/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240626.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, June 26, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 128
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Alexander Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Barrera Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Bennings Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Byrum Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Calvert Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Kennedy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Knox Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Moore Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Williams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
A&A SERVICES: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Truseell Says
ADVOCATE AURORA: Court Dismisses GIPA Class Action Lawsuit
ALEXANDRIA HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Discovery Due Jan. 21, 2025
AMAZON LOGISTICS: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AMAZON.COM INC: Alexandre Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Shea Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
APPLE INC: Jong Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ASSURANCE IQ: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Suit for $21.875-Mil.
AT&T INC: Penning Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
AT&T INC: Sands Sues Over failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
AT&T INC: Vita Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
AT&T MOBILITY: Hasson Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
AT&T MOBILITY: Hodge Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
AT&T MOBILITY: Kinchen Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
AT&T MOBILITY: Unruh Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
BANK OF AMERICA: Request for Protective Order Granted
BANK OF AMERICA: Withholds Credit Card Rewards, Yedla Alleges
BBLI EDISON: Fails to Negotiate Lease Renewals in Good Faith
BELFOR USA: Court Junks Bid for Initial OK of Settlement
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Mirvis Due Nov. 16
BETTER DEBT SOLUTIONS: Collins Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
BLACKMON OIL COMPANY: Montgomery Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
BLOOMINGDALE'S LLC: Mikulsky Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due March 31, 2025
BSH HOME: Settlement in Peterson Suit Wins Court Nod
BUTTERFLY EFFECTS: Gauzner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CAPITAL ONE: Port Transferred to E.D. Virginia
CELEBRITY HOME: Blake Appeals WARN Suit Dismissal to 7th Circuit
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Allen Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Reese Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Stump Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Surgical Partners Sues Over Unprotected Info
CIGNA HEALTH: Whittemore Sues Over Disability Discrimination
CLEER INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Agostini Claims
COLUMBUS REGIONAL: $2MM Settlement in Goodman Suit Gets Court OK
COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Rosen Law Probes Securities Claims
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Class Suit Over Online Product Mark Ups
CREDIT UNION: Court Strikes Schedule in Lucero Suit
CROUSE HEALTH: Addison Sues Over Data Security Failures
CROWN LABORATORIES: Flores Suit Transferred to N.D. California
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Barnes Suit Seeks Hybrid Class Certification
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Robertson Seeks More Time to File Reply
DUFRESNE SPENCER: Parker Sues Over 2023 Data Breach
ENVISION MANAGEMENT: Allowed to File Class Cert Supplemental Memo
ENVISION MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Reply Filing Extended to July 9
FARMERS EDGE: Investors Asks Court to Certify IPO Class Action
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Williams Says
FLAGGE CONTRACTING: Appeals Judgment in Sarmiento Suit
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Boorman Sues Over Unprotected Private Info
GRITSTONE BIO: Beal Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities
HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Wins Class Lawsuit Over 'Right to Repair'
HYUNDAI MOTORS: Agrees to Settlement Engine Failure Class Action
ICP CONSTRUCTION: Blumenthal Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
J & L GAME: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Trippett Says
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces New Class Suit Over Talc's Product Safety
KAISER FOUNDATION: Illegally Collects Personal Info, Sutter Says
LOS ANGELES, CA: Castro Suit Removed to C.D. California
LOS ANGELES, CA: Depillars Suit Removed to C.D. California
MAPLE LEAF: Court OKs Clarifying Affidavit in Price Fixing Suit
MARINER FINANCE: Wilson Suit Seeks Enforcement of Discharge Orders
MARTEN TRANSPORT: Wallace Suit Removed From Sup. Ct. to W.D. Wash.
MAZDA MOTORS: Settles Class Action Over Defective Valve Stem Seal
MDL 3083: Bloch et al. Sue Over Unlawful Disclosure of Private Info
META PLATFORMS: SCOTUS to Review Shareholder Class Dismissal Rules
MONTREAL, QC: Residents Sue Over Homeless Shelters' Management
N.H. ROSS: Bishop Sues for Discrimination and Labor Law Breaches
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Utal Sues Over Mislabeled Pet Insurance Products
PAPA JOHN'S: Thomas Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
PEARL CROP INC: Sall Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PENNSYLVANIA: Allowed to Withdraw Pending Bid to Transfer
PLANTRONICS INC: Court Vacates Deadlines in Scheduling Orders
POLAM KOPITIAM: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Food Poisoning
PPG INDUSTRIES: Fact Discovery in Rodriguez Suit Due Sept. 20
PRIMARK US: Faces Venning Suit Over Unpaid Wages
PRIME ASCOT: Court Narrows Claims in Leaser Suit
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Faces Reardon Class Suit Over Data Breach
PROGRESSIVE HAWAII: Newton Suit Removed to E.D. Tennessee
PROGRESSIVE SOUTHEASTERN: Wade Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana
PROSTAFFING SERVICES: Mireles Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Adinolfi Sues Over Private Data Breach
QUICK STOP: Ali and Bachani Sue over Labor Law Breaches
REACH AIR MEDICAL: Payne Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
REAL BROKERAGE: Miholich Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
REFRESCO BEVERAGES: Remington Suit Removed to E.D. Washington
ROSS DRESS FOR LESS: Amador Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Tossed
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Hardnett Suit More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
SIGNET JEWELERS: Embeds Spy Pixel Trackers in E-mails, Torrez Says
SPA 88: Shamshiev Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
SUNNYVALLEY SMOKED MEATS: Guzman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SUPERIOR AIR-GROUND: Faces 858,000-Record Data Breach Class Action
SWIMSUITS DIRECT: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Karim Suit Says
SYNCHRONY BANK: Taylor Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
TAVARES 234: Faces Fernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
TAXACT INC: Settles Privacy Violation Class Action for $14.95MM
TESLA INC: Faces Renewed Class Action Over Repair/Parts Monopoly
TICKETMASTER LLC: Dupreez Balks at Failure to Secure Personal Info
TICKETMASTER LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Burns Claims
TOSHIBA AMERICA: Sonnier Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info
TRANS UNION: Court Tosses Reyes Suit w/o Prejudice
TRC STAFFING: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Young Suit Says
TRIMFIT GLOBAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Murray Alleges
TRINITY TEEN: Court OK's Form of Class Notice
TRUMBULL COUNTY, OH: Wrightsman Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
UNITED MORTGAGE: Seeks Extension to File Reply
UNITED STATES: Seeks to Dismiss FCI Dublin Class Action
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Shomaf Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS: Schutts Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Patients Join Patient Records Class Suit
VICOLINA RESTAURANT: Andrade Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
VISION PATH: Hearing for Class Cert. Bid Set for March 13, 2025
WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Over Employee Relocation Fraud
WELLSPACE HEALTH: Mixon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WHOLE FOODS MARKET: Silberstein Suit Removed to E.D. New York
WHOLE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over In-Store Retail Price Labels
WOLVEN THREADS: Thompson Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
[*] Credit Cards, Airline Rewards Programs Have Class Action Risks
*********
3M COMPANY: Alexander Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kailum Alexander, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:24-cv-02792-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 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
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Navy
and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tessa G. Cuneo, Esq.
Alexandra W. Robertson, Esq.
ASK LLP
2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 400
St. Paul, MN 55121
Phone: (651) 406-9665
Facsimile: (651) 406
Email: tcuneo@askllp.com
arobertson@askllp.com
3M COMPANY: Barrera Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Barrera, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-03478-RMG
(D.S.C., June 11, 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
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and 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 products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Phone: 216-815-9000
Facsimile: 216-274-9365
3M COMPANY: Bennings Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dexter Bennings, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-03480-RMG
(D.S.C., June 11, 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
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and during his working career as a military and/or
civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with bladder cancer as a
result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Phone: 216-815-9000
Facsimile: 216-274-9365
3M COMPANY: Byrum Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Byrum, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-03473-RMG
(D.S.C., June 11, 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
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and during his working career as a military and/or
civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with colon cancer as a
result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Phone: 216-815-9000
Facsimile: 216-274-9365
3M COMPANY: Calvert Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Calvert, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-03479-RMG
(D.S.C., June 11, 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
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and during his working career as a military and/or
civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis as a
result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Phone: 216-815-9000
Facsimile: 216-274-9365
3M COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Frank Johnson, 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-02382-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: Kennedy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Kennedy, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB
FIRE, LTD,; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONTE DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DU NEMOUR AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.);
Case No. 2:24-cv-02344-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
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff suffered personal injuries sustained as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF containing PFAS.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of
PFAS containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Madison T. Donaldson, Esq.
Marc S. Whitehead, Esq.
MARC WHITEHEAD & ASSOCIATES, LLP
403 Heights Boulevard
Houston, TX 77007
Phone: 713-228-8888
Facsimile: 713-225-0940
3M COMPANY: Knox Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Earl Knox, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE,
LTD,; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONTE DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DU NEMOUR AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No.
2:24-cv-02405-RMG (D.S.C., April 23, 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
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff suffered personal injuries sustained as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF containing PFAS.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of
PFAS containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Madison T. Donaldson, Esq.
Marc S. Whitehead, Esq.
MARC WHITEHEAD & ASSOCIATES, LLP
403 Heights Boulevard
Houston, TX 77007
Phone: 713-228-8888
Facsimile: 713-225-0940
3M COMPANY: Moore Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Desarae Moore, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE,
LTD,; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONTE DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DU NEMOUR AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No.
2:24-cv-02588-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
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff suffered personal injuries sustained as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF containing PFAS.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of
PFAS containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Madison T. Donaldson, Esq.
Marc S. Whitehead, Esq.
MARC WHITEHEAD & ASSOCIATES, LLP
403 Heights Boulevard
Houston, TX 77007
Phone: 713-228-8888
Facsimile: 713-225-0940
3M COMPANY: Williams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Owen Williams, 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-02364-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 and thyroid disease 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
A&A SERVICES: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Truseell Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOANN TRUSEELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. A&A SERVICES, LLC d/b/a SAV-RX, Case No.
8:24-cv-00229-JFB-JMD (D. Neb., June 17, 2024) sues the Defendant
for its failure to implement reasonable and industry standard data
security practices to properly secure, safeguard, and adequately
destroy the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal
identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its
business purposes.
The Data Breach occurred on Oct. 3, 2023. The Defendant became
aware of the attack on its system on Oct. 8, 2023. And the
Defendant began sending notice letters to Class members on May 19,
2024. The PII compromised in the Data Breach included names,
addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members are now
at a current, imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity
theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years into the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft. The Plaintiff has recently experienced increased
spam calls, texts and emails, which has resulted in a significant
amount of lost time to her personally. She is specifically targeted
in some of these spam communications, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages,
reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief
including improvements to the Defendant's data security systems,
future annual audits, as well as long-term and adequate credit
monitoring services funded by the Defendant, and declaratory
relief.
The Plaintiff was a health plan participant with one of Defendant's
clients.
A&A is a pharmacy benefit manager that offers comprehensive
services, clinical programs, and financial models.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
ADVOCATE AURORA: Court Dismisses GIPA Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
In April, a Cook County Circuit Judge issued a decision granting
Latham's combined motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment
and dismissed a proposed Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA)
class action lawsuit, with prejudice. The plaintiff alleged as part
of her application for a customer care associate position in an
Advocate call center, Advocate violated GIPA by conditioning her
employment on the disclosure of her family medical history. The
plaintiff claimed this information was solicited verbally and on a
written questionnaire during a pre-employment physical exam, and
was then used to determine her employment offer.
Latham found no indication of a GIPA violation in its interviews
with Advocate leadership or vetting of Plaintiff’s employee file
and application materials, and the court agreed.
This decision is the first involuntary dismissal of a GIPA claim
against a hospital corporation in Illinois. Given the recent surge
of GIPA class action lawsuits in Illinois within the last year,
this win is particularly relevant for companies requiring physicals
or medical screenings as a contingency for hiring workers and
insurance providers vulnerable to allegations of using genetic
information for underwriting purposes, including determining
eligibility for coverage or calculating premiums.
GIPA claims may open such companies up to potentially explosive
liability with damages of US$2,500 per negligent violation and
US$15,000 per willful violation. Companies that solicit medical or
health information as part of a pre-screening employment process
should consider reviewing their written candidate-facing materials
and employee training policies and procedures to ensure GIPA
compliance.
The Latham team included partners Mark Mester, Gary Feinerman, and
Robert C. Collins III, and associate Alexandra B. van Doren. [GN]
ALEXANDRIA HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Discovery Due Jan. 21, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NINA COOPER ET AL., V.
ALEXANDRIA HEALTHCARE LLC ET AL., Case No. 1:23-cv-01813-JE-JPM
(W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Perez-Montes entered a scheduling
order as follows:
Jury Trial: Nov. 03, 2025
Pretrial conference: Oct. 07, 2025
Joint pretrial order: Sept. 30, 2025
Joinder of Parties and Amendment Feb. 18, 2025
of Pleadings:
Exchange Witness Lists: June 23, 2025
Plaintiff's Expert Reports: June 23, 2025
Defendant's expert reports: July 23, 2025
Class Certification Discovery: Jan. 21, 2025
A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=accOic at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON LOGISTICS: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazon Logistics,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Janie Dayana Garcia Garcia, an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amazon
Logistics, Inc., Amazon.Com Services, LLC, Amazon.Com Services,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Anane Enterprise LLC, a California
limited liability company, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0007156 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 14, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Amazon Logistics -- https://logistics.amazon.com/ -- is Amazon's
delivery service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC
1460 Westwood Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
Phone: 310-438-5555
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Alexandre Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUCIANO ALEXANDRE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Luciano Alexandre, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-01459-MMA-VET, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
bring this lawsuit against the Defendants for alleged violations of
California Civil Code's Unruh Civil Rights Act.
On Sept. 9, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint,
which the Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction or, alternatively, with prejudice for failure to state
a claim on Mar. 3, 2023.
On Sept. 22, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint.
On Dec. 6, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' second amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction or,
alternatively, for failure to state a claim, which the Court
granted through an Order entered by Judge Michael M. Anello on May
23, 2024.
The Court ruled that allowing leave to amend would be futile
because the Plaintiffs have failed to cure the deficiencies
outlined in the Court's previous order. Failure to correct
identified deficiencies is a strong indication that the Plaintiffs
have no additional facts to plead. The Court, hence, granted the
Defendant's motion to dismiss in its entirety. The Court directed
the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly and to close the
case.
The appellate case is captioned Alexandre, et al. v. Amazon.com,
Inc., et al., Case No. 24-3566, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 6, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 11,
2024;
-- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 16, 2024; and
-- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on August 15, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants LUCIANO ALEXANDRE, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Alfred G. Rava, Esq.
THE RAVA LAW FIRM
3667 Voltaire Street
San Diego, CA 92106
Defendant-Appellee AMAZON.COM, INC. is represented by:
Stephanie Schuster, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Shea Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY SHEA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-11449-AK (D. Mass., June 4, 2024) is a class action arising
from a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals leading to
unauthorized access to Plaintiff's and similarly situated students'
personally identifiable information, including but not limited to
names and Social Security numbers.
According to the complaint, cybercriminals were able to breach
Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train
its employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its
agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and
securing the PII of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable
security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII.
In failing to adequately protect its students' information,
adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature
of the breach, the Defendant violated state law and harmed an
unknown number of its current and former students, says the suit.
American International College is a private university
headquartered in Springfield, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (617) 485-0018
Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
APPLE INC: Jong Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple, Inc. The case
is styled as Justina Jong, Amina Salgado, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No.
CGC24615363 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., June 13, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/ -- is an American
multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Michael Finberg, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER & HEIMANN
275 Battery St., 30th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-956-1000
ASSURANCE IQ: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Suit for $21.875-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that consumers could receive payments
from an Assurance IQ settlement resolving claims it violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act with unsolicited robocalls.
The settlement benefits individuals who received phone calls from
Assurance IQ using an artificial or prerecorded voice between Oct.
1, 2018, and March 6, 2024.
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim Assurance IQ placed
these calls without consent in violation of the TCPA.
Assurance IQ is an online health care insurance marketplace that
provides quotes from multiple insurance providers.
Assurance IQ hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a
$21.875M TCPA settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Assurance IQ settlement, class members can
receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. Payment amounts
will vary depending on the number of valid claims filed. No payment
estimates are available at this time.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 31, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the TCPA settlement is scheduled for
Sept. 3, 2024.
To receive an Assurance IQ settlement payment, class members must
submit a valid claim form by July 31, 2024.
Who's Eligible
Individuals who received phone calls from Assurance IQ using an
artificial or prerecorded voice between Oct. 1, 2018, and March 6,
2024
Potential Award
TBD
Proof of Purchase
Telephone numbers that received telemarketing calls
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
07/31/2024
Case Name
Smith v. Assurance IQ LLC,Case No. 2023-CH-09225, in the Illinois
Circuit Court for Cook County
Final Hearing
09/03/2024
Settlement Website
AssuranceTCPASettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Assurance IQ TCPA Settlement
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration
PO Box 5324
New York, NY 10150-5324
info@AssuranceTCPASettlement.com
Phone: (833) 425-7847
Class Counsel
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
5550 Glades Rd # 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (561) 826-5477
KEOGH LAW LTD
55 W Monroe St #3390
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (866) 726-1092
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St #201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 237-1775
PARONICH LAW PC
350 Lincoln St #2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (617) 485-0018
Defense Counsel
Mark A Silver
DENTONS US LLP
1900 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 496-7500
Fax: (202) 496-7756 [GN]
AT&T INC: Penning Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Stacy Penning, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AT&T INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-02657 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas on June 14, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01464-E to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- is an American multinational
telecommunications holding company headquartered at Whitacre Tower
in Downtown Dallas, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
10728 Lindbrook Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kyle Thomas Cutts, Esq.
BAKERHOSTETLER LLP
127 Public Square
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 586-7816
Email: kcutts@bakerlaw.com
AT&T INC: Sands Sues Over failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Sands, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AT&T, INC., a foreign corporation doing business in
Washington State, Case No. 24-2-09591-8 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct.,
April 30, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information
including, but not limited to, full names, phone numbers, Social
Security numbers, addresses, dates of birth ("PII") and other
sensitive personal and financial information including, but not
limited to, data usage and location identifiers, AT&T account
numbers and passcodes, and credit card and other payment
information (collectively with "PII" as "Private Information").
On March 30, 2024, AT&T informed many Class Members by email and
mail notice that their sensitive Personal Information had been
compromised (the "Notice Letter"). AT&T confirmed that Plaintiff
and Class Members' PII were released on the Dark Web. The Data
Breach occurred in 2021 but Defendant did not begin informing
victims of the Data Breach until March 30, 2024, approximately
three years later. Indeed, Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly
unaware of the Data Breach until they received Notice Letters from
Defendant. During this time, Plaintiff and Class Members were
unaware that their sensitive Private Information had been
compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant
risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social,
and financial harm.
To provide services, and in the ordinary course of AT&T's business,
Defendant acquires, possesses, analyzes, and otherwise utilizes
Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information, which Plaintiff
and Class Members were required to provide Defendant in order to
obtain or utilize communication services from Defendant. With this
action, Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harm
it caused, and will continue to cause, Plaintiff and at least 7.6
million current customers and 65.4 million former account holders.
The Plaintiff further seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the
massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by
Defendant, by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's
inadequately protected network servers and accessed and exfiltrated
highly sensitive Private Information belonging to Plaintiff and
Class Members which was being kept unprotected (the "Data Breach").
As a result of Defendant's failures and the Data Breach, Plaintiff
and Class Members' identities are now at a current and substantial
imminent and ongoing risk of identity theft and shall remain at
risk for the rest of their lives, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has been a customer of AT&T for over fifteen years.
The Defendant is an international telecommunications company that
provides more than 100 million U.S. consumers with communications
experiences across mobile and broadband.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
Paul Cipriani, Esq.
EMERY REDDY, PLLC
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 442-9106
Fax: (206) 441-9711
Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
reddyp@emeryreddy.com
paul@emeryreddy.com
AT&T INC: Vita Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------
The case styled as David Vita, Daniel Mariscal, Charles Fairchild
and Faith Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AT&T INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-02356 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on June
14, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01465-E to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Torts/Pers Prop: Property Damage
Product Liability.
AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- is an American multinational
telecommunications holding company headquartered at Whitacre Tower
in Downtown Dallas, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
Andrew F. Kirtley, Esq.
Gia Jung, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
Email: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
akirtley@cpmlegal.com
gjung@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
Karin B. Swope, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
999 N. Northlake Way, Suite 215
Seattle, WA 98103
Phone: (206) 802-1272
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
Email: tloeser@cpmlegal.com
kswope@cpmlegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kyle Thomas Cutts, Esq.
BAKERHOSTETLER LLP
127 Public Square
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 586-7816
Email: kcutts@bakerlaw.com
AT&T MOBILITY: Hasson Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kenneth Hasson and Chad Graddy, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC and AT&T,
INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01580 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas on June 14, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01478-E to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
AT&T Mobility LLC -- https://www.att.com/ -- also known as AT&T
Wireless and marketed as simply AT&T, is an American
telecommunications company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
4729 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108
Atlanta, GA 30342
Phone: (678) 642-2503
Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Fax: (724) 656-1556
Email: gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Jennifer M. French, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1234 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Phone: (619) 762-1900
Email: jennf@lcllp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lisa Nicole Collins, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP-ATL
1170 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 256-8231
Fax: (404) 459-5734
Email: lncollins@bakerlaw.com
AT&T MOBILITY: Hodge Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Terri Lynn Hodge, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC and AT&T, INC., Case
No. 1:24-cv-01475 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas on June 14, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01476-E to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
AT&T Mobility LLC -- https://www.att.com/ -- also known as AT&T
Wireless and marketed as simply AT&T, is an American
telecommunications company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J.Cameron Tribble, Esq.
Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Phone: 770-227-6375
Email: roy@barneslawgroup.com
ctribble@barneslawgroup.com
- and -
David M. Berger, Esq.
Linda P. Lam, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Ste. 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: 510-350-9700
Email: dmb@classlawgroup.com
lpl@classlawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lisa Nicole Collins, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP-ATL
1170 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 256-8231
Fax: (404) 459-5734
Email: lncollins@bakerlaw.com
AT&T MOBILITY: Kinchen Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mildred Kinchen and James Kinchen, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC
and AT&T INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-02451 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas on June 14,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01463-E to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
AT&T Mobility LLC -- https://www.att.com/ -- also known as AT&T
Wireless and marketed as simply AT&T, is an American
telecommunications company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristin J. Moody, Esq.
Pierce H. Stanley, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
425 California Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 433-3200
Email: kmoody@bermantabacco.com
pstanley@bermantabacco.com
- and -
Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
One Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 542-8300
Email: pegan@bermantabacco.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kyle Thomas Cutts, Esq.
BakerHostetler LLP
127 Public Square
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 586-7816
Email: kcutts@bakerlaw.com
AT&T MOBILITY: Unruh Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ryan Unruh and Christopher Isbell, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC and
AT&T, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01414 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas on June 14,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01473-E to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
AT&T Mobility LLC -- https://www.att.com/ -- also known as AT&T
Wireless and marketed as simply AT&T, is an American
telecommunications company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
J. Cameron Tribble, Esq.
BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Phone: 770-227-6375
Email: roy@barneslawgroup.com
ctribble@barneslawgroup.com
- and -
E. Siegel, Esq.
J. Austin Moore, Esq.
Stefon J. David, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: 816-714-7100
Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
moore@stuevesiegel.com
david@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: 312-214-7900
Email: akeller@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: 202-408-4651
Email: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lisa Nicole Collins, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP-ATL
1170 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 256-8231
Fax: (404) 459-5734
Email: lncollins@bakerlaw.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Request for Protective Order Granted
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY RAMIREZ, et al.,
v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 4:22-cv-00859-YGR (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Robert Illman entered an order granting the Bank's
request for a protective order to prevent undue burden and
inefficiency with respect to noticed depositions.
To the extent that the Plaintiffs have stated that they have a
"right to develop the evidence they need before noticing 30(b)(6)
topics and moving for class certification," the court finds that
the Plaintiffs have not explained why deposing these witnesses
twice is the only path to that end.
In other words, the Plaintiffs have failed to explain why they
cannot formulate their 30(b)(6) topics through written discovery,
in conjunction with other means such as accepting the Bank's offer
to depose the former employee. Without such an explanation, there
is no basis to saddle the Bank with the burden of subjecting its
employees to being deposed twice rather than once. Plaintiffs have
issued two deposition notices "in order to ensure that this dispute
was ripe for resolution."
This putative class-action case alleges that the Bank promised
certain pandemic-era relief programs from overdraft fees and
insufficient-funds fees which it never fully implemented, and
terminated the limited changes it did implement without notice in
August of 2020.
The Defendant offers saving and current account, investment and
financial services, and online banking.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=94VbKz at no extra
charge.[CC]
BANK OF AMERICA: Withholds Credit Card Rewards, Yedla Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
SRINATH YEDLA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A. and BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
Case No. 1:24-cv-04638 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act,
the New York General Business Law, the New York Deceptive Acts and
Practices Act, and for common law unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and seeks monetary
damages, declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief, including
restitution, the reasonable costs of attorneys' fees, and any other
relief the Court deems proper.
In July 2023, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the
Office of Comptroller of Currency fined Bank of America for
(a) wrongfully withholding credit card rewards,
(b) charging multiple non-sufficient fund fees for the
same transaction, also referred to as "double-dipping," and
(c) misappropriating sensitive personal information to open
credit card accounts without customers’ knowledge or
authorization.
As a result, the CFPB levied a $90 million penalty and the OCC
levied an additional $60 million penalty against the Bank. The
Agencies' actions remedied some of the Bank's harm—mainly the
double-dipping scheme -- but not all.
According to the Agencies, Bank of America's most recent illegal
conduct harmed hundreds of thousands of consumers and took place
over a decade, the suit asserts.
Bank of America, N.A. is a banking institution headquartered in New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian P Murray, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Avenue, Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
- and -
D. Anthony Mastando, Esq.
MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
301 Holmes Ave NE, Suite 100
Huntsville, AL 35801
Telephone: (256) 532-2222
Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
E-mail: artrip@mastandoartrip.com
BBLI EDISON: Fails to Negotiate Lease Renewals in Good Faith
------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Fenstermaker, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against BBLI Edison LLC and
Berkshire Communities, L.L.C., alleging violations of the Keep
Chicago Renting Ordinance (KCRO).
The plaintiffs, including Anthony Cervantes, Kenneth Deentremont,
Thomas Burkhead, Jae Avilez, Lauren Webb, and Greg Easter, claim
that after acquiring an apartment property at 5200 North Sheridan
Road in Chicago through foreclosure, the defendants failed to
provide required notices to tenants.
The lawsuit asserts that the defendants did not negotiate lease
renewals in good faith or offer relocation assistance as mandated
by the KCRO.
Additionally, it is alleged that the defendants allegedly demanded
rent they were not entitled to and used these demands to coerce
tenants into waiving their rights under the ordinance.
The plaintiffs seek compensation and injunctive relief for
themselves and similarly situated tenants.
They are represented by attorneys Joan Fenstermaker and Nicholas
Bailey, of the firm of Joan M. Fenstermaker P.C., of Chicago. [GN]
BELFOR USA: Court Junks Bid for Initial OK of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD RODRIGUEZ, v.
BELFOR USA GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-02071-VKD (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Virginia Demarchi entered an order denying
Mr. Rodriguez's motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement.
This denial is without prejudice to the filing of an amended motion
for preliminary approval addressing the issues identified in this
order.
Mr. Rodriguez shall file an amended motion for preliminary approval
no later than July 12s, 2024; alternatively, the parties shall file
a joint status report on that date.
Finally, the settlement only awards $100,000 in PAGA penalties,
less than 10% of the reduced amount ($1,012,500) that Mr. Rodriguez
discusses, meaning that the settlement actually awards less than
2.5% of his estimated maximum of $4,050,000.
Mr. Rodriguez claims that during his employment, defendants
violated the FLSA and California labor law by, among other things:
(1) requiring unpaid overtime work; (2) failing to provide timely
meal periods during the workday; (3) failing to provide paid rest
periods during the workday; (4) requiring the use of personal cell
phones for business purposes; and (5) requiring workers to report
for scheduled shifts, but sending them home unpaid if no work was
available.
The settlement defines a "settlement class" consisting of
"all persons who were employed by Defendants in the State of
California in non-exempt positions at any time during the
period
from Feb. 25, 2018, to the date of Preliminary Approval."
Belfor provides property recovery and restoration services for
properties damaged by natural disasters, such as fires and floods,
on a nationwide basis.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EQSCdc at no extra
charge.[CC]
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Mirvis Due Nov. 16
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mirvis, et al., v.
Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02210 (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed April 21, 2021), the Hon. Judge Natasha C. Merle entered an
order extending deadlines as follows:
-- Fact discovery shall be completed by: Aug. 15, 2024
-- The motion for class certification Nov. 16, 2024
shall be filed by:
-- The last date to take the first step Dec. 15, 2024
in dispositive motion practice is:
The suit alleges violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Berkshire is a holding company owning subsidiaries in a variety of
business sectors.[CC]
BETTER DEBT SOLUTIONS: Collins Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Better Debt
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Richard Collins, Bonnie Joe,
Maxx Lyman, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. Better Debt Solutions, LLC, Lendvia LLC d/b/a Lendvia Financial
d/b/a One Street Financial, Case No. 8:24-cv-01263 (C.D. Cal., June
11, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Better Debt Solutions -- https://betterdebtsolutions.com/ -- offers
debt relief solutions to numerous households and individuals across
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gustavo Ponce, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
245 Fischer Avenue Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: gustavo@kazlg.com
BLACKMON OIL COMPANY: Montgomery Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blackmon Oil Company,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Tamyra Montgomery, Miranda
Smith, Jada Hernandez, and all others similarly situated v.
Blackmon Oil Company, Inc., David Kenneth Blackmon, Susan Blackmon
Britt, Ethan Thomas Blackmon, Case No. 6:24-cv-06083-SOH (S.D.N.Y.,
June 11, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Blackmon Oil Company -- https://www.blackmonoil.com/ -- is a one
stop shop for fuel, lubricants, delivery, and pump maintenance for
all your heavy machinery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Monroe Scurlock, Esq.
WALLACE, MARTIN, DUKE & RUSSELL, PLLC
1st Floor, Centre Place
212 Center Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: (501) 375-5545
Fax: (501) 374-9515
Email: jms@wallacelawfirm.com
BLOOMINGDALE'S LLC: Mikulsky Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
ERICA MIKULSKY is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
her lawsuit entitled Erica Mikulsky, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bloomingdale's, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00425-L-VET, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California.
The lawsuit is brought against Bloomingdale's for wiretapping the
electronic communications of visitors to its website,
www.bloomingdales.com, in violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act.
On Oct. 27, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint,
which the Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim
and for lack of jurisdiction on Nov. 17, 2023.
On Feb. 9, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.
On Mar. 15, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's second amended complaint for failure to state a claim
and for lack of jurisdiction, which the Court granted for failure
to state a claim and denied for lack of personal jurisdiction
through an Order entered by Judge M. James Lorenz on May 14, 2024.
The appellate case is captioned Mikulsky v. Bloomingdale's, LLC, et
al., Case No. 24-3564, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 6, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 11,
2024;
-- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 16, 2024; and
-- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on August 15, 2024. [BN]
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due March 31, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA HETTINGER, v.
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-03687-JEB (D.D.C.),
the Hon. Judge James Boasberg entered an order that the following
schedule shall govern further proceedings:
1. Discovery shall be limited to a subset of documents from each
building;
2. Motions to amend the pleadings or for joinder of additional
parties or consolidation shall be filed by Jan. 2, 2025;
3. Plaintiff shall file her Motion for Class Certification and
make
Class Certification Expert disclosures by March 31, 2025;
4. Defendant shall file its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion and
make any Class Certification Expert rebuttals by May 15,
2025;
5. Plaintiff shall file her Reply in support of her Motion by
June
5, 2025;
6. The parties shall file a Joint Status Report on September 9,
2024; and
7. A status hearing is scheduled for September 11, 2024, at
10:30
a.m.
Bozzuto is engaged in renting, buying, selling and appraising real
estate.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fc3FpG at no extra
charge.[CC]
BSH HOME: Settlement in Peterson Suit Wins Court Nod
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH PETERSON, AMANDA
CARLTON, REBECCA HIRSCH, MICHELE O'DELL, and PRASANNA RAMAKRISHNAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BSH
HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00543-RAJ (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Richard Jones entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' unopposed motion and memorandum of law in support of
final approval of class action settlement.
-- The Court certifies the proposed Settlement Class and grants
Plaintiffs' motion. The Court finds that the Settlement Class
satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b),
and
that the Parties' Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate.
When this Court granted preliminary approval, the Court preliminary
certified the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes
only:
"all persons in the United States and its territories who
either
(a) purchased a new Class Product, or (b) acquired a new Class
Product as part of the purchase or remodel of a home, or (c)
received as a gift, from a donor meeting those requirements, a
new
Class Product not used by the donor or by anyone else after the
donor purchased the Class Product and before the donor gave the
Class Product to the Settlement Class Member, during the Class
Period.
Excluded from the Settlement Class were: (i) officers,
directors,
and employees of Bosch or its parents, subsidiaries, or
affiliates, (ii) insurers of Settlement Class Members, (iii)
subrogees or all entities claiming to be subrogated to the
rights
of a Class Product purchaser, a Class Product owner, or a
Settlement Class Member, (iv) persons who acquired an
other-than-
new Class Product, (v) issuers or providers of extended
warranties
or service contracts for Class Products, and (vi) persons who
timely and validly exercise their right to be removed from the
Settlement class.
The Settlement Fund The Settlement provides for the establishment
of a Settlement Fund up to $2,000,000.00 for reimbursement of
out-of-pocket costs for the repair or replacement for a Display
Failure, Notice and Administration, Class Representative Awards of
$2,500, and Attorneys’ Fees and reimbursement of Costs of
$725,000, subject to Court approval.
Settlement Class Members fall into two distinct tiers with
significant options for relief. Any Settlement Class Member who
provides sufficient documentary Proof of Ownership and Proof of
Display Failure are entitled to reimbursement for out-of-pocket
costs and/or an Extended Service Plan for repair of the
Microwave/Ovens,
On Jan. 25, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs' unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of class action settlement between the
Plaintiffs and the Defendant.
On June 13, 2024, the Court held a Final Approval Hearing to
determine whether the Settlement should be fully approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate.
BSH offers dishwashers, washers, dryers, ovens, warming drawers,
and microwaves.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6G3kwo at no extra
charge.[CC]
BUTTERFLY EFFECTS: Gauzner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Butterfly Effects,
LLC. The case is styled as Jeelan Gauzner, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
Butterfly Effects, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0007090 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 14, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Butterfly Effects -- https://butterflyeffects.com/ -- provides
home-based therapy addressing the needs of children and families
affected by Autism Spectrum Disorder.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Phone: (818) 230-7502
Fax: (818) 230-7259
Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
CAPITAL ONE: Port Transferred to E.D. Virginia
----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Howard Port, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Capital One, N.A., Case No.
3:24-cv-01006 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia on June 13, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01028-DJN-LRV to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Dispute.
Capital One, National Association -- https://www.capitalone.com/ --
operates as a bank. The Bank offers financial products and services
such as personal and business checking, savings accounts,
investment, mortgages, issues credit card, business loans, and
commercial banking solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley Keith King, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
521 5th Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Phone (917) 336-0171
Fax: (917) 336-0177
Email: bking@ahdootwolfson.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Thomas J. Scrivo, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 556-2179
Email: tscrivo@kslaw.com
CELEBRITY HOME: Blake Appeals WARN Suit Dismissal to 7th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BLAKE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his
lawsuit entitled Michael Blake, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Celebrity Home Loans, LLC
& Celebrity Financial, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01839, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The lawsuit, which was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, was filed against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act and the Illinois Wage and Payment Collection Act.
The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted
through an Order entered by Judge Sara L. Ellis on Apr. 29, 2024.
The Court held that ultimately, it lacks specific personal
jurisdiction over Celebrity Financial, Inc. (CFI) because its
contacts with Celebrity Home Loans, LLC (CHL) did not relate to
Blake's injury and because fair play and substantial justice do not
demand this case be heard in an Illinois court. Because the Court
dismisses the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, it also
dismisses Blake's complaint without prejudice. The Court also
denied as moot Blake's motion for reconsideration of its prior
decision to retain jurisdiction instead of remanding the case to
state court.
The appellate case is captioned Michael Blake, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Celebrity Home Loans,
LLC & Celebrity Financial, Inc., Case No. 24-1984, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on June 6,
2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL BLAKE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Paul T. Geske, Esq.
Chandne Jawanda, Esq.
Joseph Dunklin, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 893-7002
Email: pgeske@mcgpc.com
Defendants-Appellees CELEBRITY HOME LOANS, LLC, et al. are
represented by:
Arthur R. Ehrlich, Esq.
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 815
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 332-6733
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Allen Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jimmy Allen, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Change Healthcare, Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-00263 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota on June 12, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02192-DWF-DJF to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Change Healthcare -- https://www.changehealthcare.com/ -- is a
provider of revenue and payment cycle management that connects
payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare
system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-7300
Fax: (612) 336-2940
Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
- and -
Emily E. Schiller, Esq.
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (931) 349-4237
Email: eschiller@stranchlaw.com
gstranch@stranchlaw.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe St., Ste. 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
William Peerce Howard, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
4030 Henderson Blvd
Tampa, FL 33609
Phone: (813) 500-1500
Fax: (813) 435-2369
Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
E. Todd Presnelle, Esq.
MILLER & MARTIN
150 4th Ave N Ste 1200
Nashville, TN 37219
Phone: (615) 244-9270
Email: tpresnell@millermartin.com
- and -
Kimberly Michelle Ingram-Hogan, Esq.
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP (NASHVILLE, TN OFFICE)
1221 Broadway, Suite 2400
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 252-3592
Email: kingram@bradley.com
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Reese Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Reese, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Change Healthcare, Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-00240 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota on June 13, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02190-DWF-DJF to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Change Healthcare -- https://www.changehealthcare.com/ -- is a
provider of revenue and payment cycle management that connects
payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare
system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Michael Iadevaia, Esq.
Emily Schiller, Esq.
BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC - NASHVILLE
223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Fax: (615) 250-3937
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
eschiller@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Amanda M. Rolon, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Phone: (212) 223-4478
Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
arolon@scott-scott.com
- and -
Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
1575 McFarland Road, Suite 305
Pittsburgh, PA 15216
Phone: (412) 391-5164
Fax: (412) 471-1033
Email: yateslaw@aol.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Alicia Paller, Esq.
Allison M. Ryan, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP (DC-NA)
555 13th St NW
Washington, DC 20004-1109
Phone: (202) 637-5600
Fax: (202) 637-5910
Email: alicia.paller@hoganlovells.com
allison.holt-ryan@hoganlovells.com
- and -
E. Todd Presnelle, Esq.
MILLER & MARTIN
150 4th Ave N Ste 1200
Nashville, TN 37219
Phone: (615) 244-9270
Email: tpresnell@millermartin.com
- and -
Kimberly Michelle Ingram-Hogan, Esq.
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP (NASHVILLE, TN OFFICE)
1221 Broadway, Suite 2400
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 252-3592
Email: kingram@bradley.com
- and -
Vassi Iliadis, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 785-4640
Email: vassi.iliadis@hoganlovells.com
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Stump Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jennifer Stump, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Change Healthcare, Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-00255 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota on June 13, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02191-DWF-DJF to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Change Healthcare -- https://www.changehealthcare.com/ -- is a
provider of revenue and payment cycle management that connects
payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare
system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Michael Iadevaia, Esq.
Emily Schiller, Esq.
223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
eschiller@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A Thomas, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Fax: (317) 636-2593
Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
908 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
The Defendant is represented by:
E. Todd Presnelle, Esq.
MILLER & MARTIN
150 4th Ave N Ste 1200
Nashville, TN 37219
Phone: (615) 244-9270
Email: tpresnell@millermartin.com
- and -
Kimberly Michelle Ingram-Hogan, Esq.
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP (NASHVILLE, TN OFFICE)
1221 Broadway, Suite 2400
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 252-3592
Email: kingram@bradley.com
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Surgical Partners Sues Over Unprotected Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
SURGICAL PARTNERS OF OKLAHOMA, PLLC, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE, INC., OPTUM,
INC., and UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, Case No. 5:24-cv-00625-D
(W.D. Okla., June 17, 2024) alleges that the Defendants failed to
secure and safeguard their information systems from a foreseeable
cyberattack.
On February 12, 2024, cybercriminals took advantage of weaknesses
in Change's cybersecurity processes to access its network. The
attack resulted in severe network interruptions and the seizure of
6 terabytes of crucial, confidential information, affecting
millions of patients and physicians.
According to the cybercriminal group responsible for the attack,
Blackcat, the stolen data included millions of records, such as
active US military/navy personnel Personal Identifiable Information
(PII), medical records, payment information, claims information,
patients' PII including phone numbers, addresses, Social Security
number, email addresses, and insurance records.
A publicly reported information notes that the Data Breach involved
a ransomware attack, wherein the cybercriminals accessed Change
Healthcare's systems and encrypted Change's data to hold it hostage
in seeking a ransom payment. It was reported that Change paid
Blackcat a ransom of 350 bitcoins, or approximately $22 million.
In response to the attack, Change disconnected its affected
systems, hamstringing providers and disrupting key operations such
as pharmacy orders, as providers have not been able to communicate
pharmacy prescriptions and pharmacies have been unable to verify
patient eligibility and coverage. As a result, patients with life
threatening diseases have been facing difficulty accessing
essential medications. However, the repercussions of the data
breach extend beyond patients to healthcare providers like the
Plaintiff, whose operations rely on Change's services for claims
processing, the suit alleges.
Surgical Partners is a professional service company organized in
the State of Oklahoma.
Change is a healthcare services and support company that provides
revenue and payment cycle management to healthcare providers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Sill, Esq.
Tara Tabatabaie, Esq.
SILL LAW GROUP, PLLC
1101 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 102
Oklahoma City, OK 73103
Telephone: (405) 509-6300
Facsimile: (800) 978-1345
CIGNA HEALTH: Whittemore Sues Over Disability Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE WHITTEMORE, on her own behalf and on behalf of similarly
situated others, Plaintiff v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00206-JCN (D. Maine, June 4,
2024) arises from the Defendant's categorical exclusion of
prescription medication for the treatment of obesity and the
resultant discrimination against people with the disability of
obesity, including Plaintiff.
According to the complaint, Cigna's semaglutide 1, marketed under
the brand names of Ozempic and Wegovy, tirzepatide, marketed under
the brand name Zepbound, and other prescription medications have
been shown to be remarkably effective at treating obesity. Despite
Cigna's recognition that the medications are medically necessary
and effective, it designs and administers health plans that exclude
coverage of these medications whenever they are sought to treat
obesity. Cigna does so without any medical or scientific basis and
contrary to its own internal medical policies, says the suit.
Plaintiff Whittemore is an enrollee in a Cigna-administered health
plan who was subjected to disability discrimination by Cigna
because she is diagnosed with obesity, a disabling health condition
that often requires medically necessary treatment with prescription
medications. Specifically, Cigna denied coverage of medically
necessary prescription medications prescribed for her because the
medications were prescribed to treat obesity and therefore excluded
under the terms of the health plan that Cigna designed and
administered, the Plaintiff asserts.
Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company is a health insurance
company and third-party administrator that is headquartered in
Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Neil Young, Esq.
Margaret O'Neil
SOLIDARITY LAW, PLLC
9 Longmeadow Road
Cumberland Foreside, ME 04110
Telephone: (207) 844-4243
E-mail: jyoung@solidaritylaw.com
moneil@solidaritylaw.com
- and -
Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
Daniel S. Gross, Esq.
SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (206) 223-0303
Facsimile: (206) 223-0246
E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com
rspoonemore@sylaw.com
dgross@sylaw.com
- and -
Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
CLEER INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Agostini Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUNIQUE AGOSTINI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Cleer, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04600 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.
By failing to make the website accessible to blind persons, the
Defendant is violating basic equal access requirements under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Based in San Diego, CA, Cleer, Inc. manufactures earbuds,
headphones, and smart speakers. The company owns and operates the
website, www.Cleeraudio.com, which provides consumers with access
to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view
and purchase audio products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIELA. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
COLUMBUS REGIONAL: $2MM Settlement in Goodman Suit Gets Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA GOODMAN, LISA
COUNTRYMAN, SHARON CLARKE, CHERYL GALLOPS, SHERRI STUCKEY, and
LAUREN SPIVEY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. COLUMBUS REGIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., Case No.
4:21-cv-00015-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Clay Land entered an
order:
-- approving the settlement with a total settlement amount of $2
million that shall be allocated as follows:
(a) $1,103,018.05 to Class Members under the Plan of
Allocation,
(b) settlement administration fees of $55,000,
(c) Class Counsel attorneys' fees of $666,666.66, and
(d) Class Counsel's expenses of $175,315.29; and
-- approving establishment of a cypres fund for unclaimed
settlement
funds, provided that the unclaimed funds do not exceed
$75,000.
The Plaintiffs moved to certify the following Class:
"All persons who were participants or beneficiaries in the
Columbus Regional Healthcare System Retirement Savings Plan
(the
"Plan") and had account balances in the Plan as of Feb. 2, 2015
or
after, through the termination of the Plan."
The Plaintiffs brought this action alleging, among other claims,
that Columbus Regional breached its fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. section 1001 et
seq. ("ERISA") by failing to prudently monitor and control the
Plan's investment options, investment expenses and administrative
expenses
Columbus provides a full range of medical services, including a
Level III trauma center, outpatient labs, diagnostic testing and
surgery services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pAmtWx at no extra
charge.[CC]
COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Rosen Law Probes Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an
investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Comtech Telecommunications Corp. (NASDAQ: CMTL)
resulting from allegations that Comtech may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
So what: If you purchased Comtech securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=26388 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
What is this about: On March 13, 2024, Comtech filed with the SEC a
current report on Form 8-K. In this 8-K, Comtech announced that on
March 12, 2024, "the Board of Directors (the "Board of Directors")
of [Comtech Telecommunications Corp.] terminated Ken Peterman as
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company for cause due
to conduct unrelated to Comtech's business strategy, financial
results or previously filed financial statements. Upon termination
of his employment, Mr. Peterman was deemed to have resigned from
his position as Chairman of the Board of Directors and as a
director pursuant to his employment contract."
On this news, Comtech stock fell 27% on March 13, 2024.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Class Suit Over Online Product Mark Ups
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Action, reports that Costco
class action claims retailer marks up online products.
Costco online class action overview:
Who: Plaintiff Annie Song, a Costco member, is suing the wholesale
retailer.
Why: Song claims the company falsely promises that it will disclose
to consumers if items are cheaper in store than online on its
website.
Where: The Costco online class action lawsuit was filed in a
Washington federal court.
A new class action lawsuit claims that Costco lies to customers
when it claims it will always disclose when a product is more
expensive on its website than in stores.
Plaintiff Annie Song filed the proposed class action lawsuit
against Costco Wholesale Corp. on June 12 in a Washington federal
court alleging violations of state consumer laws.
Song, a Costco member, claims the company deceptively marks up
products sold online at Costco.com, and fails to disclose this to
consumers. She says that, on its website, Costco "explicitly
promises" consumers it will disclose whenever a product is more
expensive online than the same product offered for sale in-store.
"Despite its express representation, Costco routinely omits this
material message and fails to disclose to consumers in those
instances that they will be paying more for a product sold on
Costco.com than if they had purchased the same exact product
in-store at their local Costco Warehouse," Song alleges.
Song says she placed an order for two-day delivery on Costco.com
for various personal items that came to the total price of $145.52
in January.
She says none of the products she bought in her order included the
disclosure that they might be available at her Costco store at a
lower price. However, Song now believes that several of the
products she purchased on Costco.com for delivery were actually
more expensive than if she had purchased the exact same items
in-store.
For example, Song bought a 30-Roll Count of Charmin Ultra Soft Bath
Tissue for $33.49. At no point during her transaction on Costco.com
did Costco disclose that the toilet paper might be available
in-store at a cheaper price, she says.
"However, the exact same 30-Roll Count of Charmin Ultra Soft Bath
Tissue that Plaintiff purchased online cost only $29.99 at the
Costco warehouse," she says.
Costco gains an unfair upper hand on competitors, lawsuit says.
Song says she would not have made the online purchase if she had
known that she could purchase the exact same toilet paper in-store
for approximately $4 less than what she paid online. She says
Costco fails to uphold its promise to consumers by "fraudulently
omitting" its online product mark-up.
"By failing to disclose the truth to consumers about its online
product mark-up practices and the substantial price differential
between identical items sold online and in-store, Costco deceives
consumers and gains an unfair upper hand on competitors that fairly
disclose their true pricing practices online," Song says.
As a result, she's looking to represent anyone who made a purchase
for delivery through the Costco mobile app or website and paid more
for a product than was charged by Costco for the same product
in-store when the online product page did not contain a disclosure
warning consumers that the item may be available in-store for a
lower price.
Song is suing for violations of state consumer laws and seeks
certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury
trial.
Meanwhile, last week, Costco issued a recall for a pair of
Tillamook cheeses after gray and black plastic pieces were
discovered in a limited quantity of the products.
The plaintiff and the proposed class are represented by Kim D.
Stephens and Cecily C. Jordan of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC and
Sophia G. Gold and Jeffrey D. Kaliel if KalielGold PLLC.
The Costco mark-up class action lawsuit is Annie Song v. Costco
Wholesale Corp., Case 2:24-cv-00845 in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington. [GN]
CREDIT UNION: Court Strikes Schedule in Lucero Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brenda Lucero, et al., v.
Credit Union Retirement Plan Association, et al., Case No.
3:22-cv-00208 (W.D. Wisc., Filed April 12, 2022), the Hon. Judge
James D. Peterson entered an order:
-- granting the parties' request to strike schedule, and
-- denying as moot the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The parties may have until August 2 to file their preliminary
approval motion. The parties should explain in that motion why it
is appropriate to certify a settlement class after the court
previously denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The parties have notified the court that they have reached a
settlement, and they ask the court to strike the remaining
deadlines while they prepare their motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which
they say they will file by August 2.
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) involving breach of fiduciary duties.[CC]
CROUSE HEALTH: Addison Sues Over Data Security Failures
-------------------------------------------------------
SHERRI ADDISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CROUSE HEALTH HOSPITAL, INC. and PERRY
JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00782-AMN-CFH (N.D.N.Y., June 17, 2024) arises out of the
data breach incidents that occurred between March 27, 2023, and May
2, 2023.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' computer systems
contained private information of nearly nine million people
affected by the data breach due to Defendants' failure to implement
adequate and reasonable data security measures to safeguard the
private information and comply with Healthcare Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. After the data breach,
Defendants also failed to provide timely notice to the affected
Plaintiff and the other members of the Class and New York Subclass
-- thereby exacerbating their injuries. Moreover, when they
notified the data breach victims, Defendants failed adequately
describe the data breach and its effects, says the suit.
Headquartered at 736 Irving Avenue, Syracuse, NY, Crouse Health
Hospital is licensed for 506 acute-care adult beds and 57
bassinets. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell M.Z. Twersky, Esq.
ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
450 Seventh Avenue, 38th Floor
New York NY 10123
Telephone: (212) 279-5050
Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
E-mail: mtwersky@aftlaw.com
- and -
Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
9440 Santa Monica Blvd.
Bank of America Building, Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 279-5125
E-mail: pbishop@aftlaw.com
- and -
Jean Martin, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N Franklin St, 7th Floor,
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 559-4908
Facsimile: (813) 222-4795
E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com
CROWN LABORATORIES: Flores Suit Transferred to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Angela Flores and Holly Grossenbacher,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CROWN LABORATORIES, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00211 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on June 14, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-03591-EMC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability.
Crown Laboratories -- https://www.crownlaboratories.com/ -- is a
fully integrated specialty pharmaceutical company offering Consumer
Healthcare Products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Melody R. Dickson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 701-1100
Fax (816) 531-2372
Email: tcartmell@wcllp.com
mdickson@wcllp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Nicole R. Marcotte, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
333 W Wolf Point Plaza
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: (312) 862-1259
Email: nikki.marcotte@kirkland.com
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Barnes Suit Seeks Hybrid Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAKEL BARNES, et al., v.
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00750-RCL
(D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
-- granting hybrid class certification to the Plaintiffs' proposed
class consisting of:
"all residents of the District of Columbia between the ages of
18 and 24 who: (a) are incarcerated in the Bureau of Prisons
("BOP") as D.C. Code offenders and are currently entitled to
receive special education and/or related services pursuant to
the
Individuals with Disabilities Act ("IDEA") and its federal and
local implementing regulations; (b) are or were incarcerated in
the BOP as D.C. Code offenders and were entitled to receive
special education and/or related services pursuant to the IDEA
and
its federal and local implementing regulations and District
law,
but have since aged out of eligibility; or (c) will be
incarcerated in the BOP as D.C. Code offenders and are entitled
to
receive special education and/or related services pursuant to
the
IDEA and its federal and local implementing regulations and
District law, and do not, did not, or will not, receive special
education and/or related services pursuant to the IDEA and its
federal and local implementing regulations and District law
while
incarcerated in the BOP";
-- appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of the class; and
-- appointing the School Justice Project, the Washington Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, and Nixon Peabody
LLP as class counsel.
District of Collumbia is a compact city on the Potomac River,
bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iIJQy3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian Whittaker, Esq.
Martha Medina, Esq.
NIXON PEABODY LLP
799 9th Street NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 585-8000
E-mail: bwhittaker@nixonpeabody.com
mmedina@nixonpeabody.com
- and -
Tayo Belle, Esq.
SCHOOL JUSTICE PROJECT
641 S Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 630-9969
E-mail: tbelle@sjpdc.org
- and -
Kaitlin Banner, Esq.
Marja K. Plater, Esq.
WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL
RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS
700 14th Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 319-1000
E-mail: kaitlin_banner@washlaw.org
marja_plater@washlaw.org
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Robertson Seeks More Time to File Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL ROBERTSON, on
behalf of herself and her minor child D.R. et al.; v. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:24-cv-00656-PLF (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order granting a one-week extension to file a
reply in support of their motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiffs' current deadline to reply to Defendant's opposition
is June 14, 2024. Plaintiffs request that deadline be extended
until June 21, 2024. The Defendant consents to this request.
Good cause exists to grant a one week extension, which would
provide Plaintiffs with five additional business days in which to
reply to Defendant's substantial response. Granting this extension
would provide Plaintiffs with a total of 9 business days to reply
to Defendant's response. The requested extension would not unduly
delay resolution of this matter.
If the Court grants the requested extension, the class
certification issue will be fully briefed two and a half weeks
prior to the July 10, 2024 hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction.
The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on May 3,
2024.
District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River,
bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3P1Uzd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kaitlin R. Banner, Esq.
Chelsea Sullivan, Esq.
WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR
CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS
700 14th Street, N.W., Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 319-1000
E-mail: kaitlin_banner@washlaw.org
margaret_hart@washlaw.org
chelsea_sullivan@washlaw.org
- and -
Katherine Zeisel, Esq.
CHILDREN'S LAW CENTER
501 3rd St, NW, 8th Floor
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 267-4900
E-mail: zeisel@childrenslawcenter.org
- and -
Margaret H. Warner, Esq.
Theodore E. Alexander, Esq.
Christopher M. Shoemaker, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
500 North Capitol Street NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 756-8400
E-mail: mwarner@mwe.com
talexander@mwe.com
cshoemaker@mwe.com
- and -
Shira Wakschlag, Esq.
Evan Monod, Esq.
THE ARC OF THE UNITED STATES
2000 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 534-3708
E-mail: wakschlag@thearc.org
monod@thearc.org
DUFRESNE SPENCER: Parker Sues Over 2023 Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that the Dufresne Spencer
Group, which does business as Ashley Furniture HomeStore, faces a
proposed class action lawsuit that alleges a 2023 data breach
stemmed from the company's cybersecurity failures.
The 34-page data breach lawsuit says that an unauthorized third
party gained access to the furniture store chain's computer systems
between May 15 and June 5, 2023. According to the case, customers'
names, dates of birth, driver's license details, banking
information, digital signatures and other sensitive data were
stolen by cybercriminals during the incident.
Notably, it wasn't until January 15, 2024 that the company detected
the intrusion, the complaint points out.
The filing contends that the Ashley Furniture data breach could
have been prevented or, at the very least, discovered sooner had
the defendant implemented reasonable cybersecurity measures.
Affected individuals now face serious personal, social and
financial ramifications due to Ashley Furniture's negligence, the
suit claims.
"Indeed, the reason why criminals steal information is to monetize
it," the lawsuit says. "They do this by selling the spoils of their
cyberattacks on the black market to identity thieves who desire to
extort and harass victims or to take over victims' identities in
order to engage in illegal financial transactions under the
victims' names."
The case also takes issue with the "generic letter" Ashley
Furniture sent data breach victims around May 7 of this year. Per
the complaint, the notice failed to provide impacted customers with
any meaningful support in the wake of the data breach beyond a
one-year offer of credit monitoring and identity theft protection
services.
"There has been no assurance offered by [the defendant] that all
personal data or copies of data have been recovered or destroyed,
or that it has adequately enhanced its data security practices
sufficiently to avoid a similar breach of its network in the
future," the suit reads.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone whose private information was
compromised in the Ashley Furniture data breach between May 15 and
June 5, 2023 and received a notice letter sent by or on behalf of
the defendant. [GN]
ENVISION MANAGEMENT: Allowed to File Class Cert Supplemental Memo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Harrison v. Envision
Management Holding, Inc. Board of Directors, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-00304 (D. Colo., Filed Jan. 29, 2021), the Hon. Judge
Charlotte N. Sweeney entered an order granting Motion for leave to
file supplemental memorandum in opposition to the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.
-- The Court directs the that Defendants Darrel Creps, III, Jeff
Jones, Tanweer Kahn, and Paul Sherwood file their opposition
brief
to the Motion as well as the accompanying exhibits by end of
business today.
The Court will permit the Plaintiffs to file a 10-page reply brief
on or before 7/9/2024. By Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney on 6/13/2024.
Text Only Entry(cnsja, )
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).[CC]
ENVISION MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Reply Filing Extended to July 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Harrison v. Envision
Management Holding, Inc. Board of Directors, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-00304 (D .Colo., Filed Jan. 29, 2021), the Hon. Judge
Charlotte N. Sweeney entered an order granting joint motion to
extend two case deadlines.
1) The Court extends the parties' deadline for affirmative
expert
disclosures to June 28, 2024.
2) The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply brief in support of
their motion for class certification is extended to July 9,
2024.
The suit alleges violation of Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).[CC]
FARMERS EDGE: Investors Asks Court to Certify IPO Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Geralyn Wichers, writing for Canadian Cattlemen, reports that
former investors in Manitoba-based ag tech firm Farmers Edge have
asked the B.C. Supreme Court to certify a class action lawsuit
against the company, former leaders and its main shareholder.
Vancouver resident Willson Leung and Ottawa resident Philippe
Golin, both identified as former shareholders in Farmers Edge,
filed the suit on February 22.
Farmers Edge is a digital agronomy firm that offers services such
as variable rate nutrition management and FarmCommand, a data
management and analytics platform.
Farmers Edge, founder and former CEO Wade Barnes, former chief
financial officer David Patrick, Fairfax Financial Holdings and
several financial underwriters are named in the suit asking for a
combined total of $270 million in damages.
"Defendants misrepresented material facts about the Company's
business. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of FE
securityholders who suffered losses as a result of these
misrepresentations in the primary and secondary market for FE
securities," says the statement of claim.
None of the allegations have been proven in court. No statements of
defense have been filed.
The statement of claim says the company was heavily indebted via
debentures owed to Fairfax, its major shareholder, and was unable
to secure additional capital at the time it launched its initial
public offering in March 2021.
It also alleges that it overstated the number of partnerships and
the nature of the relationships it had with companies that it said
would assist in marketing or promoting the company's products to
farmers.
It further alleges that Farmers Edge misrepresented its income from
farmer subscriptions to its products.
In its IPO, Farmers Edge sold nearly 7.4 million shares at $17 per
share for total gross proceeds of about $125 million, according to
a company news release.
On the day the company went public in March 2021, Barnes told media
the company would use the new funding -- totalling a little over
$125 million -- to build on its vision of digital farming.
"We'll be scaling up our teams to grow the business," he said.
"We'll also be developing new products."
However, share prices dropped steadily and the company was beset by
financial woes. Barnes left the company in early 2022. In August
2023, it announced it was laying off 20 per cent of its workforce
and consolidating operations in North America.
At the beginning of 2024, Farmers Edge inked a deal with Fairfax to
sell all common shares for 35 cents apiece -- at the time, Fairfax
owned 61 per cent of the company's shares -- and to take the
company private again. [GN]
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Williams Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
TALEYIA WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, INC., Case
No. 2:24-cv-02642 (E.D. Pa., June 17, 2024) sues the Defendant for
its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and
other similarly situated customers of the Defendant's clients
personally identifiable information from cybercriminals.
On Feb. 26, 2024, the Defendant "discovered unauthorized access to
certain systems in its network." The compromised PII includes
names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and account
information. Since then FBCS has disclosed that the number of
affected victims is over 3.2 million people. Despite discovering
the Data Breach on Feb. 14, 2024, the Defendant did not disclose
the full scope of the Data Breach, or the information impacted,
until May 29, 2024, says the suit.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to
implement and to follow basic security procedures, the Plaintiff
and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and
certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, and similar
forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last for the rest of
their lives.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff and Class Members have also suffered
concrete injuries including lost or diminished value of PII, lost
time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate
the actual consequences of the Data Breach, loss of benefit of the
bargain, lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to
mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach, and actual
misuse of the compromised data consisting of an increase in spam
calls, texts, and/or emails.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, therefore brings claims for negligence, breach of implied
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, violations
of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment.
The Plaintiff further seeks damages and injunctive relief,
including the adoption of reasonably necessary and appropriate data
security practices to safeguard the PII in the Defendant's custody
in order to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from occurring
in the future.
The Defendant is "a nationally licensed and bonded collection
agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Costa, Esq.
FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK R.P.C.
One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 567-6565
Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
E-mail: pcosta@finekaplan.com
- and -
David S. Almeida, Esq.
Elena A. Belov, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (312) 576-3024
E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com
elena@almeidalawgroup.com
FLAGGE CONTRACTING: Appeals Judgment in Sarmiento Suit
------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ MONTEIRO is taking an appeal from a court judgment
in the lawsuit entitled Luis Alberto Espinoza Sarmiento, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Flagge Contracting Inc., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-09718, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
On Sept. 7, 2023, Magistrate Judge James L. Cott filed a report and
recommendation (R&R) for this case, which the Court adopted in its
entirety through an Order entered by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on
May 1, 2024. Judgment was entered in favor of the Plaintiffs
against the Defendants in the amount of $942,648.26.
The appellate case is captioned Espinoza Sarmiento v. Rodriguez
Monteiro, Case No. 24-1530, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on June 6, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees LUIS ALBERTO ESPINOZA SARMIENTO, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
James Patrick Peter O'Donnell, Esq.
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Defendant-Appellant MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ MONTEIRO is represented by:
George Sitaras, Esq.
SITARAS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
200 Liberty Street, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10281
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Boorman Sues Over Unprotected Private Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD BOORMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS PARENT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01492-N (N.D. Tex., June 17, 2024)
arises from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of
consumers' sensitive information in the possession and custody
and/or control of Defendant and asserts claims for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment,
breach of fiduciary, and intrusion upon seclusion/invasion of
privacy.
The data breach, which occurred in April 14, 2024, resulted in the
unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of current and
former consumers' highly personal information, including full
names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. However,
Frontier waited two months before informing Class Members about the
data breach, even though Plaintiff and a staggering 75,895 Class
Members had their most sensitive personal information accessed,
exfiltrated, and stolen, causing them to suffer ascertainable
losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain and
the value of their uncompensated time reasonably incurred to remedy
or mitigate the effects of the attack. In addition, the Defendant's
breach notice obfuscated the nature of the breach and the threat it
posted--refusing to tell its consumers how many people were
impacted, how the breach happened on Frontier's systems, or why it
took Frontier two months to begin notifying victims that hackers
had gained access to highly private personally identifiable
information, says the suit.
Headquartered in Dallas, TX, Frontier Communications Parent Inc.
provides fiber internet, TV & phone services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
GRITSTONE BIO: Beal Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY BEAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRITSTONE BIO, INC., ANDREW R. ALLEN, and
VASSILIKI ECONOMIDES, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-03640-CRB (N.D.
Cal., June 17, 2024) seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5.
The Plaintiff bring this securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than the
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Gritstone
securities between March 9, 2023 and February 29, 2024, both dates
inclusive. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Gritstone's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Gritstone would be unable to launch the
Phase 2b CORAL Study in the timeframe it had represented to
investors; (ii) the foregoing would impair Gritstone's ability to
obtain external funding in connection with the Study, thereby
negatively affecting Gritstone's ability to maintain its balance
sheet and cash position; (iii) accordingly, Gritstone overstated
its ability to successfully develop and commercialize its products;
(iv) as a result, the Gritstone's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times, says the suit.
Headquartered in Emeryville, CA, Gritstone is a clinical-stage
biotechnology company that engages in developing vaccine-based
immunotherapy candidates against cancer and infectious diseases.
Its common stock trades in an efficient market on the Nasdaq Global
Select Market under the ticker symbol "GRTS". [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Wins Class Lawsuit Over 'Right to Repair'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Power Sports Business reports that according to reports, a judge
has dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit against
Harley-Davidson. The lawsuit claims the company imposed unlawful
restrictions on customers that boosted the cost of repairs.
U.S. District Judge William Griesbach in Green Bay, Wisconsin,
recently ruled against 15 individual consumers who bought
Harley-Davidson motorcycles between 2016 and 2022.
The consumers claimed Harley-Davidson illegally tied the sale of
its motorcycles and factory warranties to the requirement that
buyers use only the company's branded parts through authorized
dealers. The lawsuit alleged violations of antitrust and warranty
laws.
The judge says the plaintiffs can file an amended lawsuit within 30
days.
In their lawsuit, the Harley owners challenged the company's
limited warranty provision, which stated that using unauthorized
parts "may void" the warranty.
Harley-Davidson claims the provision does not say the company will
void a warranty for using aftermarket parts but says it may enforce
it if necessary.
The plaintiffs said Harley-Davidson acted "impermissibly," putting
Harley owners in the position of guessing whether they would lose
valuable warranty coverage by using the "wrong" parts.
Griesbach sided with Harley-Davidson on the warranty provision and
concluded that Harley-Davidson had not tied the sale of its
motorcycles to the use of branded parts.
The judge wrote that the consumers had not alleged they were
"precluded" from buying a motorcycle without agreeing to purchase
Harley-Davidson parts.
In 2022, Harley-Davidson agreed to resolve an FTC case accusing the
company of illegally curtailing buyers' repair rights.
In the FTC settlement, Harley said it would not void warranties for
customers who had used authorized service centers or third-party
parts.
Harley did not admit liability in agreeing to settle. The company
claims its resolution of that case has no bearing on the private
civil lawsuit. [GN]
HYUNDAI MOTORS: Agrees to Settlement Engine Failure Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Fist, writing for DRIVE, reports that 0wners of around four
million Hyundai and Kia vehicles in the US will be entitled to
compensation after a court settlement was reached with the two car
brands over a number of their models affected by potential engine
issues.
A class action lawsuit was mounted in the US alleging that certain
Hyundai and Kia models have engines which are prone to seizure,
stalling, failure, and possibly catching fire -- as well as
claiming that some of those who bought or leased these vehicles
were unfairly denied repairs under warranty.
A similar action thought to impact as many as half a million
Australian cars is still underway after being lodged in February
2023.
According to US site Carscoops, a settlement has now been reached
for those involved in the US class action ahead of trial to avoid
the need for a lengthy legal battle.
The scale of compensation has not yet been disclosed, it says, but
owners will be entitled to receive reimbursement for out-of-pocket
repair expenses, and indeed all out-of-pocket expenses if their
vehicle's engine failed or caught fire -- including all
transportation, towing, food, and lodging costs incurred as a
result.
In addition, there will be cash compensation given under certain
circumstances for trade-ins and sales of unrepaired vehicles which
experienced a qualifying engine repair or fire.
Beyond this, says Carscoops, Hyundai and Kia owners will receive
compensation for cars destroyed by fire, plus an additional $150
goodwill payment, and rebates for those who have “lost faith”
in their vehicles.
In order to be eligible for a payout, owners of affected vehicles
must submit their claim by 8 July 2024.
Meanwhile, the Australian class action, which is said to involve up
to 500,000 owners, is still ongoing after being lodged by Sydney
firm Johnson Winter Slattery in the Federal Court early last year.
As in the US, customers can sign up to the class action whether or
not their car has experienced an engine failure or caught fire --
and could be awarded compensation if it wins.
The class action covers certain Hyundai and Kia models fitted with
the 1.6-litre, 2.0-litre, and 2.4-litre petrol engines.
The issue, it is claimed, involves the vehicles; making knocking or
tapping sounds, internal damage being caused to the engine,
increased oil and/or fuel consumption, a sudden loss of power
(including while driving) and engine failure, and smoke coming from
the engine compartment -- as well as, in some cases, fire.
Thirteen Hyundai models are listed as part of the class action,
including vehicles built from 2007 to the present day, while Kia
has nine affected models -- manufactured from 2009 to now.
While the applicants will be represented by Johnson Winter
Slattery, the class action is being funded by London-based legal
organisation Woodsford.
While representatives of the two car brands were unable to comment
at this stage due to the ongoing legal proceedings, both brands
lodged their defences with the Federal Court of Australia in July
2023.
In its defence, Kia admitted that a small number of Kia Optima and
Sorento vehicles were subject to a manufacturing process in which
there was risk that excessive swarf would remain in the crankshaft
assembly.
Kia says that it recalled all of those vehicles so that they could
be inspected and any engine affected could be replaced.
Additionally, it admitted that the engines in a small number of Kia
Seltos vehicles were also manufactured using brittle piston rings.
Kia says that it too recalled all of those vehicles so that they
could be inspected and any engine found to contain cracks in the
piston rings leading to scuffing of the cylinder bores could be
swapped.
According to Kia's filings, it admits that until they were
repaired, the Optima, Sorento, and Seltos vehicles involved did not
comply with the statutory warranty of acceptable quality, and did
not comply with the express warranties pleaded in the claim.
It also accepts that it made misleading or deceptive
representations that these cars were of ‘good quality, reliable,
durable, fit for purpose and safe'.
Similarly, in its own defence, Hyundai said a small number of i45
and Santa Fe models were affected by the same swarf defect Kia
referred to, and a low number of Konas and Velosters had the same
piston ring problem -- which was resolved in the same way.
Additionally, Hyundai admits that defective software was installed
in a small number of Velosters, which were later recalled and all
of those vehicles were updated or the software replaced.
However, both Kia and Hyundai contend that owners are not entitled
to damages because they have remedied the issues, and any failure
in relation to the piston rings occurred only because of the act,
default or omission of the supplier of the piston rings; and other
than in respect of the small number of cars referred to above, both
deny all of the allegations.
Owners of potentially affected vehicles can register their details
at www.hyundaiengineclassaction.com.au (for Hyundai vehicles) or
www.kiaengineclassaction.com.au (for Kia vehicles). [GN]
ICP CONSTRUCTION: Blumenthal Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ICP Construction,
Inc. The case is styled as Ryan Blumenthal, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. ICP Construction, Inc., Case
No. 1:24-cv-04212 (E.D.N.Y., June 13, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.
ICP Construction, Inc. -- https://www.icpgroup.com/ -- provides
paints. The Company manufactures specialty coatings, adhesives, and
sealants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Harris Markowitz, Esq.
SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Phone: (845) 483-7100
Fax: (888) 749-7747
Email: markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com
J & L GAME: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Trippett Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. J & L Game, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04267 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 17, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website, "Jnlgame.com," to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired persons, under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The suit contends that the Defendant is denying blind and visually
impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to
services J & L Game provides to their non-disabled customers
through its website. Despite readily available accessible
technology, such as the technology in use at other heavily
trafficked websites, which makes use of alternative text,
accessible forms, descriptive links, resizable text and limits the
usage of tables and JavaScript, the Defendant has chosen to rely on
an exclusively visual interface. J & L Game's sighted customers can
independently browse and learn
more information about the company and its services without the
assistance of others. However, blind persons must rely on sighted
companions to assist them in accessing Jnlgame.com, the suit
alleges.
On May 3, 2024, the Plaintiff has made an attempt to visit and use
Jnlgame.com, but was unable to do so independently because of the
many access barriers on Defendant's website. Amongst other access
barriers experienced, the Plaintiff was unable to learn more
information about store location and hours of operation, compare
prices and benefits and learn more information about the goods and
services in its physical location.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in J &
L Game's policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Defendant’s website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks
compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been
subjected to unlawful discrimination.
J & L Game provides to the public a website known as Jnlgame.com
which provides consumers with access to an array of video games and
related accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces New Class Suit Over Talc's Product Safety
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for yahoo!finance, reports that Johnson &
Johnson is facing a new proposed class action seeking damages and
medical monitoring on behalf of women who have been diagnosed with
cancer, or might develop it in the future, allegedly as a result of
using the company's baby powder and other talc products.
The lawsuit, filed in New Jersey federal court, is the first to
seek medical monitoring, or regular testing meant to catch cancer
early, on behalf of talc users. The proposed class could include
thousands of women, but would not include the more than 61,000
people who have already filed personal injury lawsuits over J&J's
talc, claiming it contains cancer-causing asbestos.
J&J maintains its talc is safe, asbestos-free and does not cause
cancer.
The law firms behind the new case are opposed to J&J's proposal to
settle nearly all talc claims against it for $6.48 billion through
a prepackaged bankruptcy. The same firms are also pursuing a
separate class action seeking a court order blocking the
bankruptcy.
The bankruptcy proposal needs support from 75% of talc claimants,
with a three-month voting period ending on July 26.
Erik Haas, J&J's worldwide vice president of litigation, said in a
statement that plaintiffs' lawyers "meritless" lawsuit to thwart
the bankruptcy plan because they can collect more fees outside of
bankruptcy, putting their own interests ahead of their clients.
"The plaintiff firms should cease the obstructionist behavior, and
let their clients decide for themselves whether to accept the
pending offer," he said.
Lawyers opposed to the deal have denied that they are motivated by
higher fees and said the bankruptcy proposal would not adequately
compensate their clients.
Chris Tisi, one of the lawyers bringing the new lawsuit, said in a
statement that medical monitoring was necessary because the
"inadequate funding" of the bankruptcy plan "doesn't realistically
address the needs of women who could develop ovarian cancer in the
future because of past baby powder use."
Both the proposed settlement and the new class action concern
claims that talc caused ovarian and other gynecological cancers,
which make up the vast majority of cases. A smaller number of
claims have been brought by people who developed mesothelioma, most
of which have settled.
J&J has already tried and failed twice to resolve current and
future talc claims through bankruptcy.
The legal strategy, known as a Texas two-step, involves creating a
subsidiary to absorb the company's talc liability, which then
declares bankruptcy to settle the cases. The previous efforts
failed because courts found that the new subsidiary lacked the
"financial distress" to justify bankruptcy. [GN]
KAISER FOUNDATION: Illegally Collects Personal Info, Sutter Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS SUTTER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC.
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-03352 (N.D. Cal., June 4, 2024) seeks
legal redress for Defendant's conscious decision to install
tracking technologies on its website and mobile applications to
collect its patients' personal health information and disclose that
highly sensitive information to third party platforms like
Microsoft, Facebook and Google without consent.
According to the complaint, the Defendant disregarded the privacy
rights of its patients who used its Website and Apps by installing,
configuring and using tracking technologies on its Website and Apps
to collect and divulge their personally identifiable information
and protected health information to Meta Platform Inc. d/b/a
Facebook and other technology companies.
Unbeknownst to Users and without their authorization or informed
consent, the Defendant installed invisible third-party tracking
technology on its Website and Apps in order to intercept Users' PII
and PHI with the express purpose of disclosing that Private
Information to third parties such as Meta and/or Google LLC in
violation of HIPAA Privacy Rule and 42 U.S.C. Section 1320d-6 as
well as state, federal and common law, says the suit.
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. is a not-for-profit healthcare
organization associated with the Kaiser Permanente brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Mackey, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT MACKEY
16320 Murphy Road
Sonora, CA 95370
Telephone: (412) 370-9110
E-mail: bobmackeyesq@aol.com
- and -
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street NE, No. 302
Washington, DC, 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
LOS ANGELES, CA: Castro Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jesus Castro, individually and on behalf of
other individuals similarly situated v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a
municipal corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV08784 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
June 12, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04961.
The Plaintiff also alleges state law claims in the first and third
causes of action of the Complaint for Unpaid Minimum Wages in
violation of the Labor Code and Unlawful or Unfair Competition in
violation of Business and Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Hydee Feldstein Soto, Esq.
Denise C. Mills, Esq.
Kathleen Kenealy, Esq.
Aneta Freeman, Esq.
Brian Levine, Esq.
200 North Main Street, City Hall East – 7th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: 213.978.8200
Fax: 213.978.8216
Email: b.levine@lacity.org
LOS ANGELES, CA: Depillars Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Depillars, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. TREK BICYCLE CORPORATION, Case No.
24STCV11873 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
June 13, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04988.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following causes of action:
Violations of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, California
Civil Code section 51, et seq.; Violations of the California
Disabled Persons Act, California Civil Code section 54.1, et seq.;
and Violations of the California Civil Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Shane Singh, Esq.
Grace E. Mehta, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700
Sacramento, California 95833
Phone: 916.564.5400
Facsimile: 916.564.5444
Email: Shane.Singh@lewisbrisbois.com
Grace.Mehta@lewisbrisbois.com
MAPLE LEAF: Court OKs Clarifying Affidavit in Price Fixing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the Quebec
Superior Court ruled on a class action application alleging a
price-fixing conspiracy, approving one company's request to file a
clarifying affidavit but denying another's broader evidence
submission, stressing the need for relevant evidence at the
authorization stage.
Elias Karras filed a class action application and sought
authorization to represent Quebec residents who purchased certain
meat products. The application alleged a price-fixing conspiracy
involving Maple Leaf Foods Inc. and other defendants, based on an
email dated March 22, 2007, sent by Michael McCain of Maple Leaf
Foods. This email surfaced during the Competition Bureau's
investigation into the "bread cartel."
Karras claimed the defendants participated in a price-fixing scheme
for the meat products mentioned in the email. Wal-Mart Canada Corp.
and Maple Leaf Foods filed applications under Article 574 of the
Code of Civil Procedure to submit additional evidence.
Wal-Mart sought to file a sworn statement by Joanna Gallagher, vice
president at Wal-Mart Canada, to clarify inaccuracies regarding a
Walmart employee's involvement in the alleged conspiracy. Maple
Leaf Foods wanted to submit a sworn statement by their attorney,
Nathalie Grand'Pierre, along with several exhibits to counter the
allegations.
The Superior Court approved Wal-Mart's request to file the
Gallagher Affidavit, which aims to correct the misinformation in
the application. Although Karras did not oppose this affidavit, the
court emphasized its importance in verifying the authorization
criteria. The court permitted Karras to cross-examine Gallagher,
limiting the deposition to one hour and allowing it to occur via
videoconference or in person.
Conversely, the court denied Maple Leaf's request to file the
Grand'Pierre Affidavit, stating it fell outside the permissible
scope of evidence at the authorization stage. The court highlighted
that the affidavit contained internet searches and legal arguments
that did not fit the criteria for necessary and relevant evidence.
However, the court allowed Maple Leaf to file certain public
documents related to the case, provided they were submitted only to
establish their existence and public availability.
The court reiterated the principles guiding the submission of
evidence at the class action authorization stage, emphasizing that
such evidence must be limited, proportionate, and relevant to the
criteria outlined in Article 575 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The decision underscored the court's role in preventing the
authorization phase from becoming a full-fledged trial, focusing
instead on screening for cases that meet the necessary threshold
for proceeding as a class action. [GN]
MARINER FINANCE: Wilson Suit Seeks Enforcement of Discharge Orders
------------------------------------------------------------------
CLEVELAND CORNELL WILSON, BERNADETTE ONITA BROWN, and JAQUELINE
RENA GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MARINER FINANCE NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Case No.
4:24-cv-00088-BO (E.D.N.C., June 17, 2024) is an action to enforce
the Bankruptcy Court's discharge orders entered in favor of the
Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant has willfully chosen not
to comply with the Bankruptcy Court's orders and numerous state
remedial consumer protection statutes.
On April 13, 2018, Plaintiff Wilson filed a voluntary petition for
Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief and a proposed Chapter 13 plan in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, Fayetteville Division. Prior to filing for Chapter 13
bankruptcy, Wilson incurred a debt to Mariner and granted Mariner a
security interest in his 2013 Mercedes-Benz C300W4 through a
perfected lien.
Mariner received a copy of the Notice of Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
Case, as well as other documents pertaining to Wilson's bankruptcy.
Wilson's Chapter 13 Plan was confirmed on March 28, 2019. Then,
Wilson received a Chapter 13 discharge on May 10, 2023.
Accordingly, the Defendant's failure to timely release its lien
upon the Plaintiffs, Class, and Subclass members' vehicles
constitutes a violation of the permanent discharge injunction and
thus contempt of the Bankruptcy Court's discharge order granted to
the Plaintiffs, Class, and Subclass, the suit says.
As a result of the violations of the Bankruptcy Court's discharge
orders, the Plaintiffs, Class, and Subclass members are entitled to
recover against the Defendant an award of actual damages, punitive
damages, and legal fees and expenses pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section
105, the suit asserts.
The Defendant is an experienced creditor that is routinely involved
in the making, servicing, and collection of debts that are involved
in a bankruptcy.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erik A. Martin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN T. ORCUTT
1738 Hillandale Road, Suite D
Durham, NC 27705
Telephone: (919) 286-1695
E-mail: emartin@lojto.com
- and -
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
Brent S. Snyder, Esq.
DANNLAW
15000 Madison Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44107
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com
MARTEN TRANSPORT: Wallace Suit Removed From Sup. Ct. to W.D. Wash.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MALIK WALLACE and DUANE
PARTRIDGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MARTEN TRANSPORT, LTD, a Foreign Profit Corporation,
and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. No. 24-2-10409-7 SEA (Filed May
9, 2024), was removed from Superior Court of Washington for King
County to the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington on June 17, 2024.
The Western Washington District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-00872 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs' single cause of action alleges that Marten failed
to "disclose the wage scale, salary range, and/or a general
description of the benefits and other compensation to be offered in
its job postings."
The suit alleges violation of violation of RCW 49.58.110 and seeks
remedies pursuant to RCW 49.58.060 and RCW 49.58.070.
The Plaintiffs seek to bring this class action on behalf of:
"[a]ll individuals who, from Jan. 1, 2023 through the present
applied for a job opening in the State of Washington with the
Defendant where the job posting did not disclose the wage
scale or salary range for the position."
Marten is a refrigerated truckload, intermodal and brokerage
provider in the U.S. Canada and Mexico.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeremy E. Roller, Esq.
ARETE LAW GROUP PLLC
1218 Third Avenue, Suite 2100
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 428-3250
Facsimile: (206) 428-3251
E-mail: jroller@aretelaw.com
- and -
Michael E. Brewer, Esq.
Janice W. Lin, Esq.
Kimberly F. Rich, Esq.
BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3802
Telephone: (415) 576-3000
Facsimile: (415) 576-3099
E-mail: michael.brewer@bakermckenzie.com
janice.lin@bakermckenzie.com
kimberly.rich@bakermckenzie.com
MAZDA MOTORS: Settles Class Action Over Defective Valve Stem Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that owners and lessees of certain
vehicles could receive payments and other benefits from a Mazda
valve stem settlement resolving claims the components had a faulty
seal.
The settlement benefits current and former owners and lessees of
2021-2022 Mazda CX-30, 2021 CX-5, 2021 CX-9, 2021-2022 Mazda3 and
2021 Mazda6 vehicles equipped with 2.5-liter turbocharged engines
with affected valve stem seals. Drivers can check their vehicle
eligibility with the VIN lookup tool on the settlement website.
According to the class action lawsuit, Mazda sold the vehicles with
defective valve stem seals that caused excessive oil consumption.
Consumers argue they were forced to pay for costly oil refills and
oil changes due to this defect.
Mazda is a Japanese vehicle brand.
Mazda hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an
undisclosed sum to resolve the valve defect class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Mazda valve stem settlement, class members
are eligible for valve stem seal replacement, an extended warranty
and reimbursement for out-of-pocket losses associated with
excessive oil changes or refills.
The settlement extends Mazda's powertrain limited warranty from 60
months or 60,000 miles to 84 months or 84,000 miles. Consumers can
receive reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs related to oil
changes or oil refill purchases performed more frequently than once
every 7,500 miles or one year.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 27, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Aug.
5, 2024.
To receive a Mazda valve stem settlement payment, class members
must submit a valid claim form by Oct. 19, 2024.
Who's Eligible
Current and former owners and lessees of 2021-2022 Mazda CX-30,
2021 CX-5, 2021 CX-9, 2021-2022 Mazda3 and 2021 Mazda6 vehicles
equipped with 2.5-liter turbocharged engines with the affected
valve stem seals
The following models and VIN ranges are included in the
settlement:
-- 2021 Mazda3 (Japan built 2.5T) with VINS from
JM1BP******315204 -- 403637 (produced from Oct. 12, 2020, to Sept.
13, 2021)
-- 2021-2022 Mazda3 (Mexico built 2.5T) with VINS starting from
3MZBP******209389 -- 307372 (produced from Dec. 8, 2020, to June
16, 2022)
-- 2021-2022 CX-30 (2.5T) with VINS starting from
3MVDM******233598 -- 437812 (produced from Dec. 7, 2020, to June
30, 2022)
-- 2021 Mazda6 (2.5T) with VINS from JM1GL******602506 -- 618909
(produced from Oct. 6, 2020, to Sept. 14, 2021)
-- 2021 CX-5 (US/Canada spec 2.5T with 10.25" center display)
with VINS from JM3KF******320280 -- 472324 (produced from Oct. 6,
2020, to Sept. 13, 2021)
-- 2021 CX-9 (US/Canada spec 2.5T with 10.25" center display)
with VINS from JM3TC******509027 -- 541070 (produced from Oct. 6,
2020, to Sept. 13, 2021)
-- 2021 CX-5 (Canada/Mexico spec 2.5T with 8" center display)
with VINS from JM3KF******112005 -- 135036 (produced from Oct. 6,
2020, to Sept. 1, 2021)
-- 2021 CX-9 (Canada/Mexico spec 2.5T with 7" or 9" center
display) with VINS from JM3TC******451418 -- 455173 (produced from
Oct. 6, 2020, to Sept. 11, 2021
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
Repair invoices, bank statements and receipts for oil purchases
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
10/19/2024
Case Name
Guthrie, et al. v. Mazda Motor of America Inc. d/b/a Mazda North
American Operations, Case No. 8:22-cv-01055-DOC-DFM, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California
Final Hearing
08/05/2024
Settlement Website
MazdaValveStemSealSettlement.com
Claims Administrator:
Mazda Valve Stem Seal Settlement
c/o JND Legal Administration
PO Box 91414
Seattle, WA 98111
info@MazdaValveStemSealSettlement.com
Phone: (877) 231-0642
Class Counsel:
Sergei Lemberg
LEMBERG LAW LLC
188 Grand St 2nd floor
New York, NY 10013
Phone: (855) 301-2100
Defense Counsel:
Jahmy S Graham
NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH LLP
101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Suite 900
Washington, D.C., 20001
Phone: (202) 689-2800
Fax: (202) 689-2860 [GN]
MDL 3083: Bloch et al. Sue Over Unlawful Disclosure of Private Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY BLOCH, MADISON BRUECK, HOLLY BURKE, BEN DIECK, VICTOR
DILUIGI, S.K. And M.K. (minors through their legal guardian),
SHELLIE HARPER MCCASKELL, ELAINE MCCOY, TOMMY NICOLAS, ROBERT
PLOTKE, JVANNE RHODES, M.P., K.S., and M.Y.(minors through their
legal guardian), and RANIKA SMITH, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE
CORPORATION and MAXIMUS FEDERAL SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:23-md-03083-ADB-PGL (D. Mass., June 17, 2024), seeks redress
from Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for
negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust
enrichment, invasion of privacy/intrusion upon seclusion,
declaratory and injunctive relief, invasion of privacy/public
disclosure of private facts, and for violations of the California
Consumer Privacy Act, the California Consumer Records Act, the
California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and
California's Unfair Competition Law.
The case arises from Maximus' failure to implement adequate
measures to protect and maintain sensitive private information
entrusted to it or to ensure its vendors and business associates
reasonably or adequately secured, safeguarded, and otherwise
protected consumers' private information that Maximus shared with
third-party vendors such as Progressive Software Corporation.
Moreover, Defendants' data security failures resulted to a data
breach that occurred on approximately May 27, 2023, through May 31,
2023 and that exposed the private information of more than 11
million individuals.
The Bloch et al. has been consolidated in MDL No. 3083, IN RE:
MOVEIT CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION.
Progress Software Corporation is a Massachusetts-based software
company that offers a wide range of software products and services
to corporate and governmental entities throughout the United States
and the world, including cloud hosting and secure file transfer
services such as MOVEit. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Fl.
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
E-mail: kristenj@hbsslaw.com
- and -
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
1229 Tyler St., NE, Ste. 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5933
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Ave., 5th Fl.
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: Gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Douglas J. McNamara
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, 5th Fl.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Ave. S., Ste. 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 612-339-0981
E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: cshaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
Bruno Ortega-Toledo, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street NE
Washington, D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com
bortega@classlawdc.com
- and -
Mark DeSanto, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
1229 Tyler St., NE, Ste. 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5933
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
E-mail: mdesanto@bm.net
META PLATFORMS: SCOTUS to Review Shareholder Class Dismissal Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports whether the
California-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has gone rogue
when it comes to shareholder class actions.
The U.S. Supreme Court will address that question in its next term,
agreeing last week to hear Meta Platform's challenge to a 9th
Circuit decision reviving a securities class action arising from
Facebook's Cambridge Analytica scandal and granting review on June
17, to Nvidia, which told the justices that the 9th Circuit erred
in allowing shareholders to proceed with claims that the chipmaker
misrepresented its dependence on the volatile crypto mining
industry.
In both cases, the companies told the Supreme Court that the 9th
Circuit parted ways with several other federal appellate courts,
including the New York-based 2nd Circuit, to create its own errant,
investor-friendly standards for dismissing shareholder class
actions.
Shareholders in both cases, I should note, have disputed the
companies' assertions of a circuit split, arguing that the
defendants mischaracterized the 9th Circuit's holdings. Neither
Kevin Russell of Goldstein, Russell & Woofter, who led briefing,
opens new tab for Meta investors, nor Nvidia shareholders', opens
new tab Supreme Court counsel Gregory Joseph of Joseph Hage
Aaronson responded to my queries.
In the Meta (META.O), opens new tab case, the 9th Circuit ruled
that Facebook's parent must face class action allegations that
although the company warned investors of a hypothetical risk of
improper data harvesting in its 2016 risk disclosures, it
fraudulently failed to reveal that Cambridge Analytica had already
accessed Facebook user data. Meta had argued, among other things,
that by 2016, Cambridge Analytica's misuse had already been
publicly reported, with no impact on the share price, so it was not
required to warn of future business consequences.
Meta and its supporters -- including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
opens new tab -- told the justices, opens new tab that unless the
Supreme Court steps in, the 9th Circuit's ruling will result in a
flood of backward-looking class actions accusing companies of
failing to warn investors about every past incident that could come
back to haunt the business.
Meta's counsel from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher asked the justices to
craft a clear standard for what companies must tell investors about
the remote risk of future harm from events that have already
occurred. Disclosure requirements vary slightly among the other
appellate courts, Meta said, but the 9th Circuit is an outlier.
In the Nvidia case, the Supreme Court will decide whether
shareholders can establish a company's fraudulent intent by
pointing to internal documents they have not actually seen and
whether investors can rely on their own hired experts to prove the
company's representations were false. The 1995 federal law
governing shareholder class actions, the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act, requires plaintiffs to show both fraudulent
intent, or scienter, and falsity in order to survive defense
motions to dismiss their cases.
According to Nvidia's Supreme Court counsel from Hogan Lovells,
only the 1st and 9th Circuits allow plaintiffs to "speculate" about
the content of internal corporate documents in order to establish a
defendant's intent to deceive investors. And only the 9th Circuit,
they said, permits shareholders to use their own hired expert,
"rather than particularized facts," to show the company fed false
information to investors.
Nvidia shareholders told the justices that the 9th Circuit did not
make such categorical findings but instead based its decision on
plaintiffs' detailed allegations. Those allegations, according to
shareholders, were in turn based on evidence they obtained from a
diligent investigation involving confidential witnesses and analyst
reports, among other things.
Nvidia's request for Supreme Court review was backed, opens new tab
by 10 former high-ranking officials of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission who argued that the 9th Circuit had improperly
lowered the high bar Congress set for shareholder class actions in
the 1995 law.
Another former SEC official, Stanford Law School professor Joseph
Grundfest, filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that it is
particularly important for the Supreme Court to resolve splits
between the 2nd and 9th Circuits because those two courts handle
the lion's share of all shareholder class actions. Grundfest, as
I've reported, even came up with a methodology to measure the
quantitative importance of circuit splits on particular issues,
concluding that both issues in the Nvidia case deserved the
justices' attention.
Nvidia and its lead counsel, Neal Katyal, declined to comment, as
did Meta lead counsel Joshua Lipschutz. A Meta spokesperson
referred me to the company's petition for Supreme Court review.
For defendants, the two new Supreme Court cases are "a promising
opportunity for the Supreme Court to refresh the law," said
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom partner Mark Foster, who
co-authored Reuters analyses of the 9th Circuit's rulings in both
the Meta and Nvidia cases.
It's significant, Foster said, that both newly granted Supreme
Court cases address standards for the dismissal of shareholder
class actions. As you know, dismissal decisions are a critical
turning point in securities litigation: Cases are far more likely
to settle if shareholders survive those early defense motions and
win the right to obtain discovery from defendants.
Foster said the Meta case will provide much-needed guidance for
corporate lawyers trying to figure out what risks must be disclosed
in securities filings. Plaintiffs' lawyers have become increasingly
likely, he said, to home in on allegedly inadequate risk
disclosures in so-called event-driven securities cases filed after
bad corporate news sends the share price into a swoon.
The Nvidia case, Foster predicted, will clarify the parameters of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's requirement that
plaintiffs allege falsity and fraudulent intent with particular
facts. It has been nearly 20 years since the Supreme Court delved
into these issues in its 2007 decision, opens new tab in Tellabs
Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd.
"This is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to make a significant
mark on securities litigation," Foster said. "These are
bread-and-butter questions." [GN]
MONTREAL, QC: Residents Sue Over Homeless Shelters' Management
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maya Johnson of CTV News Montreal reports that a Montreal lawyer is
seeking permission to file two class-action lawsuits targeting two
Montreal homeless shelters.
The lawsuits are on behalf of people who live near the shelters who
say they're having to deal with the consequences of the proximity,
including drug abuse, mental health crises, and prostitution.
They target the old Hotel Dieu hospital on St-Urbain Street that
has been serving as a shelter since 2021 and the Open Door Montreal
shelter on Park Avenue in the Milton-Parc neighbourhood.
Lawyer Gerad Samet is seeking permission to file the two
class-action lawsuits on behalf of people living near each of the
shelters. The documents have been filed in Quebec Superior court
and it's not just the shelters that are named as defendants -- the
City of Montreal and the Province of Quebec are also listed.
Samet argues they all have a collective responsibility to deal with
what he describes as a public health issue because he says the
people are suffering from addiction issues, mental health issues,
and their behaviour is having an impact on the community.
He says there's a segment of the homeless population, which he
describes as a small minority that is causing serious problems.
"They're threatening passersby day and night, including children
and women, they have aggressive behaviour," he alleged, adding that
there is indecent behaviour happening in public parks in front of
others.
The shelter in the former Hotel Dieu hospital is jointly operated
by the Old Brewery Mission and the Welcome Hall Mission. The Old
Brewery Mission's president and CEO, James Hughes, said he wouldn't
comment specifically on the lawsuits, but he says it's clear the
housing crisis is causing a problem with cohabitation.
He says people fall into desperate situations because of
circumstances out of their control, and they deserve to be treated
with dignity.
"With respect to homelessness in Montreal it's going in the wrong
direction. It's gone from 3,000 to 5,000 people over the course of
the last four or five years. That's a minimum number of people who
will be homeless tonight, of which 20 per cent -- so, up to 1,000
people -- will be living outside, so in a form of absolute
homelessness . . . in the parks, in the encampments, in the Metros,
in the emergency rooms," Hughes said in an interview.
"It's a phenomenon that's not surprisingly causing clashes and
conflict and tension at levels we've never seen before."
CTV News reached out to the Open Door shelter and to the City of
Montreal but neither of them responded to a request for an
interview or offered a statement about the situation. [GN]
N.H. ROSS: Bishop Sues for Discrimination and Labor Law Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. N.H. ROSS, INC. and NEAL ROSS,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04286 (E.D.N.Y., June 17, 2024) arises
from Defendants' discrimination in employment based on Plaintiff's
disability and their failure to timely pay wages to Plaintiff as a
manual worker in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990, the New York State Human Rights Law, the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law.
The Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff in the terms and
conditions of his employment based on his disability by failing to
provide him with a reasonable accommodation, and instead,
terminating his employment because of his disability and/or
perceived disability. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive
and declaratory relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs and other appropriate relief pursuant to
the ADA and NYSHRL. In addition, the Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants' bi-weekly payment policy violated FLSA and NYLL
N.H. Ross is a plumbing and HVAC installation, repair, and
maintenance company based in Middle Island, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: mfarnworth@romerolawny.com
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Utal Sues Over Mislabeled Pet Insurance Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ABBY UTAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and VETERINARY PET
INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a NATIONWIDE PET INSURANCE, Case No.
1:24-cv-22353-RS (S.D. Fla., June 18, 2024) seeks to recover is a
consumer class action seeking redress for Defendants' false,
deceptive, and misleading marketing and advertising of their pet
insurance product named My Pet Protection with Wellness Plan in
violation of the Florida's consumer protection laws.
According to the complaint, the Defendants promised and represented
to consumers including Plaintiff and the Class that their insurance
premiums for the Pet Protection plan would not increase due to the
pet's age, which was a material fact to reasonable consumers.
Throughout the Class period, the Defendants promised and
represented that they would not drop pets from coverage due to
age.
Specifically, in April 2022, the Defendants secretly changed their
policy without notice to consumers and, despite their earlier
promises and representations to the contrary, began substantially
increasing premiums for customers based explicitly on the pet's age
as a factor for the premium hikes, the suit says.
The Plaintiff and the Class have been damaged as a direct and
proximate result of Defendants' false, misleading, and deceptive
marketing and advertising of its Pet Protection product.
Pet insurance is a form of indemnity coverage designed to mitigate
the financial burden associated with providing medical care for
domesticated animals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris Gold, Esq.
GOLD LAW, PA
350 Lincoln Rd., 2nd Floor
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Telephone: (561) 789-4413
E-mail: chris@chrisgoldlaw.com
PAPA JOHN'S: Thomas Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------
DACIA THOMAS is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her
lawsuit entitled Dacia Thomas, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Papa John's International,
Inc., doing business as Papa Johns, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-02012-DMS-MSB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.
The lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for wiretapping the
electronic communications of visitors to its website,
www.papajohns.com, in violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act and the federal Wiretap Act.
On Feb. 6, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint,
which the Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim
and for lack of jurisdiction on Mar. 8, 2023.
On Aug. 28, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.
On Sept. 29, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's second amended complaint, which the Court granted
through an Order entered by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on May 8, 2024.
The Court held that the Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient,
specific facts to support either the reasonable expectation of
privacy or highly offensive prongs of her intrusion upon seclusion
claim. Accordingly, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss and dismissed this case with prejudice. The case was
closed.
The appellate case is captioned Thomas v. Papa John's
International, Inc., Case No. 24-3557, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 6, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 11,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on June 20,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on July 19, 2024;
-- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on August 28, 2024; and
-- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on September 30, 2024. [BN]
PEARL CROP INC: Sall Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pearl Crop, Inc. The
case is styled as Mataua Sall, an individual and on behalf of all
similarly situated v. Pearl Crop, Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2024-0006897 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June
11, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Pearl Crop, Inc. -- https://pearlcrop.com/ -- provides brokerage
and trading services. The Company serves customers in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC
1460 Westwood Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
Phone: 310-438-5555
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
PENNSYLVANIA: Allowed to Withdraw Pending Bid to Transfer
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOINE WALKER and KHALIL
HAMMOND, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. LAUREL HARRY, Secretary of Corrections and MICHAEL
WENEROWICZ, Executive Deputy Secretary for Institutional
Operations, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Case No.
2:24-cv-02295-TJS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Timothy Savage entered
an order granting the Defendants' motion to withdraw pending motion
for various forms of relief, without prejudice.
The Court further entered an order that the Commonwealth
Defendants' Motion to Transfer; or, in the Alternative, Strike
Class Certification; or, in the Alternative, Partially Dismiss
shall be marked withdrawn without prejudice.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qxRk6c at no extra
charge.[CC]
PLANTRONICS INC: Court Vacates Deadlines in Scheduling Orders
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Plantronics, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 4:19-cv-07481-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Jon Tigar entered an order vacating dates in scheduling orders
-- All deadlines in this case are vacated. The pending motion for
class certification, is terminated as moot. The Plaintiffs
shall
file a motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement
by July 19, 2024.
The Court previously entered a scheduling order in this action
providing that all fact discovery be completed by July 19, 2024,
opening expert reports be submitted by Aug. 16, 2024, rebuttal
expert reports be submitted by Sept. 30, 2024, expert discovery be
completed by Dec. 4, 2024, dispositive motions be filed by Jan. 14,
2025, and trial to commence on Aug. 18, 2025.
Plantronics is an American electronics company, producing audio
communications equipment for business and consumers.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LS1sMg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq.
Sean R. Matt, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com
steve@hbsslaw.com
sean@hbsslaw.com
lucasg@hbsslaw.com
- and -
William E. Freeland, Esq.
Alexander M. Noble, Esq.
Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
Facsimile:(212) 554-1444
E-mail: alex.payne@blbglaw.com
johnr@blbglaw.com
billy.freeland@blbglaw.com
alexander.noble@blbglaw.com
jonathanu@blbglaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Susan S. Muck, Esq.
Kevin P. Muck, Esq.
Noah S. Guiney, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
DORR LLP
One Front Street, Suite 3500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (628) 235-1002
Facsimile: (628) 235-1001
E-mail: susan.muck@wilmerhale.com
kevin.muck@wilmerhale.com
noah.guiney@wilmerhale.com
POLAM KOPITIAM: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Food Poisoning
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yang Shu-min and Wu Kuan-hsien, writing for Focus Taiwan, report
that The Consumers' Foundation announced that it has officially
started the process of collecting documents from victims of the
Polam Kopitiam food poisoning outbreak to file a class action.
The food poisoning case occurred in March, when at least 30 people
reported falling ill after dining at the Xinyi branch of the
Malaysian restaurant chain Polam Kopitiam in Taipei. A total of six
people died in connection with the case.
It was discovered that a rare toxin called Bongkrekic acid caused
the poisoning. It was also the first case of Bongkrekic acid
poisoning in Taiwan, though the origin of the acid has still not
been determined.
At a news conference, Consumers' Foundation Chairperson Wu Jung-ta
said that currently 30 people have expressed a willingness for the
foundation to file a suit on their behalf, including the families
of the six individuals who died and another 24 who suffered related
illnesses.
Su Chin-hsia, honorary chairperson of the foundation as well as
convener of the legal team for the class action, called for more
victims to come forward and stand up for their rights.
Participating in the class action is free of charge, Wu added.
Su told CNA that the defendants in the case will include the
restaurant chain as well as the chef, Far Eastern Department Stores
Co. Ltd, which hosts the restaurant branch and FoodRepublic, the
company that runs the food court at the department store.
The legal team has had three meetings and also met with victims and
family members to prepare for the case, Su said.
She hopes that the class action will be filed in about three
months, after victims have provided their information and evidence,
including restaurant receipts, medical expense invoices, estimates
of losses due to absence from work, transportation fees and nursing
fee invoices. Future medical check-ups and complications will also
be part of the compensations.
The legal team will strive for high immaterial damage compensation,
she added.
Su estimated that compensation demands could top NT$100 million
(US$3.09 million).
In addition to compensation, Su said that consumers could also
claim for punitive damages under the Consumer Protection Act if
their damages resulted from misconduct or negligence.
This will be the first food safety class action involving
fatalities the foundation has handled, Su said. [GN]
PPG INDUSTRIES: Fact Discovery in Rodriguez Suit Due Sept. 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIAN RODRIGUEZ, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00838-WSH-MPK (W.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Maureen Kelly entered an order granting the Parties'
joint motion to extend class certification fact discovery:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed by Sept. 20, 2024
-- The post-discovery status conference scheduled for June 26,
2024
is rescheduled to Sept. 23, 2024.
PPG is a supplier of paints, coatings, and specialty materials.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BoAyTe at no extra
charge.[CC]
PRIMARK US: Faces Venning Suit Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS VENNING, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. PRIMARK US CORP.,
Defendant, Case No. 609595/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., June 4,
2024) is a civil action seeking monetary damages and other redress
based upon Defendant's violations of Plaintiff's rights under the
New York Labor Law.
The complaint alleges the Defendant's failure to pay timely wages,
failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to provide
accurate wage notices.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Sales Associate in New York
from April 2018 until February 2020, and in that role was required
to perform manual labor for at least 25 percent of his duties.
Primark US Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive office in Boston, Massachusetts, which operates as an
international clothing retailer, including with nine stores in New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
PRIME ASCOT: Court Narrows Claims in Leaser Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHA LEASER, et al.,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PRIME
ASCOT, L.P., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02502-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered an order:
-- granting in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect
to
Plaintiff's conspiracy claims with leave to amend; and
-- directing the Plaintiff to file within 30 days an Amended
Complaint consistent with this Order or inform the Court of its
election to stand on the Second Amended Complaint.
The Defendant's Motion is otherwise denied without prejudice to
refiling under Rule 19 after class certification.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged the alter
ego claim, but have failed to plead the conspiracy claim with
sufficient factual detail. Accordingly, the Court grants in part
and denies in part defendants' motion.
Accordingly, while the Absent Landlords may theoretically have an
interest in this action if the Excessive Fee Class is certified and
included tenants which resided in the properties owned by the
Absent Landlords, as the matter stands, the Absent Landlords do not
have a current interest in the case. Therefore, the Absent
Landlords are not "necessary" under Rule 19. The Court accordingly
denies Defendants' Motion without prejudice to its refiling if the
Excessive Fee Class is certified.
The Plaintiffs Nicha Leaser, Atchara Wongsaroj, and Katina Magee
specifically allege that while they resided at Blue Rock Village
under a lease agreement with Defendant Prime Ascot, L.P., their
apartments were infested with mice.
They allege that the Defendants were aware of and failed to
disclose or address the infestation despite Plaintiffs' repeated
complaints to the Defendants. The alleged infestation interfered
with the Plaintiffs Leaser and Wongsaroj's enjoyment of the leased
property, caused property damaged, and caused physical and
emotional illness.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hUMF8d at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Faces Reardon Class Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
BRIDGET REARDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION and M&T BANK CORPORATION,
Case No. 1:24-cv-11574 (D. Mass., June 18, 2024) seeks to remedy
the Defendants' negligent failure to implement and maintain
reasonable cybersecurity procedures that resulted in a data breach,
which occurred on or about May 27-31, 2023.
During the Class Period, the Defendants failed to properly secure
and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected personally
identifiable information, including without limitation, full names,
dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. According to the
complaint, the Defendants' actions resulting in the Data Breach
have impacted approximately 40 million people, through more than
600 organizations, including pension fund management companies,
corporations, government agencies, and law and accounting firms.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants inadequate data
security, and breach of its duty to handle PII with reasonable
care, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII has been accessed by
hackers and exposed to an untold number of unauthorized
individuals. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff will
continue to be at heightened and certainly impending risk for fraud
and identity theft and will continue to suffer accompanying damages
for years to come, says the suit.
Plaintiff Bridget Reardon is a citizen and resident of the State of
New York. She is a customer of M&T Bank. On August 2023, the
Plaintiff received a notice from M&T Bank informing Plaintiff that
her personal identifying information provided to Progress by M&T
Bank through its external service provider was a part of the Data
Breach that is the subject of this action.
Progress Software Corporation is an American public company that
produces software for creating and deploying business
applications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Tel: (617) 482-3700
E-mail: kristenj@hbsslaw.com
- and -
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
1229 Tyler St., NE, Ste. 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5933
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Ave., 5th Fl.
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, 5th Fl.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Ave. S., Ste. 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Amanda M. Rolon, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
arolon@scott-scott.com
PROGRESSIVE HAWAII: Newton Suit Removed to E.D. Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as William Newton, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE HAWAII INSURANCE
CORPORATION, Case No. 14235 was removed from the Circuit Court of
Bedford County, Tennessee for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee on June 12, 2024, and assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00047.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Progressive Hawaii issued
his automobile insurance policy, that he was in an automobile
accident on or about December 14, 2019, and that Progressive Hawaii
determined that his vehicle was a total loss.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Taylor A. Williams, Esq.
PAINE, BICKERS, ELDER, KING & WILLIAMS LLP
900 South Gay Street, Suite 2200
Knoxville, TN 37902
Phone: (865) 525-0880
Email: twilliams@painebickers.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
J. Matthew Brigman, Esq.
Erin M. Munger, Esq.
Allexia Bowman Arnold, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 572-4600
Fax: (404) 572-5100
Email: jcashdan@kslaw.com
zmcentyre@kslaw.com
mbrigman@kslaw.com
emunger@kslaw.com
aarnold@kslaw.com
- and -
Julia C. Barrett, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
500 W. 2nd Street
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (512) 457-2000
Fax: (512) 457-2100
Email: jbarrett@kslaw.com
PROGRESSIVE SOUTHEASTERN: Wade Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as April Wade, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE SOUTHEASTERN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 49D01-2404-PL-014932 was removed from the Circuit Court of
Bedford County, Tennessee for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana on June 12, 2024, and assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-01004-RLY-TAB.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Progressive Southeastern
issued her automobile insurance policy, that she was in an
automobile accident on or about October 5, 2019, and that
Progressive Southeastern determined that her vehicle was a total
loss. The Plaintiff alleges that Progressive Southeastern
improperly valued her total-loss claim because it used a valuation
system provided by Mitchell International, Inc. that applies a
Projected Sold Adjustment ("PSA") to determine the value of her
total-loss vehicle.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
J. Blake Hike, Esq.
CARSON LLP
301 W. Jefferson Blvd., Ste. 200
Fort Wayne, IN 46802
Phone: (260) 423-9411
Email: hike@carsonllp.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
J. Matthew Brigman, Esq.
Erin M. Munger, Esq.
Allexia Bowman Arnold, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 572-4600
Fax: (404) 572-5100
Email: jcashdan@kslaw.com
zmcentyre@kslaw.com
mbrigman@kslaw.com
emunger@kslaw.com
aarnold@kslaw.com
- and -
Julia C. Barrett, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
500 W. 2nd Street
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (512) 457-2000
Fax: (512) 457-2100
Email: jbarrett@kslaw.com
PROSTAFFING SERVICES: Mireles Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Eva Gomez Mireles, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals v. ProStaffing Services, Inc., Ryder
System, Inc., Case No. 2024LA000542 was removed from the DuPage
County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on June 11, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-04841 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Railserve -- https://railserve.biz/ -- is the leading provider of
on-site rail services in North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregory P Abrams, Esq.
Connor Joseph Doughty, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
233 South Wacker Dr., Suite 6950
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 256-9444
Email: gregory.abrams@tuckerellis.com
connor.doughty@tuckerellis.com
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Adinolfi Sues Over Private Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
GINA ADINOLFI, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:24-cv-07066 (D.N.J., June 17, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's
and Class Members' personally identifiable information stored
within Defendant's information network, including, without
limitation, full name, dates of birth, address, phone number, and
Prudential ID number.
The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it
caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff and, at least,
thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive and
preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by the Defendant on
February 5, 2024, in which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's
inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly
sensitive PII that was being kept unprotected. While the Defendant
claims to have discovered the breach as early as February 5,
Defendant did not inform victims of the data breach until May 28,
2024. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of confidence, breach of implied
contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.
Headquartered in Newark, NJ, Prudential Financial, Inc. provides
retail and institutional client with a range of services, including
insurance, retirement planning, investment management and more.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR
00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
- and -
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 474-3800
Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
E-mail: daniel@slfla.com
QUICK STOP: Ali and Bachani Sue over Labor Law Breaches
-------------------------------------------------------
HUSSNAIN ALI, and PRAKASH BACHANI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. QUICK STOP DELI AND
CONVENIENCE, INC. d/b/a QUICK STOP DELI AND CONVENIENCE, HARJINDER
SINGH, Defendants, Case No. 7:24-cv-04617 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2024)
seeks equitable and legal relief for Defendants' violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Defendants employed Plaintiffs as cashiers and were required to
worked more than 40 hours per week. However, the Defendants only
paid Plaintiffs for a fixed hourly rate of $15 for all hours
worked, including those over 40 per week. Additionally, throughout
Plaintiffs' employment, the Defendants made unlawful deductions
from their wages. Among other things, the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs spread of hours pay equal to one additional hour's pay
at the full minimum wage rate for every day in which their shifts
exceeded 10 hours, says the suit.
Quick Stop is a domestic corporation that owns and operates a
grocery store in White Plains, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jarret Bodo, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 460-0047
Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
E-mail: jtrbodo@katzmelinger.com
REACH AIR MEDICAL: Payne Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reach Air Medical
Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Michael Payne,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Reach Air Medical Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 24CV008383 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 29, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
REACH Air Medical Services -- https://reachair.com/ -- provides
critical care air and ground transport service to communities
throughout California, Nevada, Oregon, Colorado and Wyoming.[BN]
REAL BROKERAGE: Miholich Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Real Brokerage,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kyle Miholich, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Real Brokerage,
Inc., Real Broker LLC, Real Brokerage Technologies, Inc., Real
Brokerage Technologies LFRO, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01038-AGS-JLB
(S.D. Cal., June 14, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
The Real Brokerage Inc. -- https://www.onereal.com/ -- is a
technology-powered real estate brokerage firm.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alex S. Madar
11510 Eaglesview Court
San Diego, CA 92127
Phone: (925) 548-5322
Email: alex@madarlaw.net
- and -
Nadir Osman Ahmed, Esq.
Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
2221 Camino del Rio S., Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Email: nadiroahmed@gmail.com
ryan@kazlg.com
REFRESCO BEVERAGES: Remington Suit Removed to E.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Eric Remington, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. REFRESCO BEVERAGES US INC., a
Georgia Corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No.
24-2-00344-36 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
Washington, County of Walla Walla, to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Washington on June 14, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-05064-MKD.
The Plaintiff's Complaint includes a single claim for relief for
Violation of Washington's Wage Transparency Laws. The crux of the
action is that Plaintiff alleges he applied for a job with
Defendant through a job posting that allegedly did not disclose the
wage scale or salary range for the position in violation of
Washington law.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
John S. Devlin III, Esq.
Taylor Washburn, Esq.
LANE POWELL PC
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200
P.O. Box 91302
Seattle, WA 98111-9402
Phone: 206.223.7000
Facsimile: 206.223.7107
Email: devlinj@lanepowell.com
washburnt@lanepowell.com
ROSS DRESS FOR LESS: Amador Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yaumara Amador and other similarly situated individuals v. Ross
Dress for Less Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-22279-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June
12, 2024), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under United States
laws.
The Plaintiff was paid 40 regular hours, plus 5 overtime hours at
the rate of time and one-half her regular rate. Defendant paid
Plaintiff a total of 45 hours weekly. The remaining hours were not
paid at any rate, not even at the minimum wage rate. Therefore,
Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at the
rate of time and a half her regular rate, for every hour that she
worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from June 15, 2017, to
May 20, 2024, or six years plus eleven months.
Ross Dress for Less is a retail business operating an American
department store selling clothing, shoes, home decor, and
miscellaneous merchandise at discounted prices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.T., et al., v. CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-06524-LJC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lisa Cisneros entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiffs' class allegations, without
prejudice to any arguments that the Defendants might raise on a
factual record.
The Court is satisfied that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
common issues related to the question of probable cause for a mass
arrest that predominate over any individualized questions.
Accordingly, for much the same reason as predominance, the Court is
satisfied that Plaintiffs’ allegations satisfy the commonality
requirement.
This putative class action concerns a mass arrest in the wake of
the 2023 "Dolores Hill Bomb," an unsanctioned skateboarding event
that has taken place annually in recent years on one of San
Francisco's steep city streets.
The Plaintiffs J.T., L.R., and C.L. are three minors who were among
113 people arrested the night of July 8, 2023, all of whom they
seek to represent as a class. Through their parents, who were
previously appointed guardians ad litem, the Plaintiffs assert
claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for violation of their rights
under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as
related state law claims, against the Defendants the City and
County of San Francisco and three of its police officials, Chief
William Scott, Captain Thomas Harvey, and Lieutenant Matt
Sullivan.
The Plaintiffs define their proposed class as
"all persons who were arrested in the 3500 block of 17th Street,
San Francisco, on July 8, 2023, the mass arrest that occurred at
approximately 8:40pm."
A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lrar3w at no extra
charge.[CC]
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Hardnett Suit More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C. SUKARI HARDNETT, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SELECT
PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01534-RDM (D.D.C.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline
to file her motion for class certification until a time determined
by the Court after evaluation of the parties' proposed schedule(s)
in their Joint Meet and Confer Report, or at the Initial Scheduling
Conference.
The Plaintiff filed her Complaint in the Superior Court for the
District of Columbia on March 15, 2024. The Defendant removed the
case to this Court on May 24, 2024.
The Defendant's response to the Complaint is due June 14, 2024 and
briefing on the motion will be complete on July 17, 2024. The
current deadline for Plaintiff to file her motion for class
certification is August 22, 2024.
No discovery has been completed in this case. The Court has not yet
set a Scheduling Conference under Rule 16(b) and discovery has not
yet commenced.
Accordingly, there is good cause to extend the deadline to file a
motion for class certification and no party will be prejudiced by
the extension. This request is made in good faith and not for
purposes of delay.
This is the first extension of this deadline that Plaintiff has
sought.
Granting this motion will not disturb other existing deadlines.
Plaintiff conferred with Defendant prior to filing, and Defendant
consents to the relief sought
Select is a loan servicing company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 13, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F4mlM8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq.
Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Ave., Northwest, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
ksimplicio@tzlegal.com
kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
- and -
James L. Kauffman, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540
Washington DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 274-9420
E-mail: bcohen@baileyglasser.com
SIGNET JEWELERS: Embeds Spy Pixel Trackers in E-mails, Torrez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudette Torrez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Signet Jewelers Limited,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01332-DMF (D. Ariz., June 4, 2024) is a
class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated persons in the State of Arizona due to Defendant's
violations of Arizona's Telephone, Utility and Communication
Service Records Act.
According to the complaint, to entice residents to visit their
stores and to maximize sales, the Defendant solicits customers to
sign up for its e-mail list. However, the Defendant embeds hidden
spy pixel trackers within its e-mails. These trackers capture and
log sensitive information including the time and place subscribers
open and read their messages, how long it takes the subscriber to
read the email, subscribers' location, subscribers' email client
type, subscribers' IP address, subscribers' device information and
whether and to whom the email was forwarded to. The Defendant never
received Plaintiff and similarly situated subscribers' consent to
collect this private information, says the suit.
The Defendant's invasive surveillance of Plaintiff's sensitive
reading habits and clandestine collection of her confidential email
records invaded her privacy and intruded upon her seclusion, the
Plaintiff asserts.
Signet Jewelers Limited is a jewelry retailer in the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald Barrett, Esq.
WARD, KEENAN & BARRETT, P.C.
3838 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1720
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Tel: (602) 279-1717
Fax: (602) 279-8908
E-mail: gbarrett@wardkeenanbarrett.com
- and -
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
SPA 88: Shamshiev Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mirjalol Shamshiev, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. Leon Bittleman,
Demetri Lerner, Robert Pinkow, Spa 88 LLC, and Wall Street Bath and
Health Club, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04655 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2024)
seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid
minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated and statutory damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards act, the New York Labor Law,
and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA").
Plaintiff Shamshiev was employed as a general worker at Defendants'
spa and bathhouse known as "Wall Street Bath & Spa" located at: (i)
88 Fulton St. New York, New York. She Shamshiev was employed as a
non-managerial employee at Wall Street Bath & Spa from June 2019 to
July 2021.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
SUNNYVALLEY SMOKED MEATS: Guzman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunnyvalley Smoked
Meats, Inc.. The case is styled as Jose J. Guzman, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sunnyvalley Smoked
Meats, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0007084 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., June 14, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Sunnyvalley Smoked Meats -- http://www.sunnyvalleysmokedmeats.com/
-- is an innovator of producing great smoked products such as
bacon, ham and poultry.[BN]
SUPERIOR AIR-GROUND: Faces 858,000-Record Data Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Adler of The HIPAA Journal reports that Superior Air-Ground
Ambulance Service is facing a class action lawsuit over a data
breach that affected more than 858,000 individuals. Superior
Air-Ground Ambulance Service is the largest independent and locally
owned emergency medical services provider in the greater
Chicagoland area and operates in 5 states in the Midwest.
Unauthorized access to its network was detected in May 2024, and
the forensic investigation confirmed that an unauthorized third
party had access to its network for a week and copied files that
contained patients' protected health information. The information
stolen in the attack included names, addresses, dates of birth,
Social Security numbers, driver's license/state identification
numbers, financial account and payment card information, patient
record information, medical diagnosis/condition information,
treatment information, and health insurance information. 858,238
patients were affected and had their data stolen in the attack.
On June 6, 2024, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois by Kirston Spann II whose
personal and protected health information was stolen in the attack.
The lawsuit alleges the plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals have suffered concrete injuries as a result of the data
breach and those injuries were the result of the defendant's
negligence.
The lawsuit alleges the defendant maintained private information in
a reckless manner and failed to implement reasonable and
appropriate security measures to keep sensitive information
private, including conducting regular security updates and
implementing data encryption. The lawsuit alleges the defendant
failed to comply with the federal Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA) and state laws, and had appropriate
security measures been implemented, the data breach could have been
prevented. The lawsuit also alleges an unnecessary delay in issuing
breach notification letters to the affected individuals.
As a result of those failures, more than 858,000 individuals have
had their privacy violated, are receiving increased spam
communications, and their private information is in the hands of
cybercriminals and has been shared on the dark web.
The lawsuit seeks class action certification, a jury trial,
statutory damages, nominal damages for the misuse of their private
information, and injunctive relief, including an order from the
court requiring the defendant to improve security to prevent
similar data breaches in the future. [GN]
SWIMSUITS DIRECT: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Karim Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Swimsuits Direct, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04609
(S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website,
"Swimsuitsdirect.com," to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
persons, under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Swimsuits Direct provides to their non-disabled customers
through its website. Despite readily available accessible
technology, such as the technology in use at other heavily
trafficked retail websites, which makes use of alternative text,
accessible forms, descriptive links, resizable text and limits the
usage of tables and JavaScript, the Defendant has chosen to rely on
an exclusively visual interface. Swimsuits Direct's sighted
customers can independently browse, select, and buy online without
the assistance of others. However, blind persons must rely on
sighted companions to assist them in accessing and purchasing on
Swimsuitsdirect.com, the suit says.
The Plaintiff has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase on
Swimsuitsdirect.com. Firstly, she tried to purchase a swimsuit on
May 18, 2024, and then she tried again on May 19, 2024. All these
times she was unable to complete the purchase independently because
of the many access barriers on Defendant's website, asserts the
suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Swimsuits Direct's policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant’s website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks
compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been
subjected to unlawful discrimination.
The Defendant offers one-piece swimsuits, maillots, high neck
swimsuits, bandeau tops, bralette tops, shorts, skirts, and
plus-size swimwear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
SYNCHRONY BANK: Taylor Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------
SEAN TAYLOR and RACHEL HAWKINS on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SYNCHRONY BANK f/k/a GE CAPITAL
CONSUMER LENDING, INC., and SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL, Defendants, Case
No. 5:24-cv-00313-D (E.D.N.C., June 4, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of contract, breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty
or special trust, and for violations of the Servicemembers Civil
Relief Act, Military Lending Act, and Truth in Lending Act.
According to the complaint, Defendants Synchrony Bank and Synchrony
Financial market heavily to servicemembers, including Plaintiffs,
as a bank dedicated to military members, veterans, and their
families. To attract and retain this business, Synchrony promises
contractual benefits that are more generous than required by the
SCRA, including a 0% interest rate. When Synchrony does provide a
reduced interest rate to servicemembers, those benefits are often
inadequate and/or illusory because Synchrony does not in fact
reduce the interest rate to 0% as required by contract or 6% as
required by the SCRA and permanently forgive that additional
interest. This "veteran penalty" is carried out by Synchrony
imposing certain interest and fee increases only on returning
servicemembers, the suit says.
The imposition of the veteran penalty is not only a violation of
the SCRA and a breach of contract; it violates federal law
specifically designed to prevent banks from creating such debt
traps. The veteran penalty is carried out by Synchrony illegally
increasing interest and fees on outstanding balances, alleges the
suit.
Synchrony Bank is an American consumer financial services
company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew D. Ballew, Esq.
BALLEW PURYEAR PLLC
2010 Ramblewood Dr.
Apex, NC 27523
Telephone: (919) 412-5920
E-mail: Mballew@bplegalnc.com
- and -
Knoll D. Lowney, Esq.
Claire Tonry, Esq.
Marc Zemel, Esq.
Alyssa Koepfgen, Esq.
SMITH & LOWNEY, PLLC
2317 E. John Street
Seattle, WA 98112
Telephone: (206) 860-2883
Facsimile: (206) 860-4187
E-mail: Knoll@smithandlowney.com
Claire@smithandlowney.com
Marc@smithandlowney.com
Alyssa@smithandlowney.com
TAVARES 234: Faces Fernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
MADELIN FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TAVARES 234 RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a TAVARES
RESTAURANT, NEW TAVARES RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a TAVARES RESTAURANT,:
JULIO A. TA VARES, and FABIO A. PENA, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-04012 (E.D.N.Y., June 4, 2024) seeks to recover from
Defendants overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York
State Wage Theft Prevention Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a waitress,
counter person, and dishwasher at a restaurant from December 2018
through December 15, 2023.
Tavares 234 Restaurant Corp. owns and operates a Dominican
restaurant doing business as "Tavares Restaurant," located in
Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
60 East 42nd Street-401h Floor
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
TAXACT INC: Settles Privacy Violation Class Action for $14.95MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mye Owens, writing for WKRN.com reports that consumers who prepared
taxes on TaxAct.com could receive payments from a $14.95 million
TaxAct settlement resolving claims of privacy violations by the tax
website.
The settlement benefits individuals with a United States postal
code who used a TaxAct online do-it-yourself consumer Form 1040 tax
filing product and filed a tax return using the product between
Jan. 1, 2018, and Dec. 31, 2022.
The settlement also benefits a joint filing class of individuals
with a United States postal code whose spouse used a TaxAct online
do-it-yourself consumer Form 1040 tax filing product and filed a
tax return using the product between Jan. 1, 2018, and Dec. 31,
2022.
The settlement includes two California subclasses of members of
either the nationwide class or the nationwide married filed jointly
class with California postal addresses.
According to the class action lawsuit, TaxAct violated federal and
California state privacy laws by sharing user information with
third parties, such as Meta and Google. Plaintiffs in the case
argue TaxAct shared the sensitive personal and financial
information they entered while filing their taxes.
TaxAct is an online tax preparation service.
TaxAct hasn’t admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $14.95
million to resolve the privacy class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the TaxAct settlement, class members can receive
a cash payment of around $18.65. Consumers who used TaxAct products
in California and those who filed jointly may receive larger
payments.
In addition to receiving a cash payment, claimants who prepare
their 2024 tax return using a TaxAct product will receive
complimentary Xpert Assist.
The deadline for exclusion is Sept. 11, 2024. The deadline for
objection is Aug. 12, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Nov.
21, 2024.
To receive a TaxAct settlement payment, class members must submit a
valid claim form by Sept. 11, 2024.
Who's Eligible
Nationwide class: Individuals with a United States postal code who
used a TaxAct online do-it-yourself consumer Form 1040 tax filing
product and filed a tax return using the product between Jan. 1,
2018, and Dec. 31, 2022.
Married filed jointly class: Individuals with a United States
postal code whose spouse used a TaxAct online do-it-yourself
consumer Form 1040 tax filing product and filed a tax return using
the product between Jan. 1, 2018, and Dec. 31, 2022.
California subclass: Members of either the nationwide class or the
nationwide married filed jointly class with California postal
addresses.
Potential Award
$18.65
Proof of Purchase
N/A
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you’re unsure if you qualify, please read
the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator’s website to
ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a
Settlement Administrator). If you don’t qualify for this
settlement, check out our database of other open class action
settlements you may be eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
09/11/2024
Case Name
Smith-Washington, et al. v. TaxAct Inc.,Case No. 3:23-cv-00830-VC,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Final Hearing
11/21/2024
Settlement Website
www.TaxActClassSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Smith-Washington v. TaxAct, Inc.
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
PO Box 225391
New York, NY 10150-5391
info@TaxActClassSettlement.com
Phone: (833) 425-9910
Class Counsel
Julian Hammond
Christina Tusan
Adrian Barnes
Ari Cherniak
Polina Brandler
HAMMONDLAW PC
1201 Pacific Ave
Tacoma, WA 98402
Phone: (310) 807-1666
Warren D Postman
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
150 N Riverside Plaza #4100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 741-5220
Defense Counsel
Sheila A G Armbrust
James W Ducayet
Michele L Aronson
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (212) 839-5300
Fax: (212) 839-5599 [GN]
TESLA INC: Faces Renewed Class Action Over Repair/Parts Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------------------
CPI reports that a U.S. judge has revived a class action lawsuit
against Tesla Inc., allowing vehicle owners to pursue claims that
the company has a monopoly on markets for repairs and parts. This
decision breathes new life into a lawsuit previously dismissed last
November.
U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson in San Francisco ruled that
Tesla owners could proceed with their case, attempting to prove
that Tesla coerced them into paying exorbitant prices and enduring
long waits for vehicle repairs under the threat of losing warranty
coverage. The owners argue that this alleged coercion violates both
federal and California antitrust laws.
Thompson cited evidence suggesting Tesla's control over the repairs
market. Specifically, she pointed to Tesla's alleged failure to
open a sufficient number of authorized service centers and its
design of vehicles that necessitate diagnostic and software updates
exclusively available from Tesla. Furthermore, she highlighted
evidence of a parts monopoly, including Tesla's restrictions on
original equipment manufacturers, limiting their sales to entities
other than Tesla. Additionally, Tesla allegedly only sold parts to
consumers on a limited basis.
The judge also found potential evidence of illegal "tying"
practices, wherein Tesla's control over various markets allegedly
forced customers into unwanted purchases.
Tesla and its legal team did not immediately respond to requests
for comment. They have previously argued that the lawsuit was based
on an "illogical theory," claiming that Tesla would not
deliberately degrade its repairs and parts services as it would
harm its more lucrative vehicle sales and leasing business.
Matt Ruan, an attorney representing the plaintiff owners, expressed
satisfaction with the court's decision, describing it as
well-reasoned and thoughtful. He stated that they look forward to
the next phase of the case.
This lawsuit consolidates five separate complaints from vehicle
owners who have paid for Tesla repairs and parts since March 2019.
The plaintiffs allege that Tesla, headquartered in Austin, Texas,
differs from its competitors by insisting on handling all servicing
and parts needs internally, rather than allowing owners to use
independent repair shops and third-party parts. [GN]
TICKETMASTER LLC: Dupreez Balks at Failure to Secure Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
LORIE DUPREEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TICKETMASTER, LLC, and LIVE NATION
ENTERTAINMENT INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04659 (C.D. Cal.,
June 4, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class
Members' personally identifiable information and financial
information stored within Defendants' information network.
According to the complaint, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals
gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial
information as hosted with Defendants on May 28, 2024. The total
number of individuals who have had their data exposed due to
Defendants' failure to implement appropriate security safeguards is
unknown at this time but is estimated to be in the tens/hundreds of
thousands based on Defendants' clientele, says the suit.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants disregarded the rights of
Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully,
recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate
and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII and financial information was safeguarded, failing to
take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data,
and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate
protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of
data, even for internal use.
Ticketmaster LLC is a subsidiary of Defendants Live Nation
Entertainment, a booking and ticketing service provider for the
arts and entertainment industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Siobhán McGreal, Esq.
James A. Francis, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, PC
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
smcgreal@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
TICKETMASTER LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Burns Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA BURNS, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TICKETMASTER, LLC and LIVE NATION
ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04674 (C.D. Cal.,
June 4, 2024) is a class action arising from Defendants' failure to
properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similar
situated individuals' personal identifiable information, including
names, addresses, phone numbers, and partial credit card details.
On May 20, 2024, the Defendants suffered a data breach within a
third-party cloud database environment containing company data. In
this targeted cyberattack, the infamous cybercrime group known as
ShinyHunters, gained access to Defendants' computer systems and
data, resulting in the compromise of highly sensitive PII of more
than 500 million Ticketmaster customers, including Plaintiff, says
the suit.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the benefit of their
bargain, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time
reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the
attack, emotional distress, and the imminent risk of future harm
caused by the compromise of their PII. The Defendants breached
those duties by, among other things, failing to implement and
maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect
the PII in its possession from unauthorized access and disclosure,
the suit alleges.
Ticketmaster, LLC is a producer of live music concerts and live
entertainment ticketing sales and marketing companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Yana Hart, Esq.
Tiara Avaness, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
tavaness@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
1133 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (917) 438-9189
- and -
Michael E. Criden, Esq.
Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515
South Miami, FL 33143
Telephone: (305) 357-9000
Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com
lgrossman@cridenlove.com
TOSHIBA AMERICA: Sonnier Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
SAUNDRA SONNIER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TOSHIBA AMERICA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-01201 (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2024) is a
class action arising from Defendant's failure to protect highly
sensitive data.
According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly
sensitive personal identifiable information about its current and
former employees. On or around December 4, 2023, Defendant lost
control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its
insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. After
discovering the breach, Toshiba did not immediately notify its
employees that hackers had breached its systems. Instead, the
Defendant then waited until May 28, 2024, before it began to notify
victims of the breach -- almost six months after the breach
occurred, the suit says.
The complaint alleges that cybercriminals were able to breach
Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train
its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable
security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII.
Toshiba America Business Solutions is a subsidiary of the Japanese
technology company Toshiba which provides copiers, printers,
managed document services and digital signage for businesses
throughout the United States, Mexico, and Central and South
America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew G. Gunem, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Ste. 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
TRANS UNION: Court Tosses Reyes Suit w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARVIN REYES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TRANS UNION,
LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-21045-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy
Altman entered an order granting motion to dismiss as follows:
1. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted without
prejudice.
2. If the Plaintiff wants to file an amended complaint, he must
do
so by June 27, 2024.
Mr. Reyes fails to allege (even in a conclusory fashion) that his
Trans Union consumer credit reports contained inaccurate or
incomplete information. He's thus failed to state a claim under
section 1681i, so his claim must be dismissed.
On March 18, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a class-action lawsuit
against Trans Union, asserting violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA").
Mr. Reyes alleges that, "sometime prior to February of 2024," he
"reviewed his Trans Union consumer credit reports and noticed that
two hard inquiries were being reported for Kohls/[Capital One],"
which "reflected" that Kohls and Capital One had "obtained his
credit reports on Dec. 15, 2023, and Jan. 20, 2024."
The Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and
(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, based on Trans
Union's failure to comply with FCRA section 1681i, seeking to
represent the following class:
"During the period beginning two years prior to the filing of
this
action and through the time of class certification, all persons
residing in the United States and its Territories to whom Trans
Union sent a letter materially identical to the letter it sent
to
the Plaintiff."
The Defendant is a credit reporting agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HNnHf5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
TRC STAFFING: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Young Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ronkavis Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRC Staffing Services, Inc. d/b/a Talent
Solutions, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02436-VMC (N.D. Ga., June 4,
2024) is a class action arising out of a recent data breach
involving the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) that it
collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices,
including Plaintiff's and Class Members' names and Social Security
numbers.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other current and former
TRC employees are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive,
non-public PII, without which Defendant could not perform its
regular business activities, in order to obtain employment or
certain employment benefits at Defendant. The Defendant retains
this information for at least many years and even after the
employee-employer relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting,
using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class
Members, the Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those
individuals to protect and safeguard that information from
unauthorized access and intrusion, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future
data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result
of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's
inadequate data security practices.
TRC Staffing Services, Inc. is a Georgia-based corporation that
provides services to individuals seeking jobs as well as to
businesses seeking to hire talent.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
4279 Roswell Road Suite 208-108
Atlanta, GA 30342
Telephone: (678) 642-2503
E-mail: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com
- and -
Mariya Weekes, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (786) 879-8200
Facsimile: (786) 879-7520
E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com
TRIMFIT GLOBAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Murray Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
WARNER MURRAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Trimfit Global, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04639 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 18, 2024) alleges that Trimfit failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Trimfit provides to their
non-disabled customers through https://www.thorlo.com. The
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision;
others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind’s 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
Thorlo.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Trimfit
Global. Yet, Thorlo.com contains significant access barriers that
make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
Manhasset, NY 11030
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
TRINITY TEEN: Court OK's Form of Class Notice
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLIE SHERMAN, ANNA
GOZUN, and AMANDA NASH, on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated persons, V. TRINITY TEEN SOLUTIONS, INC., a Wyoming
corporation; ANGELA C. WOODWARD; JERRY D. WOODWARD; KARA WOODWARD;
KYLE WOODWARD; and DALLY-UP, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability
company, Case No. 2:20-cv-00215-SWS (D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Scott
Skavdahl entered an order approving form of class notice.
The Notice of a Certified Class Action (with the relevant
addresses, phone numbers, and websites included once known) is
hereby approved for distribution. In conformity with Magistrate
Judge Carman's supplemental scheduling order. Plaintiffs shall
establish a notice website and issue the approved notice by direct
mail to each known potential class member by July 9, 2024.
Trinity is a residential treatment center offering family therapy
and outpatient programs.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pVYBnN at no extra
charge.[CC]
TRUMBULL COUNTY, OH: Wrightsman Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Wrightsman, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Warren Township, Trumbull County, and Warren
Township Trustees, Case No. 4:24-cv-01025 (N.D. Ohio, June 18,
2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and additional
statutory liquidated damages, other penalties and compensation
available under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants since approximately
2016 to the present as a non-exempt employee. The Plaintiff's job
title is Lieutenant/Firefighter/EMT.
Although the Defendants suffered and permitted Plaintiff and other
Opt-In Plaintiffs to work more than 40 hours per workweek, the
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other Opt-In Plaintiffs
overtime at a rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of
pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. As a result, the
Plaintiff and other Opt-In Plaintiffs were willfully not properly
paid overtime compensation for their overtime hours worked as
required by the FLSA, says the suit.
Warren Township is one of the twenty-four townships of Trumbull
County, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark W. Biggerman, Esq.
29325 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 305
Pepper Pike, Ohio 44122
Telephone: (216) 475-5600
Facsimile: (216) 831-9526
E-mail: mark@mblegal.com
- and -
Lawrence Mays, Esq.
29325 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 305
Pepper Pike, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 208-1287
Facsimile: (216) 831-9526
E-mail: lawrence.mays@lmayslaw.com
UNITED MORTGAGE: Seeks Extension to File Reply
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIK MATTSON, v. UNITED
MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-00996-YY (D. Or.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline
for United Mortgage to file a reply supporting its Motion to Deny
Class Certification up to and including June 27, 2024.
The extension is being requested because additional time is needed
to analyze Plaintiff's arguments in opposition to the Motion to
Deny Class Certification and to formulate and draft the reply
brief, and because counsel for United Mortgage has had to address
several deadlines in other matters in the interim.
The undersigned has conferred with Plaintiff's counsel and the
latter does not object to the requested extension. The extension
request is made in good faith and not for any improper purpose.
United Mortgage provides mortgage services.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 13, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lh0R9x at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert E. Sabido, Esq.
SABIDO LAW, LLC
9385 SW Locust Street
Tigard, OR 97223
Telephone: (971) 302-6236
Facsimile: (503) 974-1673
E-mail: robert@sabidolawllc.com
UNITED STATES: Seeks to Dismiss FCI Dublin Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Fernandez of FOX KTVU reports that the Bureau of Prisons on
June 18, asked a federal judge to dismiss a class action lawsuit
against it, arguing that since FCI Dublin is now closed and there
are no longer any incarcerated women inside, there is no point to
being sued over reforms anymore.
"While the Court's supervision of conditions at FCI Dublin has
served its purpose through the closure of the facility, it has
reached a point of completion," Asst. U.S. Attorney Madison
Mattioli wrote to U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers,
in asking the case to be dismissed.
While the BOP acknowledged the judge's previous assessment that FCI
Dublin was in "dire need of immediate change," Mattiololi said
since the 605 women were moved out in April to prisons around the
country, the court's previous orders -- such as the conditions of
confinement -- are now moot.
And if FCI Dublin opens again, Mattioli argued, it will never house
women again.
Mattioli was referring to an August 2023 class-action lawsuit,
California Coalition for Women Prisoners et al. v. United States
Bureau of Prisons, filed by eight women who described sexual abuses
and retaliation at the hands of correctional officers at the
now-shuttered FCI Dublin.
The suit asked for "injunctive relief," essentially systemic change
and reforms to be made to change the culture at FCI Dublin.
In March, Gonzalez Rogers said that she would appoint a special
master -- an unprecedented move -- over the prison.
In April, the BOP closed FCI Dublin.
Special Master Wendy Still, despite the prison's closure, has
issued a report on the prior conditions at FCI Dublin and the
transfer of women to other prisons, but that report has not yet
been made public.
Lawyers for the women called the BOP's motion to dismiss "another
blatant attempt to avoid accountability and transparency."
Sabrina Taylor, who was formerly incarcerated at FCI Dublin and who
now lives in Tacoma, Wash., said the BOP's move to dismiss is
"ridiculous."
"I think it's an absolute blatant attempt to, ignore and,
completely avoid accountability for the harm that they've not only
caused myself as a victim while I was at Dublin, but many other
women who suffered not only through sexual assault but exposure to
toxic environments, and lack of mental health care, among other
things," she said. "I think it's completely obvious that this is
their attempt to hide from that." [GN]
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Shomaf Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK SHOMAF, an individual and on behalf of similarly situated
Aggrieved Employees, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LP,
dba ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES, a California Limited
Partnership, THEODORE HEINZ, an individual, and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV13950 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., June 4, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for the recovery of civil penalties based on wage and
hour violations under the California Labor Code, the California
Business and Professions Code, and the California Fair Employment
and Housing Act.
The complaint alleges the Defendants' wrongful termination, failure
to pay minimum wages, failure to furnish wage and hour statements,
failure to maintain payroll records, failure to pay meal and rest
period compensation, failure to pay wages in a timely manner,
failure to pay overtime compensation, waiting time penalties,
unfair competition, disability discrimination, failure to provide
reasonable accommodations, failure to engage in a good faith
interactive process, and retaliation.
The Plaintiff was hired as a field supervisor whose job duties and
responsibilities include driving to various job-sites, inspecting
job-sites, coaching security personnel, and ensuring that daily
operations were running smoothly from October 2023 until his
termination in December 2023.
Universal Protection Service, LP engaged in the business for
security guard services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan P. LaCour, Esq.
Lisa Noveck, Esq.
Jameson Evans, Esq.
Amanda M. Thompson, Esq.
EMPLOYEES FIRST LABOR LAW P.C.
1 S. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91105
Telephone: (310) 853-3461
Facsimile: (949) 743-5442
E-mail: jonathanl@pierrelacour.com
lisan@pierrelacour.com
jamesone@pierrelacour.com
amandat@pierrelacour.com
UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS: Schutts Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAD M. SCHUTTS, DANIEL O. TUCKER, MIKHAIL SERGEEV, LAURA GRUTZECK,
CAROLINA BLATT, BETH COUTURE, JEANETTE L. PADILIONI, ELISA M.
SEEHERMAN, and JENNY L. NEFF individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE UNIVERSITY OF THE
ARTS, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02420 (E.D. Pa., June 4, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendant for the recovery of damages in
the amount of 60 days' pay and ERISA benefits in violation of the
Plaintiffs' rights, and the rights of other similarly situated
individuals, under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.
This case arises from the sudden announcement by University
President Kerry Walk, on the evening of May 31, 2024, that the
school would be closing its doors for good on June 7. In the wake
of the University's abrupt closure, President Kerry Walk resigned
on June 4, 2024.
The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees of Defendant
were terminated as part of, or as a result of a mass layoff and
closing of the University of the Arts, as defined by the WARN Act,
ordered by the Defendant on or about May 31, 2024, and thereafter.
The Defendant violated the WARN Act by failing to give Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated employees of the Defendant at least 60
days advance written notice of termination, as required by the WARN
Act. In addition, the Plaintiffs seek penalties pursuant to the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment Collection Law.
The University of the Arts is a private university located in
Philadelphia formed by the merging of two century-old institutions:
Philadelphia College of Art and Philadelphia College of the
Performing Arts.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
Shoshana M. Savett, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
medelson@edelson-law.com
ssavett@edelson-law.com
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Patients Join Patient Records Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mye Owens, writing for WKRN.com reports that almost a year after
the first wave of class-action lawsuits were filed against
Vanderbilt University Medical Center, more patients are joining in
the legal battle.
In July 2023, two patients at VUMC sued the hospital over what they
call the hospital's failure to protect their personal health
information.
The patients filed a class action lawsuit against Vanderbilt in
Davidson County Chancery Court for the 20th Judicial District.
The lawsuit came after the Tennessee Attorney General requested
information on patients of the Vanderbilt Transgender Health
Clinic. The patients claim Vanderbilt failed to follow both federal
law and its own privacy policy when it provided health information
of more than 100 patients without notification.
"Your health, your sexual health, your sexual partners -- all those
things are things that can be discussed with doctors, and the fact
that this information was given over to a government agency without
any notice or attempts to make it anonymous is really desperately
concerning to our clients," said Tricia Herzfeld in a previous
interview with News 2.
Herzfeld is with the HSG Law Firm and is one of the lawyers
representing the patients.
Now, more than a dozen patients are adding their names to the
lawsuit, claiming the hospital released some of the most intimate
details of their personal lives, including pictures of body parts,
gender identity unknown to others, mental health information, and
the identity of intimate partners.
Two different types of class-action lawsuits have been filed; one
of them is by patients who claim they were told their records were
released to the AG. However, they learned afterward that their
records were never released. Now, they claim this caused them
"unnecessary emotional distress."
"Our focus right now is on Vanderbilt's duty to its patients. It
had a duty to let its patients know this was going on, and to
protect that information, and they didn't do it," said Herzfeld.
The information was provided in response to a civil investigative
demand (CID) from the AG's office related to what the office said
was a "billing issue" regarding transgender health care in
Tennessee, per the complaint. A spokesperson for the AG's office
said the investigation was directed "solely at VUMC and related
providers, and not at patients or their families," but the lawsuit
said Vanderbilt should have "pushed back on the AG's request for
personally identifiable information."
In a statement from VUMC on the recent lawsuits, the hospital said:
"No new claims have been presented in this lawsuit. We continue to
maintain that VUMC acted appropriately and in accordance with state
and federal law." [GN]
VICOLINA RESTAURANT: Andrade Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vicolina Restaurant
Venture LLC, et al. The case is styled as Flor Maria Peralta
Andrade, Carlos Alberto Aquino Pineda, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Vicolina Restaurant Venture
LLC, Kafi Inc., Hiramasa Restaurant Venture LLC, Atelier Espresso
Bar Inc., Michel Mroue, as an individual, Kamal Badr, as an
individual, Case No. 1:24-cv-04477 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Vicolina Restaurant Venture LLC -- https://www.vicolinanyc.com/ --
is a refined eatery serving Italian favorites such as pasta & meat
dishes, plus a brunch menu.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Patrick Peter O'Donnell, Esq.
Roman Mikhail Avshalumov, Esq.
BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Phone: (718) 263-9591
Email: jamespodonnell86@gmail.com
avshalumovr@yahoo.com
VISION PATH: Hearing for Class Cert. Bid Set for March 13, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wesley Africa v. Vision
Path, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04570-GW-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge George Wu entered an order that:
-- the hearing on the motion for class certification is set for
March
13, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.,
-- reply brief to be filed by Feb. 28, 2025,
-- opposition brief by Feb. 3, 2025, and
-- Opening brief by Jan. 6, 2025
Vision Path provides optical instruments.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z4c29p at no extra
charge.[CC]
WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Over Employee Relocation Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Taylor of TheWrap reports that the fallout from Disney's
decision to relocate hundreds of employees from California to
Florida continues, as a class action lawsuit was filed on June 18,
in Los Angeles Superior Court by attorneys for current Disney
employees Maria De La Cruz, George Fong and "all others similarly
situated" proposed class members. The lawsuit demands a jury
trial.
This class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of employees like De
La Cruz, a vice president of product design, and Fong, a creative
director of product design, who were "fraudulently induced to move
from the company's California offices to its proposed Lake Nona,
Florida development." When Disney then decided that they would no
longer require the requested 2,000 employees to move to Florida,
shuttering the sprawling Lake Nona campus amid an ongoing -- and
since squashed -- battle with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, it left
many Disney employees reeling. Some had already moved to Florida,
others who hadn't made the to move to the Sunshine State found
themselves without a job and still others were now being forced to
return to California.
At the time, it was an incredibly painful situation. After the
company had reversed their decision, many employees, who were
reluctant about moving to Florida, asked about staying on in
California. They were told that a Florida employee had already
taken their old job. This happened again and again.
A lawsuit isn't hugely surprising, in that respect, which details
employees in a division of the company formerly known as DPEP
(Disney Parks Experiences and Consumer Products) being forced to
decide about proposed relocation within 90 days.
"Disney emphasized the contemporary nature of the planned
facilities, including its collaborative workspaces, large group
gathering spaces, extensive amenities and efficient transportation
options," the lawsuit reads. "Disney also emphasized the
affordability of the Orlando housing market, the availability of
strong performing schools and the availability of lifestyle
amenities in and around Lake Nona."
The lawsuit details the anguish of having to move and then having
to move back. "These employees were given the choice to sell their
Southern California homes and leave their communities primarily
because Disney represented that their job security at Disney was
dependent upon their relocation to Florida, but also because Disney
represented that their work groups would now be centralized in
Florida, and by constructing the Lake Nona campus, Disney was
providing them with a modernized, comfortable and centralized
workplace where they could effectively perform their job duties. In
sum, employees were incentivized to move through a combination of
reward and punishment. An employee could choose to move to a better
life in Florida, or alternatively, choose not to move and be
terminated by Disney," the lawsuit reads.
Allegations also include Disney concealing facts "inconsistent with
its representations in order to induce employees to move to
Florida," stating that Disney's plans to build a state-of-the-art
facility were in fact, not true. There is also a mention that
Disney addressed the plans, apologizing to those impacted and
expressing that "the situation was a mistake on Disney's part."
"The unfortunate irony is that the employees most harmed were
Disney's most loyal employees," attorney Jason S. Lohr said in a
statement to TheWrap. "Disney needs to make this right for their
best and most loyal employees." [GN]
WELLSPACE HEALTH: Mixon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wellspace Health. The
case is styled as Latasha Mixon, Rosana Korman, individually, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Wellspace
Health, Case No. 24CV011792 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June
14, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Personal Injury/Property
Damage/Wrongful Death tort."
WellSpace Health -- https://www.wellspacehealth.org/ -- operates
the area's only 24 hour Suicide Crisis Line as well as a 24 hour
Parent Support Line.[BN]
WHOLE FOODS MARKET: Silberstein Suit Removed to E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Yaacov Silberstein, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC.,
and JOHN DOES 1-50, Case No. 608482/2024 was removed from the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
on June 14, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04229.
The Complaint alleges that WFM Group engaged in consumer deception
in violation of New York's General Business Law ("GBL") sections
349 and 350 by failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose the
bottle deposit fee that applies to in-store purchases of certain
Ronnybrook Farm Dairy products.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Dean Boyer, Esq.
ABRAMS FENSTERMAN, LLP
3 Dakota Drive, Suite 300
Lake Success, New York 11042
Phone: (516) 328-2300
Email: DBoyer@Abramslaw.com
- and -
Brian R. Blackman, Esq.
Wells Blaxter, Esq.
David P. Adams, Esq.
BLAXTER | BLACKMAN LLP
610 Montgomery Street, Suite 1110
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 500-7704
Email: bblackman@blaxterlaw.com
wblaxter@blaxterlaw.com
dadams@blaxterlaw.com
WHOLE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over In-Store Retail Price Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action lawsuit alleges Whole Foods has deceived and misled
consumers by effectively concealing an additional deposit fee on
in-store retail price labels.
The 19-page Whole Foods lawsuit says the grocery store's deposit
fee, in particular for Ronnybrook Farm dairy items, is displayed on
price labels in font "so small that it could practically fit inside
the decimal point between the dollar and cent figure" of a
product's retail price.
The proposed class action accuses Whole Foods of trying to dupe
consumers as to "the true price of the products it sells."
The plaintiff, a Nassau County, New York resident, contends that he
reviewed his receipt after a recent trip to Whole Foods and was
shocked to find that the store charged him an additional $6
"container deposit" fee on three Ronnybrook Farm Dairy products,
which increased the total cost of the items by almost 50 percent.
The consumer claims that, until recently, he was wholly unaware
that the prices displayed by Whole Foods for certain Ronnybrook
products were far lower than the actual price charged by the
grocery store.
"[The plaintiff] did not expect -- nor would any reasonable
consumer in [the plaintiff's] position have suspected -- that Whole
Foods would charge an additional $2.00 for each product," the case
reads.
The total price of the plaintiff's purchase of a pint of Ronnybrook
whole milk, pint of chocolate milk and pint of half and half came
to $18.27, with $6 of that cost coming in the form of bottle
deposit fees, the suit says. The complaint relays that the bottle
of the Ronnybrook products make no mention of a "+ Deposit $2" fee
and that a reasonable consumer would have no cause to suspect that
the items come with a hidden upcharge.
As the lawsuit tells it, mixed in with other features at the bottom
of the Ronnybrook products' retail labels is a "+Deposit $2"
notation. Though the deposit fee is significant, "everything about
its presentation is designed to, and has the effect of, concealing
it" from shoppers, the filing argues, taking issue with the
disclosure's font size, placement, font style and description.
The case says that although Whole Foods does not add a deposit fee
to certain Ronnybrook products sold online, it does so for products
sold in store as "it is substantially more difficult to impose
hidden fees on online purchases than in-store purchases."
"Online consumers are presented with an itemized price list on
their computer screen or mobile device immediately before placing
an order, which is often located adjacent to the ‘order' button.
Instore customers, on the other hand, do not receive an itemized
receipt of their purchase, if at all, until after completing the
purchase."
The Whole Foods lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the state
of New York who bought a Ronnybrook product from Whole Foods and
was charged a bottle deposit fee between May 4, 2021 and the
present. [GN]
WOLVEN THREADS: Thompson Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WOLVEN THREADS, INC. Defendant, Case No.
8:24-cv-01356-TPB-NHA (M.D. Fla., June 4, 2024) is a putative class
action pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they
have opted out of Defendant's solicitations to promote its goods
and services.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.
Wolven Threads, Inc. provides sustainable activewear and swimwear
products using recycled or natural fibers with principal office
located in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 533-4092
E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
[*] Credit Cards, Airline Rewards Programs Have Class Action Risks
------------------------------------------------------------------
dlapiper.com reports that in a hearing on May 9, 2024, the US
Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced new inquiries focused on what
was described as "numerous problems" with credit card and airline
rewards programs. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and CFPB
Director Rohit Chopra chaired the hearing, which included
representatives from several airlines, financial institutions, and
consumer protection groups.
CFPB issued a report analyzing several hundred consumer complaints
relating to the administration of credit card rewards programs and
identified four recurring themes: (1) unexpected promotional
conditions, (2) devaluation, (3) redemption problems, and (4)
revocation.
The CFPB and DOT "have not reached any conclusions" on regulatory
next steps, Secretary Buttigieg said. Even so, credit card issuers
and airlines should keep a close eye on potential regulatory and
class action litigation risks stemming from this new inquiry by the
agencies.
Context
In the hearing, Secretary Buttigieg first emphasized the importance
of airline mileage and credit card rewards programs to both issuers
and consumers.
For airlines operating in the US and internationally, mileage and
rewards programs represent a key segment of their business. An
airline industry representative said that operating costs exceed
passenger seat revenue at almost every major domestic airline in
the US and that airlines reach profitability through credit card
and mileage reward programs. Likewise, Director Chopra said that
rewards programs are equally important to credit card issuers,
which in 2022 alone collected a record $130 billion in interest and
fees.
These programs are in high demand with consumers, too. Credit
cards are the most common consumer lending product in America.
There are roughly 550 million credit cards in circulation among
Americans, who owe over $1 trillion dollars in credit card debt.
Credit card rewards amount to cost savings, and many consumers
consider points saved with rewards programs as another part of
their savings. And airline mileage programs have evolved from
selective rewards programs for loyal frequent fliers to massive
secondary markets based on a currency of miles and points.
Fundamentally, these programs shape how consumers interact with
airlines and credit card companies.
Areas of focus
The new inquiry will focus on several core issues that the agencies
are focusing on based upon customer complaints.
Point devaluation. Secretary Buttigieg raised concerns with
issuers whose point systems may vary depending on what the points
are being used to redeem, point systems that can change without
warning, and point systems that devalue points by making it more
challenging to redeem them or by limiting inventory after signing
up for the program. These methods of assigning value to miles and
points, Secretary Buttigieg believes, might be contained in "fine
print" that consumers may not read or understand at signup.
Bait-and-switch practices. The CFPB and DOT also emphasized their
focus on what they called "bait and switch" practices, which they
defined as issuers promising significant rewards after consumers
sign up for rewards programs but then failing to follow through
with providing any reward. For example, Secretary Buttigieg noted
that consumers may pay hefty annual fees for rewards credit cards
but find that certain benefits are stripped away without a refund
option associated with that fee. And, while issuers must often
give notice to consumers before revoking or altering rewards
benefits, regulators believe that some of the notices can be opaque
and ambiguous.
In addition, the CFPB and DOT noted redemption issues with earned
benefits, including customer service issues and technical glitches
that may block or delay redemption and prevent transfers to
third-party merchants. And, when an account closes, issuers may
revoke previously earned rewards including points, cash back, and
miles.
Exclusive deals. The CFPB noted that smaller financial institutions
often offer lower interest rates than their larger competitors, but
that the largest financial institutions make massive payments to
airlines in exchange for the airlines' refusal to sell points and
miles to other credit card issuers. According to Director Chopra,
these exclusive deals shut out smaller financial institutions from
participating in the rewards markets and, in turn, hurt consumers.
Lack of competition on interest rates. According to the CFPB,
financial institutions charge "dramatically" higher interest rates
for their rewards cards compared to their non-rewards cards. For
consumers who carry a balance, Director Chopra stated that the
higher interest rates wipe away all the benefits of the rewards.
In addition, the Director noted that issuers were not proactively
informing their cardholders about opportunities to save money with
their other cards that have lower interest rates. Director Chopra
also mentioned that hefty balance transfer fees can also impact
competition.
Class action litigation risks
As evident in recent years across a wide variety of sectors, waves
of consumer class action litigation often follow regulatory
inquiries into industrywide practices.
The same class action litigation risks may exist here. Director
Chopra stated his opinion that these practices -- including point
devaluation, bait-and-switch tactics, and redemption-of-value
issues -- are "at odds" with truth in advertising laws. These
practices, he said, "need to change," and he emphasized that the
CFPB will be looking for ways to protect people's points, to stop
bait-and-switch scams, and to promote a fair and competitive market
for credit card rewards.
These remarks may be encouraging to plaintiffs' firms seeking to
challenge these practices, although they may be deterred by the
fact that claims against airlines under state false advertising
laws are generally preempted under the Airline Deregulation Act of
1978, which the Supreme Court held broadly preempts the enforcement
of state laws impacting an airline's routes, rates, and services.
Consumer protection risks
Federal consumer protection laws, including the Consumer Financial
Protection Act's prohibition against unfair, deceptive, or abusive
acts or practices (UDAAP), apply to rewards programs offered in
connection with consumer financial products or services.
Regulators have taken prior enforcement actions against issuers
that engaged in allegedly unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or
practices related to rewards.
For example, the CFPB found that a credit card issuer had engaged
in deceptive practices in which qualified consumers were led to
believe that they would receive $300 and bonus reward points for
signing up for a particular credit card but never ended up
receiving the promised rewards.
Issuers' credit card rewards programs may begin to face heavy
scrutiny from the CFPB with respect to potential UDAAP risks. A
recurring theme of the hearing was the impact the rewards programs
had on a consumer's ability to choose a credit card. Many of the
speakers noted that a credit card company's rewards program is
often what leads a consumer to a particular credit card.
Retroactively modifying the rewards program could affect the
utility of the card for the consumer. Accordingly, issuers must be
cautious when modifying their rewards programs as such
modifications raise red flags under unfairness and deception
standards.
Director Chopra mentioned that the CFPB will begin to look at the
rules around terms and conditions that allow banks to change the
rewards programs so suddenly. Issuers can also expect a heightened
focus on transparency surrounding the decisions that lead to
valuing or devaluing point or miles in a certain way.
Next steps
In light of these risks, airlines and credit card companies may
consider the following actions to assess and mitigate any potential
liabilities:
Evaluating whether an arbitration provision or class action waiver
should be added into rewards contracts, and, if existing, consider
updating your provision given the risks of mass arbitration.
Reviewing your reward program agreements, including your notice
requirements for revoking or modifying benefits, and enhancing
these provisions and addressing any language that can be viewed as
ambiguous.
For rewards account closures, ensuring this provision is
conspicuously identified in your rewards contracts and notifying
participants about any mileage or point losses prior to closure.
[GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***