons and consistent with White applicants." Furthermore, the bank said, its fair-lending team weighed changes to the model, but those either didn't significantly reduce the "adverse impacts," introduced new disparities, or "caused unacceptable model performance." Even then, the model didn't make approval decisions, the firm wrote. Whether the judge allows the class certification to proceed will dictate the stakes for a bank that has sought to move past a series of consumer scandals that erupted in 2016. Problems that began in Wells Fargo's branch network and rapidly multiplied across business lines led to the exits of two CEOs, billions of dollars in fines and settlements, and an unprecedented Federal Reserve cap on the bank's growth. Bank Retreat Scharf, who took over in 2019 with a mission to move the bank past its legal and regulatory woes, announced a major pullback in the mortgage business last year. Most big US banks made a similar move more than a decade ago, concluding after the 2008 financial crisis that home lending was too troublesome. Wells Fargo took the opposite approach – for a decade, it doubled down on the business, dominating the industry and at one point churning out one in every three US home loans. That was the state of play in 2020, when the pandemic hit, interest rates fell to historic lows and borrowers raced to refinance their mortgages. A Bloomberg examination of federal mortgage data published in 2022 showed that 47% of Black homeowners who applied to refinance their mortgage with Wells Fargo that year were approved, compared with 72% of White homeowners. Wells Fargo did not dispute Bloomberg's findings, but said at the time, and in its opposition to class certification, that "legitimate, credit-related factors" drove the differences. A hearing about the proposed class certification is scheduled for June 27, with a decision on the matter expected then or shortly thereafter. The consolidated cases are In re Wells Fargo Mortgage Discrimination Litigation, 22-cv-00990-US District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco). [GN] WESTJET AIRLINES: Settles Checked Baggage Fees Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- yahoo!finance reports that this is a notice of a proposed settlement of a class action brought in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The Court file number is VLC-S-S-197550. The plaintiff alleges that WestJet charged a fee for the first checked baggage contrary to a provision that was included in WestJet's tariff during the class period. The allegation has not been proven in court, and WestJet has not admitted liability. This class action includes individuals anywhere in the world that paid a fee for their first checked baggage for a WestJet flight booked directly with WestJet and for travel between October 29, 2014 to July 29, 2017 for Canada domestic flights or between January 6, 2016 to February 27, 2019 for international flights, and whose itineraries were booked pursuant to a tariff that included the free baggage fee stipulation. For details of the class definition, please see Class Counsel's website: https://westjetbaggagefeeclassaction.hammerco.ca/notice/. WHO REPRESENTS THE CLASS MEMBERS? The Plaintiff and Class Members are represented by: Email: wjbaggagefeesca@hammerco.ca Fax number: 604-269-8511 Kevin McLaren Alexia S. Majidi Serena Cheong c/o Hammerco Lawyers LLP 400 - 2233 Columbia Street Vancouver, BC V5Y 0M6 Simon Lin Evolink Law 237 - 4388 Still Creek Drive Burnaby, BC V5C 6C6 Jeremie J. Martin Sebastien A. Paquette Champlain Avocats 200 - 1434 rue Sainte-Catherine W. Montreal, QC H3G 1R4 WHEN IS THE APPROVAL HEARING? The approval hearing will be held on October 11, 2024 at 10:00AM at the Vancouver Law Courts at 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, BC. An MS Teams link will be made available to class members to observe and/or participate remotely. CAN I MAKE A CLAIM NOW? No. A settlement must first be approved by the court. The claim form will be made available after the court approves the settlement and further notice will be issued at that time. If you wish to object to the terms of this proposed settlement, you can write to Class Counsel by September 27, 2024. For further details, please see Class Counsel's website https://westjetbaggagefeeclassaction.hammerco.ca/notice/. WHAT CAN I RECEIVE FROM THE SETTLEMENT? The settlement is for WestJet Travel Bank credits valued at $12,500,000CAD, before deduction of class counsel fees, administration costs, reasonable disbursement and an honorarium for the plaintiff. WestJet will pay in the form of cash class counsel fees (one-third of the settlement), disbursements, and the plaintiff's honorarium (up to $3,000). The remaining amount after deductions will be distributed pro rata in the form of a credit to the WestJet Travel Bank accounts of class members that filed a claim within the 90-day opt-out period, following the court-approved claims protocol. The protocol provides for a different distribution formula for those that are before or after July 6, 2017, due to potential limitation periods. The WestJet Travel Bank credits may be redeemed towards WestJet flights within 24-months without any blackout periods. The credits will expire after the 24-months if they are not redeemed in time. The WestJet Travel Bank credits are non-transferable but can be used to book for another guest. The pro rata amount to be distributed will depend on the number of eligible claims submitted, and consequently the claims rate. Class counsel estimates that the pro rata distribution per class member will be $10-20, assuming an estimated claims rate of 5%. This is only an estimate and not a guarantee distribution figure. Claims will be administered by AB Data - www.AirlineBagFeeSettlement.com - after the Settlement Approval hearing scheduled for October 11, 2024, if the Court approves the settlement. WILL I AUTOMATICALLY RECEIVE THE WESTJET TRAVEL BANK CREDITS? NO, class members must submit a claim in accordance with the court-approved protocol to be eligible to a pro rata share of the settlement to be deposited to their WestJet Travel Bank accounts. For further details, please see Class Counsel's website https://westjetbaggagefeeclassaction.hammerco.ca/notice/. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Panel Upholds $2.6MM J-M Mfg. Verdict -------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Curley of Law360 reports that a California appeals panel upheld a $2.6 million verdict against J-M Manufacturing Co. Inc. in a case where a man contracted mesothelioma due to his brother's work with asbestos-containing products. The company's argument to apply a duty standard for negligence claims to the man's strict liability claim was rejected. The three-judge panel affirmed the verdict in favor of Nathan K. Williams, who replaced his brother Cornelius as the plaintiff after Cornelius died of mesothelioma during the appeal. The court held that the duty principle applying only to members of a worker's household does not extend to strict liability claims. ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Reaches $700MM Talc Case Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Travis Rodgers, writing for Asbestos.com, reports that Johnson & Johnson will pay $700 million to settle an investigation concerning the marketing practices of its talc-based products. The multimillion-dollar settlement resolves charges that J&J misled people to believe its talc products, including Johnson's Baby Powder and Johnson & Johnson's Shower to Shower, were safe. The company is also facing more than 61,000 lawsuits with claims that its talc products caused ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. Company officials are not admitting wrongdoing and deny violating the law. J&J has said its products are safe and don’t cause cancer. As part of the settlement, Johnson & Johnson has agreed to permanently stop the manufacturing, promotion and sale of all products that contain talcum powder. "District residents and customers nationwide deserve the truth about products they're purchasing, especially products geared toward children," D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb said in a statement. "With this bipartisan, multistage settlement, we're holding Johnson & Johnson financially accountable for decades of harm inflicted on consumers through deceptive marketing tactics, and we're ensuring that products that have been linked to serious health problems are no longer on the market." If the settlement is approved, J&J will make its first of four payments to 42 states and Washington D.C. in July 2024. Each installment will be $175 million and paid over the next three years. Johnson & Johnson's worldwide vice president of litigation, Erik Hass, said the company "continues to pursue several paths to achieve a comprehensive and final resolution of the talc litigation. That progress includes the finalization of a previously announced agreement that the Company reached with a consortium of 43 attorneys general to resolve their talc claims. We will continue to address the claims of those who do not want to participate in our contemplated consensual bankruptcy resolution through litigation or settlement." Asbestos is the primary cause of mesothelioma. The latency period between asbestos exposure and diagnosis of mesothelioma can range from 20 to 60 years. Exposure to asbestos can also cause ovarian cancer and other asbestos-related diseases. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Awards $10MM Verdict Against Pneumo Abex -------------------------------------------------------------- The Lawsuit Information Center reports that a California jury awarded $10 million to a woman whose husband succumbed to mesothelioma, a disease attributed to his exposure to asbestos in brake products from Pneumo Abex Co. The court found that the company's products were defectively designed and failed to perform safely under foreseeable circumstances, which was a significant factor in causing the disease. The jury's decision was based on findings that Pneumo Abex knew about the risks associated with asbestos in their brakes but did not take adequate steps to warn users or mitigate the danger. This negligence in communicating the dangers, coupled with the defective design of the products, led to a substantial verdictm, according to the report. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wisconsin Court Affirms $26.45MM Asbestos Verdict ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mesothelomia.net reports that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld a $26.45 million asbestos verdict against Pabst Brewing Co., with $13.42 million payable by the company, under premises liability and negligence claims. The lawsuit was initiated by a woman following her husband death from mesothelioma, attributed to asbestos exposure during his tenure as a pipefitter at Pabst in the 1970s. The court found sufficient evidence that Pabst had been aware of the asbestos risks but failed to protect employees. The jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages, although Pabst's punitive damages were capped at twice the amount of compensatory damages, leading to a final judgment against Pabst of $13.42 million. The case underscored Pabst's ongoing duty under the Wisconsin Safe Place Act to ensure a safe working environment, irrespective of other concurrent liabilities. ********* 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 ***