/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240627.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, June 27, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 129
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Evans Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Graves Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Greene Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Hay Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: James Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Jones Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Konieczny Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Kwasigroch Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Landrum Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Lewis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Mahan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Marc Whitehead Files 19 Lawsuits Over Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Matthews Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: McAbee Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Moseley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
560 NY MINI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Alleges
A&A SERVICES: Sutherlin Sues Over Compromised Patients' Info
AARON'S COMPANY: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger with IQVentures
AFFILIATED DERMATOLOGISTS: Berman Balks at Unsecured Personal Info
ALPINESTARS USA: Discloses Info to Marketing Firms, Wing Claims
AMAZON.COM INC: Reiss Sues Over Audiobook Monopoly
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Rosen Law Probes Possible Securities Claims
AT&T INC: Banu Sues Over Unprotected Sensitive Private Info
AT&T INC: Boykin Data Breach Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
BON SECOURS: Davis et al. Allege Labor Law Breaches
CAPITAL EXPRESS: Commo Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations
CENCORA INC: Faces Collins-White Suit Over Private Data Breach
CHARTER SENIOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pelow Alleges
CHEVRON CORP: Taylor Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
CHRISTIE’S INC: DeJulio and Shi Sue Over Disclosure of Private
Info
CLAYCO INC: Wright Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
CRST EXPEDITED: Edwards Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, LaVia Alleges
DEJA VU OF STATEN: Garcia Sues Over Breaches of Labor Laws
DONILYA LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Gomberg Says
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Gross Files FCRA Suit in D. Minnesota
FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hallman Alleges
FORD MOTOR: Bid for California Group Class Cert Pending
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN: Vital Suit Removed to N.D. California
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Joyner Suit Removed to D. Colorado
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Burton Sues Over Personal Info Disclosure
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Myers Says
FUBOTV INC: Court Rejects Motion to Dismiss VPAA Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: King Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
GENERAL MOTORS: Thongsawang Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
GENTLEMAN’S CLUB: Sued Over Failure to Pay Proper Minimum Wages
GOODLEAP LLC: Matthews Suit Removed to E.D. California
HARBORVIEW HEALTH: Delk Seeks Practical Nurses' Unpaid Overtime
HARTFORD HEALTHCARE: Estuary Alleges Health Plans Monopoly
HUNTINGTON, WV: Casto Land Suit Removed to S.D. W. Virginia
KEITH L. HORN: Gera Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
KRAUS RESTORATION: Underpays Construction Workers, Basharat Claims
KROGER CO: Kirkbride Bid to Permanently Seal Exhibits OK'd
LAW OFFICES OF HERSCHEL: Stephenson Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. La.
LEVEL 10 CONSTRUCTION: Bonilla Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Laborers
M&T BANK: Plaintiffs' Renewed Bid for Class Cert Tossed
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Cahill Suit Removed to C.D. California
MARTEN TRANSPORT: Class Settlement in Linman Suit Gets Initial Nod
MEAD JOHNSON NUTRITION: Lopez Suit Removed to N.D. California
MEDICAL EYE SERVICES: Lew Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
MEDTRANS LLC: Kemp Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MELINDA DERUS: Bartz Suit Seeks Class Certification
MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
MORGAN STANLEY: Sherlip Suit Alleges Improper Business Practices
MOSH PBC: Slade Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
MRO CORP: Hudson-Swoope Sues Over Excessive Medical Record Fees
MULTIPLAN INC: Advanced Orthopedic Sues Over Alleged Conspiracy
MY DAILY CHOICE: Cowherd Sues Over Private Data Breach
NIKE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Babystacks Cafe Suit Removed to D. Nevada
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
OFFICE DEPOT: Encinas Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Private Info
OPW FUELING: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Canales
OSTERKAMP TRANSPORTATION: Duncan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
OVERBY-SEAWELL CO: Settlement Deal Gets Initial Approval
PACIFIC MARITIME: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 27, 2025
PANERA LLC: Forster Sues Over Data Security Failures
RIPPLE LABS: Court Dismisses Securities Suits, Mulls XRP Status
ROYAL MAIL: Faces Class Action Over Anti-Competitive Conduct
SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Canady Sues Over Private Data Breach
SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Faces Enriquez Suit Over Data Breach
SNOWY HOLLOW: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Christianson Suit Alleges
SUNSET OPPORTUNITIES: Brito Sues Over ADA Non-compliant Facilities
SUPERIOR AIR-GOUND: Spann Balks at Failure to Secure Personal Info
TASMANIA: Youth Detention Centre Victims Agree to Settle Class Suit
TESLA INC: Ball Suit Asserts Breach of Certificate of Incorporation
TESLA MOTORS: Court Certifies Repair Monopoly Class Action Lawsuit
TRULIANT FEDERAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Payne Alleges
TSCHETTER SULZER: Inflates Tenants' Past-Due Rent Fees, Segura Says
UIPATH INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action
USHEALTH ADVISORS: Friedman Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages
VENTURE TRANSPORTATION: Vargas Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
VSHRED LLC: Collects Web Users' Without Consent, De La Torre Says
XGIMI TECHNOLOGY: Garrido Sues Over Projectors' False Ads
XPO LOGISTICS: Turman Sues Over Forklift Drivers' Unpaid OT
XPONENTIAL FITNESS: City of West Sues for Securities Law Violations
*********
3M COMPANY: Evans Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Evans, 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-02604-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, 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
Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Decedent 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.
Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS
from Defendant's AFFF products caused Decedent to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein
including death.
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 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
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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Graves Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Graves, 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-03465-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,
papillary thyroid cancer and hypothyroidism 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: Greene Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Greene, on behalf of himself v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota)
Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.;
ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY;
CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.;
GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA,
INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc.); W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:24-cv-02780-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. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his
firefighting career and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
rlee@belllegalgroup.com
gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Hay Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Hay, 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-02794-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 testicular 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: James Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allen L. James, on behalf of himself v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE
PLUS INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY
PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP,
INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO.,
INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.;
STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc.);
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:24-cv-02774-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. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his
firefighting career and was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
rlee@belllegalgroup.com
gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Jones Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Jones, on behalf of himself v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota)
Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.;
ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY;
CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.;
GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA,
INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc.); W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:24-cv-02752-RMG (D.S.C., April 29,
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. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his
firefighting career and was diagnosed with Liver Cancer as a direct
result of exposure to Defendants' products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
rlee@belllegalgroup.com
gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Konieczny Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allen Konieczny, 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-02407-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: Kwasigroch Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
------------------------------------------------------------
James A. Kwasigroch, 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-02525-RMG (D.S.C., April 24, 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: Landrum Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Landrum, Sr., 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-02526-RMG (D.S.C., April 24, 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: Lewis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tasman Lewis, 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-02527-RMG (D.S.C., April 24, 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: Mahan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Mahan, 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-02422-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 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 multiple myeloma 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: Marc Whitehead Files 19 Lawsuits Over Toxic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Whitehead & Associates, LLP filed 19 lawsuits seeking class
action status against the Defendants 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.). Each of the
complaints are stemming from personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter
turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS
includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA")
and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF 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 it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
All of the complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina. The complaints were filed
in April 26 and 27, 2024.
The Plaintiffs are:
Edgar Russell. Case No. 2:24-cv-02727-RMG.
Ellis Ray. Case No. 2:24-cv-02723-RMG.
Eric Ross. Case No. 2:24-cv-02725-RMG.
Herman Rush. Case No. 2:24-cv-02726-RMG.
Kelvin Pointdexter. Case No. 2:24-cv-02721-RMG.
Peter Nelson. Case No. 2:24-cv-02710-RMG.
Robert Prather. Case No. 2:24-cv-02722-RMG.
Robert Schackmuth. Case No. 2:24-cv-02728-RMG.
Alec Selesky. Case No. 2:24-cv-02745-RMG.
Calvin Simmons. Case No. 2:24-cv-02747-RMG.
Cody Steele. Case No. 2:24-cv-02748-RMG
Gerald Smyth. Case No. 2:24-cv-02749-RMG.
Jeffrey Schubert. Case No. 2:24-cv-02744-RMG.
Juan Manuel Perez. Case No. 2:24-cv-02716-RMG.
Larry Neff. Case No. 2:24-cv-02705-RMG.
Mark Shubert. Case No. 2:24-cv-02746-RMG.
Michael Uhnak. Case No. 2:24-cv-02750-RMG.
David Myers. Case No. 2:24-cv-02700-RMG.
Wendell Peoples. Case No. 2:24-cv-02713-RMG.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of
PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
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: Matthews Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Matthews, 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-02583-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: McAbee Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Janaia McAbee, 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-02585-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: Moseley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Csilla K. Moseley, as Personal
Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of ROBERT
DANIEL MOSELEY deceased, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining Ans Manufacturing Company): AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; 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; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; DYNAX CORPORATION; JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTONS LP: THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:24-cv-02401-RMG (D.P.R., April 23,
2024), is brought against the Defendants for damages for personal
injury and death resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to 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 or TOG products were used by
the Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change
in the products' condition. Decedent 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. Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Decedent to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at 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 Csilla Moseley is the duly-appointed personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Robert
Daniel Moseley, who regularly used, and was thereby directly
exposed to, AFFF and 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 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:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
560 NY MINI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 560 NY MINI MARKET INC.; JOHN DOE 1; and
JOHN DOE 2, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04572 (S.D.N.Y., June 14,
2024) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Garcia was employed by the Defendants as a deli clerk.
560 NY MINI MARKET INC. is engaged in retail sale of a range of
canned foods and dry goods. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
Email: www.StillmanLegalPC.com
A&A SERVICES: Sutherlin Sues Over Compromised Patients' Info
------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY SUTHERLIN, individually; as next friend of her minor
children K.S.(1), K.S.(2), and K.S.(3); and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. A&A SERVICES, LLC, a.k.a. A & A
SERVICES LLC, d/b/a SAV-RX, Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00216 (D.
Neb., June 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and unjust
enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients
stored within its network systems following a data breach detected
on October 8, 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach.
As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class
members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.
A&A Services, LLC, also known as A & A Services LLC, doing business
as Sav-Rx, is a provider of prescription management services,
headquartered in Fremont, Nebraska. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com
- and -
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Email: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
- and -
Tiffany Marko Yiatras, Esq.
CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC
308 Hutchinson Road
Ellisville, MO 63011
Telephone: (314) 541-0317
Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com
AARON'S COMPANY: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger with IQVentures
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm")
investigaates The Aaron's Company, Inc. (NYSE: AAN), relating to
its proposed merger with IQVentures Holdings, LLC. Under the terms
of the agreement, The Aaron's Company shareholders will receive
$10.10 in cash for each share they own.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/the-aarons-company-inc/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
AFFILIATED DERMATOLOGISTS: Berman Balks at Unsecured Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID BERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AFFILIATED DERMATOLOGISTS AND DERMATOLOGIC
SURGEONS, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-06953 (D.N.J., June 11,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and invasion of
confidence.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals stored within its systems following a data breach. The
Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly
situated patients and employees about the data breach. As a result,
the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Affiliated Dermatologists and Dermatologic Surgeons, P.A. is a
dermatological healthcare practice located in New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
Email: cmaccarone@zlk.com
ALPINESTARS USA: Discloses Info to Marketing Firms, Wing Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
BLAKE WING and SCOTT NAIRNE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALPINESTARS USA, INC., and
DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 24CV079312 (Cal. Super.,
Alameda Cty., June 11, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for violation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act
(SBCCA), common law negligence, invasion of privacy, and unlawful
intrusion.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged practice of requiring
and recording consumers' personal identification information (PII)
during credit card transaction processes. The Defendants then
shared the PII with third-party marketing companies to target
consumers through undisclosed and relentless advertising in
violation of the SBCCA. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct,
the Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers suffered damages,
says the suit.
Alpinestars USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective gear for
action sports, headquartered in Torrance, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
Brandon P. Jack, Esq.
Michelle Zhu, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 239-4778
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
Email: aberry@Justice4you.com
gharoutunian@justice4you.com
ljack@Justice4you.com
mzhu@justice4you.com
- and -
Jason M. Wucetich, Esq.
Dimitrios V. Korovilas, Esq.
WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP
222 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 2000
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (310) 335-2001
Facsimile: (310) 364-5201
Email: jason@wukolaw.com
dimitri@wukolaw.com
- and -
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 S. Beverly Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
Email: jnelson@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gabramson@milberg.com
ahoneycutt@milberg.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Reiss Sues Over Audiobook Monopoly
--------------------------------------------------
CD REISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-00851 (W.D. Wash., June 13, 2024) alleges violation of the
Sherman Act.
According to Plaintiff in the complaint, Amazon is the dominant
audiobook retailer in the United States. To maintain this
dominance, Amazon unlawfully uses exclusivity restrictions to lock
up content, starving competing or nascent firms that wish to
compete in the marketplace. By foreclosing competition, Amazon can
charge supracompetitive prices to authors for the distribution of
their audiobooks.
Amazon's coercive and anticompetitive conduct includes distinct and
interlocking components. First, Amazon charges higher distribution
fees to authors who also distribute their audiobooks using
competitive services. Then, in addition to charging a higher
distribution fee to deter competitive distribution, Amazon imposes
an array of other non-price penalties on non-exclusive audiobooks
that reduce their visibility and promotional opportunities.
Amazon's anticompetitive conduct has led higher fees to authors,
lower market output, reduced innovation, and fewer consumer
choices, says the suit.
Amazon.com, Inc. is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products. The Company products include books, music, computers,
electronics, and numerous other products. Amazon offers
personalized shopping services, Web-based credit card payment, and
direct shipping to customers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Nathan Emmons, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (708) 625-4949
Email: nathane@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Phillip Cramer, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, LLC
1221 Broadway, Suite 2140
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (312) 641-3200
Facsimile: (312) 641-6492
Email: pcramer@sperling-law.com
- and -
Eamon P. Kelly, Esq.
Barry Frett, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, LLC
55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 641-3200
Facsimile: (312) 641-6492
Email: ekelly@sperling-law.com
bfrett@sperling-law.com
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Rosen Law Probes Possible Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an
investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of American Airlines Group Inc. (NASDAQ: AAL)
resulting from allegations that American Airlines may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.
So what: If you purchased American Airlines 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=26399 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 May 28, 2024, after market hours, American
Airlines filed with the SEC a current report on Form 8-K. In this
current report, it announced that its Chief Commercial Officer
would leave the Company. It further announced that it was lowering
its guidance for its adjusted operating margin.
On this news, American Airlines stock fell 13.5% on May 29, 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]
AT&T INC: Banu Sues Over Unprotected Sensitive Private Info
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fulvia Banu, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T Inc., Defendant, Case No.
0:24-cv-61047-DSL (S.D. Fla., June 18, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's
sensitive information, which was among the data accessed by the
unauthorized third-party in the data breach.
On March 26, 2024, the Defendant determined that its customer
information was included in a dataset released on the dark web on
March 17, 2024. Based on the Notice of Data Breach sent to
Plaintiff, AT&T knows that the information illegally accessed
includes: full name, email address, mailing address, phone number,
social security number, date of birth, AT&T account number and AT&T
passcode. The Defendant's alleged failure to employ reasonable and
appropriate measures to protect against unauthorized access to
Plaintiff' and Class Members' personally identifiable information
constitutes an unfair act or practice prohibited by Section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, breach of
implied contract, and unjust enrichment/restitution.
AT&T Inc. is a telecommunications company headquartered in Dallas,
TX. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Enica Bogdan, Esq.
KEITH GIBSON LAW, P.C.
1200 N Federal Hwy. Ste.375
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (305) 306-4989
E-mail: bogdan@keithgibsonlaw.com
- and -
Keith L. Gibson, Esq.
KEITH GIBSON LAW, P.C.
490 Pennsylvania Avenue Suite 1
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Telephone: (630) 677-6745
E-mail: keith@keithgibsonlaw.com
AT&T INC: Boykin Data Breach Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RAH-NITA BOYKIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-02973, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for
Northern District of Texas on June 17, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 3:24-cv-01488 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendant's failure to properly protect
customers' highly sensitive personally identifiable information by
investing in adequate data security.
Headquartered in Dallas, TX, AT&T Inc. provides telecommunications
and technology services worldwide. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel R Warren, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
127 Public Square, Suite 2000
Cleveland, OH 44114-1214
Telephone: (216) 861-7145
Facsimile: (216) 696-0740
E-mail: dwarren@bakerlaw.com
BON SECOURS: Davis et al. Allege Labor Law Breaches
---------------------------------------------------
HEATHER DAVIS, ANDREW HOLDER, AMY TODD, HEATHER BEAUFORT, TARA
SMITH, and ELINOR LEE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BON SECOURS MERCY HEALTH, INC.,
and ROPER ST. FRANCIS HEALTHCARE, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00330-JPH (S.D. Ohio, June 18, 2024) arises out of
Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act, the Virginia
Overtime Wage Act, the New York Payment of Wages Act, and the New
York Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiffs have routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. However, the Defendants failed to properly compensate
Plaintiffs for all hours worked and failed to properly calculate
Plaintiffs' straight time and overtime under the FLSA and
applicable state law. Among other things, the Defendants did not
pay Plaintiffs for their auto-deducted 30- or 60-minute lunches
that were regularly interrupted by work, says the suit.
Bon Secours Mercy Health, Inc. is a foreign non-profit corporation
that operates approximately 49 healthcare facilities providing
healthcare services to its patients throughout the United States.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
CAPITAL EXPRESS: Commo Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN COMMO, individually and on behalf ofall those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL EXPRESS, LLC c/o C T Corporation
System, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00751 (E.D. Wis., June 17,
2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act and and Wisconsin wage-and-hour law.
The Defendant employed Plaintiff Commo as a delivery driver and was
allegedly misclassified as an independent contractor. During his
employment, the Defendant paid Plaintiff a fixed rate for each day
worked, with no overtime premiums when he worked more than 40 hours
in a workweek, says the suit.
Based in Omaha, NE, Capital Express, LLC is a transportation
company that offers various delivery services to its clients, with
the bulk of its business consisting of medical courier services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
Aaron J. Bibb, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
Post Office Box 2155
Madison, WI 53701-2155
Telephone: (608) 257-0040
Facsimile: (608) 256-0236
E-mail: smurshid@hq-law.com
abibb@hq-law.com
CENCORA INC: Faces Collins-White Suit Over Private Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
BONNIE COLLINS-WHITE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CENCORA, INC. and THE LASH GROUP, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02662 (E.D. Pa., June 17, 2024) arises
out of Defendants' failure to properly secure, safeguard, transmit,
and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive
personal identifiable information and protected health information
that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes.
This case involves the unauthorized breach of Defendant Cencora's
information system announced through a Notice of Data Security
Incident letter on May 17, 2024, wherein -- on or around February
21, 2024 -- the personal identifiable information and protected
health information, including names, dates of birth, health
diagnosis, and/or medications and prescriptions, of the Plaintiff
and Class Members was exposed due to a flaw in Defendant Cencora's
information systems, which allowed hackers and other bad actors to
obtain the Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information for
unsavory and illegal purposes. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings
this action against Defendants seeking redress for its unlawful
conduct and asserting claims for: (i) negligence and negligence per
se, (ii) breach of implied contract, (iii) breach of third-party
beneficiary contract (iv) unjust enrichment, and (v) declaratory
relief.
Cencora, Inc. is a drug wholesale company and a contract research
organization based in Conshohocken, PA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
E-mail: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
CHARTER SENIOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pelow Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
DANNIELLE PELOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHARTER SENIOR LIVING, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-04906 (N.D. Ill., June 13, 2024) seeks to recover from
the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Pelow was employed by the Defendant as a nurse.
Charter Senior Living, LLC is a family-owned company that operates
senior living communities. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
50 Public Square, Suite 1900
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
- and -
Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
4400 N. High St., Suite 310
Columbus, OH 43214
Telephone: (614) 704-0546
Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
CHEVRON CORP: Taylor Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
PAUL TAYLOR, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHEVRON CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV14192 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 6, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid
wages and penalties under the California Labor Code, Business and
Professions Code, and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, in
addition to seeking declaratory relief and restitution.
The Plaintiff is suing over the Defendants' failure to pay minimum
wage, failure to provide meal and rest periods, waiting time
penalties, failure to furnish wage statements, and engagement in
unfair competition.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee from approximately 2016 through his termination in
approximately October 2023.
Chevron Corporation is an American multinational energy corporation
predominantly specializing in oil and gas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul K. Haines, Esq.
Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
Matthew K. Moen, Esq.
Aden M. Khachadoorian, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (424) 292-2350
Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
mmoen@haineslawgroup.com
CHRISTIE’S INC: DeJulio and Shi Sue Over Disclosure of Private
Info
---------------------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL DEJULIO AND YIFAN SHI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHRISTIE'S INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04604 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2024) arises
from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard its
customers' personally identifiable information from a massive data
breach that occurred on or around May 9, 2024.
On June 7, 2024, the Defendant filed its first public notices of
the data breach and began sending out notice letters to consumers
affected by the data breach. The Defendant failed to provide timely
notice of the data breach. The Plaintiffs bring this action against
the Defendant for negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of
contract, breach of implied contract, breach of implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, invasion of confidence, and violation
of New York General Business Law.
Headquartered in New York, NY, Christie's Inc. offers clients a
range of services including art appraisal, art financing,
international real estate and education. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
Melissa Meyer, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
cmaccarone@zlk.com
mmeyer@zlk.com
CLAYCO INC: Wright Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled KATIE WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLAYCO, INC., a foreign
profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington
entities, Defendants, Case No. 24-2-10704-5-SEA, was removed from
the Superior Court of Washington, King County, to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 6,
2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-00802 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brings this case as a class representative. In the
complaint, Plaintiff seeks to certify a proposed class defined as:
"All individuals who, from January 1, 2023 through the date notice
is provided to the Class, applied for a job opening in the State of
Washington with Clayco, Inc., where the job posting did not
disclose a wage scale or salary range."
The Complaint asserts violation of RCW 49.58.110, and seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief.
Clayco, Inc. provides construction services.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Melissa K. Mordy, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
929 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1500
Bellevue, WA 98004-4786
Telephone: (425) 646-6194
Facsimile: (425) 646-6199
E-mail: missymordy@dwt.com
- and -
Margaret Burnham, Esq.
David Rund, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 757-8034
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: megburnham@dwt.com
davidrund@dwt.com
CRST EXPEDITED: Edwards Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER EDWARDS, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CRST EXPEDITED, INC. dba CRST, THE
TRANSPORTATION SOLUTION, INC.; and NORTH AMERICAN LOGISTICS GROUP,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04330 (E.D.N.Y., June 18, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of violating the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Edwards began working for Defendants in or around
February 2024 as a warehouse associate until the end of his
employment in or around June 2024. Allegedly, throughout his
employment, Plaintiff performed almost entirely physical tasks for
Defendants and therefore qualified as a manual worker under NYLL.
However, the Plaintiff was paid on a bi-weekly basis at all times.
In addition, he was also deprived of compliant and accurate annual
wage notices and compliant and accurate periodic wage statements in
violation of the NYLL, says the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Cedar Rapids, IA, CRST Expedited, Inc. is a
transportation and logistics company that offers transportation
services focusing on longer length hauls. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810,
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (718) 669-0714
E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com
CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, LaVia Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS LaVIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CURALEAF HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
610309/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., June 13, 2024) seeks to
recover from the Defendant unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs.
Plaintiff LaVia was employed by the Defendant as a security guard.
Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, engages in the production and
distribution of cannabis products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
Jocelyn Small, Esq.
KESSLER MATURA P.C.
534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 499-9100
Email: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
jsmall@kesslermatura.com
DEJA VU OF STATEN: Garcia Sues Over Breaches of Labor Laws
----------------------------------------------------------
Mishelle Garcia, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. Deja Vu of
Staten Island, Corp., Carlos Diaz, and Fernando Vivanco,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04652 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2024) seeks
recovery, for Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
individuals, against Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and their supporting New York
Department of Labor regulations.
Plaintiff Garcia was employed by Defendants as a bartender from on
or around October 2019 to, through and including, July 2022. At all
relevant times, the Defendants allegedly did not pay Plaintiff at
the rate of one and one-half times their hourly wage rate for hours
worked in excess of forty per workweek.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief
and to recover unpaid overtime wages liquidated and statutory
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the FLSA, NYLL, and the NYLL's Wage Theft
Prevention Act.
Deja Vu of Staten Island, Corp. owns and operates a sports bar and
restaurant known as "DejaVu Sports Bar" in Staten Island, NY. [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
DONILYA LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Gomberg Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW GOMBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DONILYA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-02624 (E.D. Pa., June 14, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://shop.litterpawpetsupply.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Donilya, LLC operates an online retail store and advertises,
markets, and operates in the State of Pennsylvania and throughout
the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Glanzberg, Esq.
Robert Tobia, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA LAW, P.C.
123 South Broad Street Suite 1640,
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Telephone: (215) 981-5400
Email: DGlanzberg@aol.com
robert.tobia@gtlawpc.com
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Gross Files FCRA Suit in D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Gross, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated v. Experian Information
Solutions, Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-02269-JMB-JFD (D. Minn., June 13,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.experian.com/
-- operates as an information services company. The Company offers
credit information, analytical tools, and marketing services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ariana Kiener, Esq.
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
John G. Albanese, Esq.
Berger Montague
Tyler St. NE, Ste. 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Phone: (612) 666-3066
Email: akiener@bm.net
emdrake@bm.net
jalbanese@bm.net
FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hallman Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTNEY HALLMAN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 8:24-cv-00222 (D. Neb., June 14, 2024) seeks to recover
from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Hallman was employed by the Defendant as a server.
Flagship Restaurant Group, LLC are a full-service and fast-casual
restaurant company based in Omaha, NE. We create and manage
full-service and fast-casual dining concepts with locations in
Nebraska, Texas, Colorado, Kansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Indiana,
Ohio, Iowa, Tennessee, Alabama, Missouri, and Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq.
Kevin A. Todd, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
1501 Westport Road
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 875-3332
Email: jziegelmeyer@hkm.com
ktodd@hkm.com
FORD MOTOR: Bid for California Group Class Cert Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tershakovec, et al., v.
Ford Motor Company, Case No. 1:17-cv-21087 (S.D. Fla., Filed March
22, 2017), the Hon. Judge Federico A. Moreno entered an order that
the motion for class certification on the last California groups
has been pending since the appellate mandate on September 11,
2023.
-- An announcement of a settlement in principle is meaningless as
the
Court can only approve a settlement that includes principal.
-- The Court will rule no later than June 25, 2024, on the
remaining
class certification issues pending since the mandate from the
11th
Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 11, 2023.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Motor Vehicle
Product Liability.
Ford is an American multinational automobile manufacturer.[CC]
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN: Vital Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christa Vital, Scott Schutza, Christopher
Newton, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Meta Platforms Inc., Google
LLC, Case No. 24CV073453 was removed from the Alameda County
Superior Court, 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-03625 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Kaiser Foundation Health Plans (KFHP) --
https://www.kaiserhealthgroup.com/ -- work with employers,
employees, and individual members to offer prepaid health plans and
insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Wynter N. Deagle, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
12275 El Camino Real, Ste. 100
San Diego, CA 92130
Phone: (858) 720-8947
Email: wdeagle@sheppardmullin.com
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Joyner Suit Removed to D. Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Chiquita Joyner, Helen Dixon, and Tajahne
Hobley, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., a Colorado corporation; SIMPLICITY
GROUND SERVICES LLC, D/B/A MENZIES AVIATION, a Delaware limited
liability company; and AIRCRAFT SERVICE INTERNATIONAL, INC., D/B/A
MENZIES AVIATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2023CV31460 was
removed from the District Court, City and County of Denver, State
of Colorado, to the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado on June 14, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01672.
The Plaintiffs seek: a declaratory judgment condemning the
Defendants' actions as violations of Colorado Wage and Hour Law;
injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from allegedly continuing
to violate Colorado Wage and Hour Law; compensatory damages,
including penalties, for alleged unpaid wages, commission, and
overtime pay to Plaintiffs and the classes; and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and expenses.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael F. Ryan, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
1400 16th Street, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (720) 437-2000
Fax: (720) 437-2200
Email: mryan@foley.com
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Burton Sues Over Personal Info Disclosure
------------------------------------------------------------------
SETH BURTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS PARENT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01429-E (N.D. Tex., June 11, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the New York
Deceptive Acts and Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its
computer systems following a data breach detected on or about April
14, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff
and similarly situated customers about the data breach. As a
result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members
was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to
unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Frontier Communications Parent, Inc. is a provider of internet,
television, and other technology services, headquartered in Dallas,
Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
A. Brooke Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY LAW FIRM
4116 Will Rogers Pkwy., Suite 700
Oklahoma City, OK 73108
Telephone: (405) 389-4989
Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Myers Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER MYERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS PARENT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01444-E (N.D. Tex., June 13, 2024) is
an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure
and safeguard sensitive information of its customers.
According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of
the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a
foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that
Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired
by data thieves.
Frontier Communications Parent, Inc. operates as a
telecommunications company. The Company offers a variety of
communications solutions services through its fiber-optic and
copper networks, including video, high-speed internet, advanced
voice, and frontier secure digital protection. [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
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
Truist Place
Tampa, FL. 33602
Telephone: (813) 500-1500
Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
FUBOTV INC: Court Rejects Motion to Dismiss VPAA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal judge won't let FuboTV turn off a class action under the
Video Privacy Protection Act.
In one of his final actions from the bench before his death on June
11, U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber issued an opinion June 4
rejecting the company's motion to dismiss a complaint from Ne'Tosha
Burdette, who alleged Fubo improperly disclosed her history of
watching programs on the streaming platform to third parties,
including information she said could help identify her and her
requests to view specific content.
According to Leinenweber, the relevant language within the VPPA
requires content providers to obtain written consent for
intentional disclosures of personal identifiers, which "includes
information which identifies a person as having requested or
obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape
service provider."
Fubo didn't argue whether Burdette provided consent, but instead
said the complaint lacks sufficient allegations of unlawful
disclosure and doesn't establish Fubo meets the law's definition of
"video tape service provider." They also asserted the law's
"ordinary course" exception applies to the alleged conduct.
Leinenweber said Fubo's privacy policy -- like that of Tubi, a
now-defunct streaming service that also faced privacy litigation --
employed "conjectural language" about what the platform "may" do
and for what potential purposes.
"Tubi's policy did contain a section on the California Consumer
Privacy Act notice in which it disclosed that it had affirmatively
shared certain relevant categories of information, including
(personally identifiable information) and device history, to third
party advertisers," Leinenweber wrote. "It is also true that Fubo's
privacy policy does not contain such a detailed and affirmative
statement regarding which kinds of information it did share with
third parties as opposed to may have shared. But there are a few
reasons why this difference does not foreclose Burdette's claims."
For one thing, Leinenweber wrote, Tubi's privacy policy factored
only as circumstantial evidence in its litigation. Second, Fubo's
policy specifically affirms disclosure of subscriber information
while asserting the information doesn't personally identify users.
He also said Fubo's annual reports disclosed potential for VPPA
litigation due to the "use of subscriber data to deliver relevant
advertising."
Leinenweber rejected Fubo's request to define "personally
identifiable information" as only that which would "readily permit
an ordinary person to identify a specific individual's
video-watching behavior." In addition to saying that standard
hasn't been applied in his judicial district, Leinenweber also said
Burdette's allegations involve data that would satisfy the
standard.
"Here, the annual reports, the privacy policy and the press report
offer sufficient circumstantial evidence to infer that Fubo
disclosed customer information in a non-VPPA-compliant manner,"
Leinenweber wrote.
As to whether Fubo qualifies as a "video tape service provider,"
Leinenweber rejected Fubo's position that since the VPPA applies
only to recorded content, and Fubo provides both recorded and live
content, Burdette should need to specify which type of content she
watched to bring a VPPA claim. He said that "logic impermissibly
elevates the legal standard Burdette must overcome at the motion to
dismiss stage."
Finally, Leinenweber said Fubo failed to show the alleged
disclosures would fall under the VPPA's exception for disclosures
deemed "incident to the ordinary course of business of the video
tape service provider," including "order fulfillment" and "request
processing." He noted a citation to a 1988 Senate Judiciary Report
was off-base in light of a 2014 U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals opinion in Sterk v. RedBox Automated Retail and noted
"targeted marketing and advertising analytics have only ballooned
in complexity and pervasiveness in the decade since" and
advertising doesn't fall within an "ordinary course of business"
exception.
Fubo's corporate communications department declined to comment on
the litigation. [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: King Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael King, Gus Lopez, on behalf of themselves
and all those similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, Onstar LLC,
Case No. 2:24-cv-02560 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia on June 12, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-02553-TWT to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
General Motors Company -- https://www.gm.com/ -- is an American
multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in
Detroit, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Martin Schmidt, Esq.
SCHMIDT NATIONAL LAW GROUP
3033 Fifth Avenue, Suite 335
San Diego, CA 92103
Phone: (800) 631-5656
The Defendant is represented by:
Troy McMahan, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 318-1200
- and -
William E. Steimle, Esq.
KING & SPALDING, LLP- SF CA
101 Second Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 318-1200
Fax: (415) 381-1300
GENERAL MOTORS: Thongsawang Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jariya Thongsawang, Susan Clingerman, Brent
Rish, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. General Motors LLC, Onstar LLC, LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.,
Case No. 8:24-cv-00695 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia on June 12, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-02565-TWT to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
General Motors Company -- https://www.gm.com/ -- is an American
multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in
Detroit, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Christopher Stiner, Esq.
Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
Theodore Walter Maya, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 W Olive Ave Ste 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Phone: (310) 474-9111
Fax: (310) 474-8585
Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com
rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Troy McMahan, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 318-1200
- and -
William E. Steimle, Esq.
KING & SPALDING, LLP- SF CA
101 Second Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 318-1200
Fax: (415) 381-1300
- and -
Ronald I. Raether, Jr., Esq.
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP-I. CA
5 Park Plaza, Suite 1400
Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: (949) 622-2722
Fax: (949) 622-2739
Email: ron.raether@troutman.com
GENTLEMAN’S CLUB: Sued Over Failure to Pay Proper Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE I; JANE DOE II; JANE DOE III; JANE DOE IV; and JANE DOE V,
individually and on behalf of the class of persons, Plaintiffs v.
THE GENTLEMAN'S CLUB, INC.; and WILLIAM "BILLY" DAVIS, Defendants,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00804-SGC (N.D. Ala., June 18, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act because it
failed to pay minimum wages to Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs are exotic dancers/entertainers at an establishment
known as The Gentlemen's Club in Etowah County, Alabama. However,
they were intentionally misclassified them as independent
contractors. As a result, they were not paid proper minimum wages
as required by FLSA. Among other things, the Defendants unlawfully
required them to disgorge monies given to them by patrons,
effectively forcing them to split them with non-tipped employees,
say the Plaintiffs.
The Gentlemen's Club, Inc. is an Alabama corporation operating a
nightclub in Atalla, AL. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian M. Clark, Esq.
WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB
301 19th St North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 314-0500
Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
GOODLEAP LLC: Matthews Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Daisha Matthews, on behalf of herself and the
general public v. GOODLEAP, LLC and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UBT-2023-0005061 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Joaquin,
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California on June 13, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-01684-CSK.
On May 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC")
in the Action. The SAC asserts four causes of action: violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), violations of the Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, violation of the California
Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, and violations of the
California Business and Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Alexander R. Safyan, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
Phone: 213.430.3400
Fax: 213.430.3409
Email: alexander.safyan@tuckerellis.com
HARBORVIEW HEALTH: Delk Seeks Practical Nurses' Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTAL DELK, individually on behalf of herself and others
similiarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARBORVIEW HEALTH SYSTEMS INC., a
Domestic Business Corporation, Defendant, Case No: 1:24-cv-04269
(E.D.N.Y., June 17, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, an additional and equal amount as liquidated damages,
and reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a non-exempt and hourly-paid
licensed practical nurse from April 2021 through April 2023.
Allegedly, the Defendant failed to compensate her, and all
similarly situated hourly-paid nurses, at a rate of one and
one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a single workweek, says the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Cedarhurst, NY, HarborView Health Systems, Inc.
operates nursing facilities throughout Florida, Georgia and North
Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road., Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
HARTFORD HEALTHCARE: Estuary Alleges Health Plans Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------------
ESTUARY TRANSIT DISTRICT; and TEAMSTERS 671 HEALTH SERVICE &
INSURANCE PLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. HARTFORD HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; HARTFORD
HOSPITAL; HARTFORD HEALTHCARE MEDICAL GROUP, INC.; and INTEGRATED
CARE PARTNERS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01051 (D. Conn.,
June 14, 2024) alleges violation of the Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, beginning June 2020 and continuing
until the present, the Defendants have abused their market power to
carry out a multifaceted anticompetitive scheme with the purpose
and effect of foreclosing healthcare competition and extracting
supracompetitive prices from Plaintiffs and other health plans.
The Defendants' scheme has substantially foreclosed competition in
both general acute care inpatient hospital services and outpatient
medical services in several distinct geographic markets within
Connecticut. This, in turn, has artificially inflated healthcare
costs and prices paid by Plaintiffs and the proposed Class while
also impairing the quality of the services provided, thus injuring
the Plaintiffs and the proposed Class, says the suit.
Hartford HealthCare Corporation provides healthcare services. The
Company offers tertiary-care teaching, behavioral and mental
health, surgical weight loss, and spine care services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan M. Shapiro, Esq.
AETON LAW PARTNERS LLP
311 Centerpoint Drive
Middletown, CT 06475
Telephone: (860) 724-2160
Email: jms@aetonlaw.com
- and -
Matthew W. Ruan, Esq.
Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON
& MILLEN LLC
100 Tri-State International, Suite 128
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
Telephone: (224) 632-4500
Email: mruan@fklmlaw.com
dmillen@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq.
Christopher J. Bateman, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
88 Pine Street, Suite 1400
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 838-7797
Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
Email: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com
cbateman@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Brent W. Johnson, Esq.
Nathaniel D. Regenold, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
Email: bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com
nregenold@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1001 G Street, NW Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 559-9745
Email: dwalker@bm.net
- and -
Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Email: ecramer@bm.net
- and -
Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
Scott Jacobsen, Esq.
HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 213-8311
Email: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com
SJacobsen@hrsclaw.com
HUNTINGTON, WV: Casto Land Suit Removed to S.D. W. Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CASTO LAND, INC., UNIVERSAL HOLDINGS, LLC, CLIFFORD
SMITH, STEPHANIE SMITH, and JIMMIE LAPSLEY, each for themselves and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
HUNTINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, and STEVE
WILLIAMS, individually and in his capacity as Mayor and Director of
Vacant Buildings for the City of Huntington, West Virginia, KATHY
BURKS, individually and in her capacity As the Director of Finance
for the City of Huntington, West Virginia, SHERRY WILKINS,
individually and in her capacity as the Director of the Municipal
Stormwater System for the City of Huntington, West Virginia,
Defendants, Case No. 24-C-155, was removed from the Circuit Court
of Cabell County, West Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia, Huntington Division, on June
17, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00296 to the proceeding.
The case arises from alleged violations of the West Virginia
Consumer Credit Protection Act. It also assets claims for
declaratory action and negligence against Defendants, attacking the
validity of fire, refuse and vacant building liens and fees,
claiming the same are time barred and ultra vires liens and fees.
City of Huntington is a political subdivision in West Virginia. It
runs the day-to-day activities of its fire department and its
public utilities. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
J.William St. Clair, Esq.
P.O. Box 592
Huntington, WV 25710
- and -
Scott W. Andrews, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON, PLLC
825 Third Avenue, Suite 400
Huntington, WV 25701
- and -
Megan L. Southern, Esq.
JENKINS FENSTERMAKER, PLLC
Post Office Box 2688
Huntington, WV 25726-2688
Telephone: (304) 523-2100
Facsimile: (304) 523-2347
KEITH L. HORN: Gera Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keith L. Horn, et al.
The case is styled as Bryan Reilly, and others similarly situated
v. Keith L. Horn, Idan Shani, Jeremy Tarica, Kevin Mayer, Martin
Luther King III, Peter Schlessel, Salil Mehta, Sheila A. Stamps,
Teresa Miles Walsh, The Beachbody Company, Inc., The Forest Road
Company, LLC, The Raine Group LLC, Thomas Staggs, Zachary Tarica,
Case No. 2024-0654 (Del. Chancery Ct., June 14, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."
Keith L. Horn is the founder and the Managing Member of Loring
Capital Advisors LLC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Barry, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER PA
123 S. Justison St.
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 622-7065
Email: mbarry@gelaw.com
KRAUS RESTORATION: Underpays Construction Workers, Basharat Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
MUHAMMAD BASHARAT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KRAUS RESTORATION INC., KRAUS
MAINTENANCE INC., STEPHEN KRAUS and AJAZ KIANI, Defendants, Case
No. 1:24-cv-04150 (E.D.N.Y., June 11, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay wages for
all hours worked, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to comply
with notice and recordkeeping requirements, and failure to provide
accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a construction worker
from in or around August 2017 until in or around October 2022.
Kraus Restoration Inc. is a restoration repair company, doing
business in Long Island City, New York.
Kraus Maintenance Inc. is a provider of building maintenance
services, doing business in Long Island City, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
KROGER CO: Kirkbride Bid to Permanently Seal Exhibits OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDY KIRKBRIDE, et al., v.
THE KROGER CO., Case No. 2:21-cv-00022-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers entered an order:
-- granting the Plaintiffs' motion to permanently seal exhibits to
Defendant's opposition to class certification, motion to strike
Colin Weir, and motion to strike Kenneth Schafermeyer, and motion
to permanently seal portions of its response in opposition to the
Plaintiffs' Motion for class certification and certain supporting
exhibits as well as certain supporting exhibits to Defendant's Rule
702 Motions filed by Defendant.
The Clerk is directed to maintain a copy of the identified
documents under seal.
Kroger is directed to file on the public docket identical versions
of its previous filings, with the approved redactions, within seven
days of the date of this order.
Thus, having reviewed Kroger's proposed redactions, the Court is
satisfied that Kroger has satisfied the requirements of Shane Grp.
Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and
multi-department stores throughout the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=McojKI at no extra
charge.[CC]
LAW OFFICES OF HERSCHEL: Stephenson Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. La.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Law Offices of
Herschel C. Adcock, Jr., L.L.C. The case is styled as Obadiah
Stephenson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situate v. Law Offices of Herschel C. Adcock, Jr., L.L.C., Case No.
2:24-cv-01100-LMA-MBN (E.D. La., April 30, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
The Law Offices of Herschel C. Adcock, Jr., LLC --
https://www.hcadcockjr.com/ -- specializes in the representation of
local and national lending clients and their interests.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sean D. Reichert, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF SEAN REICHERT
4035 Washington Ave.
New Orleans, LA 70125
Phone: (504) 264-6477
Email: seanreichertecf@gmail.com
LEVEL 10 CONSTRUCTION: Bonilla Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Laborers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JENRY BONILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARASH GILARDI, LEVEL 10 CONSTRUCTION GROUP
INC., AG CONTRACTING SERVICES INC., and JERUSELEM CARTING INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04161 (E.D.N.Y., June 11, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to comply with notice and recordkeeping
requirements, and failure to provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a laborer from in or
about 2017 until in or about December 2023.
Level 10 Construction Group Inc. is a demolition and construction
services provider, doing business in New York.
AG Contracting Services Inc. is a demolition and construction
services provider, doing business in New York.
Jeruselem Carting Inc. is a demolition and construction services
provider, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
Email: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com
M&T BANK: Plaintiffs' Renewed Bid for Class Cert Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID JAROSLAWICZ,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. M&T
BANK CORPORATION, HUDSON CITY BANCORP INC., ROBERT G. WILMERS, RENE
F. JONES, MARK J. CZARNECKI, BRENT D. BAIRD, ANGELA C. BONTEMPO,
ROBERT T. BRADY, T. JEFFERSON CUNNINGHAM III, GARY N. GEISEL, JOHN
D. HAWKE, JR., PATRICK W.E. HODGSON, RICHARD G. KING, JORGE G.
PEREIRA, MELINDA R. RICH, ROBERT E. SADLER, JR., HERBERT L.
WASHINGTON, DENIS J. SALAMONE, MICHAEL W. AZZARA, VICTORIA H.
BRUNI, DONALD O. QUEST, JOSEPH G. SPONHOLZ, CORNELIUS E. GOLDING,
WILLIAM G. BARDEL, and SCOTT A. BELAIR, Case No. 1:15-cv-00897-EJW
(D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Wallach entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration and the plaintiffs' renewed
motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs have failed to show in their Motion for
Reconsideration a clear error or manifest injustice in the Court's
Feb. 7, 2024 Opinion regarding their original Motion for Class
Certification. The Plaintiffs have additionally failed to show that
the preponderance of the cumulative common evidence provided in
their Renewed Motion for Class Certification and reincorporated
past filings demonstrates that Plaintiffs are capable of prevailing
at trial on the issue of transaction causation for their alleged
Dividend Damages, and the issues of loss causation and transaction
causation for their Trading and Closing Damages.
The Court reserves its discretion to amend this Memorandum Opinion
and Order if new evidence available in the later merits stages of
this proceeding alters its analysis regarding the commonality and
predominance requirements of Rule 23.
On Feb. 7, 2024, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
vacating the Court's earlier August 28, 2023 Opinion and denying
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Defendants' Motion
to Exclude the Expert Report and Opinions of M. Travis Keath and
David DeRosa.
M&T is an American bank holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WKo3ua at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francis J. Murphy, Jr., Esq.
Jonathan L. Parshall, Esq.
MURPHY, SPADARO & LANDON
Wilmington, DE
- and -
Steven M. Coren, Esq.
Benjamin M. Mather, Esq.
Matthew R. Williams, Esq.
KAUFFMAN, COREN & RESS, P.C.
Philadelphia, PA
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian M. Rostocki, Esq.
Anne M. Steadman, Esq.
Justin M. Forcier, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
Wilmington, DE
- and -
Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq.
Janet A. Gochman, Esq.
Tyler A. Anger, Esq.
V. Noah Gimbel, Esq.
Katherine A. Hardiman, Esq.
SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT
New York, NY.
- and -
Kevin R. Shannon, Esq.
Daniel Rusk, Esq.
POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
Wilmington, DE
- and -
Tracy Richelle High, Esq.
Scott A. Foltz, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
New York, NY
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Cahill Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joshua Cahill, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC. a Delaware corporation; RESIDENCE INN BY
MARRIOTT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24CV02395 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of
Santa Barbara, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on June 14, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-05065.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts ten causes of action: failure to
pay overtime wages; unpaid meal period premiums; unpaid rest break
premiums; unpaid minimum wages; failure to pay final wages timely;
failure to pay wages timely during employment; failure to provide
accurate and itemized wage statements; failure to keep requisite
payroll records, failure to reimburse necessary business expenses,
and unfair business practices, in violation of California Business
and Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Greg S. Labate, Esq.
Eric T. Angel, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership
Including Professional Corporations
650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993
Phone: 714.513.5100
Facsimile: 714.513.5130
Email: glabate@sheppardmullin.com
eangel@sheppardmullin.com
MARTEN TRANSPORT: Class Settlement in Linman Suit Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT LINMAN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. MARTEN TRANSPORT,
LTD, Case No. 3:22-cv-00204-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge James
Peterson entered an order that:
1. The following class is certified under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23:
"All individuals who received or were sent notice from the
Defendant's Sept. 30, 2021 to Oct. 4, 2021 Data Incident."
2. The court approves Nathan D. Prosser of Hellmuth & Johnson,
M.
Anderson Berry of Clayeo Arnold, A Professional Corp., and
Terence R. Coates of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC as class
counsel.
3. The Plaintiff's amended motion for preliminary approval of
the
settlement is granted.
4. The claims administrator may have until June 27, 2024, to
send
out the class notices, giving members 60 days to opt out of
the
class or file an objection and 90 days to file a claim.
5. The parties may have until Oct. 28, 2024, to file a motion
for
final approval and a motion for fees and costs.
6. The court will hold a fairness hearing on Dec. 5, 2024, at
10:00
am.
The Plaintiff alleges that Marten failed to adequately protect its
computer network, which allowed cybercriminals to steal information
that included full names and social security numbers of
prospective, current, and former Marten employees.
On Nov. 16, 2023, the court denied without prejudice Linman's
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the parties' proposed
settlement and asked the parties to address numerous concerns. In
response, the parties amended their proposed settlement and Linman
has filed a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement.
Under the agreement, Marten is to pay $520,000 to establish a
common settlement fund, which will be used to pay attorney fees,
litigation expenses, an incentive award to Linman, the cost of
notice and administrative expenses, and payments to class members.
The amended
settlement agreement and Linman’s brief in support of the amended
motion for preliminary approval estimate the following amounts for
fees and expenses:
-- $152,000 for attorney’s fees;
-- $15,000 for litigation expenses;
-- $44,000 for administrative costs; and
-- $5,000 for Linman's incentive award.
Marten is a refrigerated truckload, intermodal and brokerage
providers in the U.S. Canada and Mexico.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cfD1ck at no extra
charge.[CC]
MEAD JOHNSON NUTRITION: Lopez Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dominique Lopez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. MEAD JOHNSON NUTRITION COMPANY and
MEAN JOHNSON & JOHNSON COMPANY, LLC, Case No. C24-01231 was removed
from the Superior Court of California for Contra Costa County, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on June 13, 2024, and assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-03573-TSH.
The Plaintiff alleges the Products contain "Heavy Metals,"
including arsenic, cadmium, and lead, but that Mead Johnson does
not disclose that on its packaging. As a result, Plaintiff alleges
Mead Johnson violated California's Unfair Competition Law, False
Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and breached
other statutory and common law duties.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Alexander R. Safyan, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
Phone: 213.430.3400
Fax: 213.430.3409
Email: alexander.safyan@tuckerellis.com
MEDICAL EYE SERVICES: Lew Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Patrick Lew, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Medical Eye Services, Inc., California
Physicians Service doing business as: Blue Shield of California,
Case No. 4:24-cv-00532 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts on June 14, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11558-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Medical Eye Services Inc., is a medical service provider. The
Company offers vision care services to large and small employer
groups through insurance companies, health maintenance
organizations, preferred provider organizations, and self-funded
plans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Jordan Nadine Isern, Esq.
Simon S Grille, Esq.
Cole Limbach, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: (415) 981-4800
Email: apolk@girardsharp.com
jisern@girardsharp.com
sgrille@girardsharp.com
climbach@girardsharp.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
MEDTRANS LLC: Kemp Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medtrans LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Sydney Kemp, an Individual, on behalf of
himself and on behalf all persons similarly v. Medtrans LLC,
Medtrucking, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0006856 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 11, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Med-Trans -- https://www.med-trans.net/ -- is focused on
establishing customized air medical programs for health care
systems and EMS agencies across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas B. Blumenthal, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
Phone: 858-952-0354
Fax: 858-551-1232
Email: DeBlouw@bamlawca.com
MELINDA DERUS: Bartz Suit Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Donn Bartz, v.
Melinda Derus, Erin Dunahay, Chad McCune, Eric Speckhart, Amanda
Luebchow, Nicole Trevino, Holly Gunderson, Sarah Cooper, Case No.
3:24-cv-00398-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
-- certifying this action as a class action,
-- appointing Class counsel or interim counsel·to represent the
interests of the Class, and
-- directing to effect notice as required by law.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 13, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RhmkfW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael D. Bartz, Esq.
Pro se
Jackson Corr. Inst.
Black River Falls, WI 54615
MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------------
sewkis.com reports that on June 14, 2024, a class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Morgan Stanley alleging a breach of its fiduciary
duty to customers and unjust enrichment by, among other things,
offering interest rates on deposits in the banks in its Bank
Deposit Program (the "Program") lower than allegedly offered on
deposit account investments by other firms. Through the Program,
Morgan Stanley automatically deposits customer free credit balances
into deposit accounts at two affiliated banks and, according to the
Complaint, Citibank. The complaint is available through PACER.
The Complaint alleges that Morgan Stanley's fiduciary duty arises
from, inter alia, contract law and its regulatory obligations under
the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation Best Interest.
Additional fiduciary obligations are alleged for Individual
Retirement Accounts and securities accounts for which Morgan
Stanley acts as an Investment Advisor under the Investment Adviser
Act of 1940, as amended.
This suit follows several previous class actions making similar
allegations about the interest rates paid on sweep program
deposits.
In 2019, as described in our previous client alert, a class action
lawsuit against Merrill Lynch filed on August 27, 2019 alleges that
sweep program disclosures provided to customers by Merrill Lynch
were not valid and demands a "reasonable market rate" of interest
as compensation and a declaration that the disclosures violate a
2005 New York Stock Exchange Information Memo and SEC Rule 15c3-3.
Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. remains
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York following the filing of amended complaint.
In 2023, the same law firm brought another class action against
Merrill Lynch alleging that Merrill Edge had failed to pay a
"reasonable rate of interest" on funds swept from retirement
accounts. McCrary v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
In 2007, a class action suit brought against Merrill Lynch, Morgan
Stanley and other securities firms in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York making similar, though not
identical, allegations concerning their bank sweep programs, was
dismissed by the Court in 2009 based upon the disclosures made to
customers concerning fees paid to the securities firms and the
failure of the Plaintiffs to identify and actionable breach of
fiduciary duty. See DeBlasio v. Merrill Lynch & Co., et al, 2009
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64848 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2009).
Morgan Stanley must answer the complaint or file a motion to
dismiss within 21 days of being served. [GN]
MORGAN STANLEY: Sherlip Suit Alleges Improper Business Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
ESTATE OF BERNARD J. SHERLIP, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MORGAN STANLEY; MORGAN
STANLEY & CO. LLC; and MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-04571 (S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2024) alleges that the
Defendants violated their fiduciary duties and contractual
obligations and a regulatory mandate to act only in the "best
interests" of its customers.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint, the Defendants failed to
secure for its brokerage and advisory customers reasonable interest
rates on its customers' cash balances. Instead, the Defendants
implements a scheme whereby those customers' cash balances are used
by the Defendants to generate massive profits for itself based
primarily on prevailing market rates.
During the rising interest rate environment from March 2022 through
the present, the spread between what the Defendants secures for its
customers and what it makes in the market, known as "net interest
income," has grown exponentially -- over $8 billion in 2023 alone.
While that growth was and continues to be extremely lucrative for
the Defendants, their scheme were and continue to be extremely
detrimental to its customers -- in flagrant violation of its duties
to its customers, the suit alleges.
Morgan Stanley, a bank holding company, provides diversified
financial services on a worldwide basis. The Company operates a
global securities business which serves individual and
institutional investors and investment banking clients. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
Clinton J. Mann, Esq.
WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 945-7110
Facsimile: (816) 945-7118
Email: matt@williamsdirks.com
cmann@williamsdirks.com
- and -
Thomas I. Sheridan, III, Esq.
Sona R. Shah, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
112 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 784-6404
Facsimile: (212) 257-8482
Email: tsheridan@simmonsfirm.com
sshah@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
Bruce D. Oakes, Esq.
Richard B. Fosher, Esq.
OAKES & FOSHER, LLC
1401 Brentwood Boulevard, Suite 250
Saint Louis, MO 63144
Telephone: (314) 804-1412
Facsimile: (314) 428-7604
Email: boakes@oakesfosher.com
rfosher@oakesfosher.com
MOSH PBC: Slade Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
--------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA SLADE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOSH, PBC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04471
(S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant
for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York State Human Rights
Law, and the New York State Civil Rights, and for declaratory
relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.moshlife.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) on graphics,
inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the
lack of adequate prompting and labeling, the denial of keyboard
access, empty links that contain no text, redundant links where
adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that
transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Mosh, PBC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing
business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
MRO CORP: Hudson-Swoope Sues Over Excessive Medical Record Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY HUDSON-SWOOPE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MRO CORPORATION (dba MEDICAL
RECORDS ONLINE, INC.) and THE CLEVELAND CLINIC and THE CLEVELAND
CLINIC FOUNDATION, Defendants, Case No. CV 24 998704 (Ohio Ct. Com.
Pl., Cuyahoga Cty., June 11, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for unjust enrichment, conversion, fraud, agency, and
conspiracy.
The case arises from the Defendants' practice of charging medical
records more than what is permitted by R.C. 701.741. The Defendant
has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Plaintiff and
similarly situated consumers. The Plaintiff brings this action to
recover the full amount of the excess amounts that the Defendants
unlawfully charged her and all others in the proposed class.
MRO Corporation, doing business as Medical Records Online, Inc., is
a software company in Audubon, Pennsylvania.
The Cleveland Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic Foundation are
provider of medical and related services, with main offices in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., LPA
60 South Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077
Telephone: (440) 352-3391
Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
Email: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
fbartela@dworkenlaw.com
MULTIPLAN INC: Advanced Orthopedic Sues Over Alleged Conspiracy
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADVANCED ORTHOPEDIC CENTER, INC., on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MULTIPLAN, INC., a New York
corporation, AETNA, INC., a Delaware corporation, THE CIGNA GROUP,
a Delaware corporation, and UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, a
Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04656 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 18, 2024) is a class action brought under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act seeking to challenge a cartel among insurance companies
-- with and through the data analytics firm MultiPlan, Inc. -- to
artificially reduce reimbursement rates paid to providers for
out-of-network healthcare claims.
As part of the scheme, MultiPlan allegedly invites and requires
insurers to participate in anticompetitive sharing of proprietary,
competitively sensitive information, including claims pricing data
and reimbursement strategies. This enables MultiPlan to coordinate
and suppress industry-wide reimbursement rates. As a result of the
Defendants' conspiracy, the Plaintiff and other healthcare
providers are now forced to accept increasingly low reimbursement
amounts for out-of-network services, which often do not even cover
their operating costs. Moreover, many practices, particularly
smaller ones, have forced to shut their doors, to cease offering
certain services, or to join massive hospital conglomerates,
leaving patients with fewer and fewer healthcare options, says the
suit.
Headquartered in New York, MultiPlan, Inc. provides healthcare cost
management solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
Shawn J. Rabin, Esq.
Thomas K. Boardman, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 336-8330
Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
srabin@susmangodfrey.com
tboardman@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Halley W. Josephs, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: hjosephs@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Natasha J. Fernández-Silber, Esq.
Julian Zhu, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: nfernandezsilber@edelson.com
- and -
Yaman Salahi, Esq
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: ysalahi@edelson.com
MY DAILY CHOICE: Cowherd Sues Over Private Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
TRACY COWHERD, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. MY DAILY CHOICE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-01128 (D. Nev., June 18, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff’s and its
other similarly situated customers' private information.
Based on the Defendant's official notice filed with the Office of
the Maine Attorney General, on February 15, 2024, the Defendant
detected unusual activity on its third-party vendor's computer
systems. The Defendant's investigation revealed that an
unauthorized party had access to certain company files on the said
date. However, the Defendant waited more than three months to
notify the public that they were at risk. On or about June 5, 2024,
the Defendant sent out data breach letters to individuals whose
information was compromised as a result of the hacking incident.
Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, asserts
claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract,
breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment,
and declaratory judgment.
Based in Las Vegas, NV, My Daily Choice, Inc. is an online retailer
that markets and sells various consumer products and services
through its website. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mona Amini, Esq.
Gustavo Ponce, Esq.
6940 S. Cimarron Road, Suite 210
Las Vegas, NV 89113
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: mona@kazlg.com
gustavo@kazlg.com
- and -
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
NIKE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs
investors that the firm has filed a securities fraud class action
lawsuit against NIKE, Inc. (NYSE: NKE) ("NIKE" or the "Company") on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired NIKE Class B common
stock between March 19, 2021, and March 21, 2024, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). This action, captioned City Pension Fund for
Firefighters and Police Officers in the City of Pembroke Pines v.
NIKE, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00974 was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Oregon.
Important Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired NIKE Class B common stock during the Class Period may, no
later than August 19, 2024, move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class.
If you suffered NIKE losses, you may visit:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/nike-inc?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=nke&mktm=r
DEFENDANTS' MISCONDUCT
The Class Period begins on March 19, 2021, in connection with
NIKE's announcement of its financial results for the third quarter
of fiscal year 2021, and related investor earnings call. In
connection with these results, Defendant John J. Donahoe II (the
Company's President and Chief Executive Officer) touted that "NIKE
continues to deeply connect with consumers all over the world
driven by our strong competitive advantages" and that "[o]ur
strategy is working, as we accelerate innovation and create the
seamless, premium marketplace of the future." Defendant Matthew
Friend (the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer) similarly assured investors that "NIKE's brand momentum is
as strong as ever and we are driving focused growth against our
largest opportunities." On the related investor earnings call,
Defendant Donahoe emphasized NIKE's "tremendous success in digital"
and that "NIKE's digital transformation remains a unique
advantage."
Investors began to learn the truth about NIKE's inability to
generate sustainable revenue growth on June 27, 2022, when the
Company announced its fourth quarter and full year 2022 financial
results after market close. NIKE announced that quarterly revenues
declined 1% year-over-year and quarterly wholesale revenues
declined 7% year-over-year. However, Defendant Donahoe reassured
investors that NIKE's "strategy is working" by creating value
through its "competitive advantages, including [its] pipeline of
innovative product[s] and expanding digital leadership." He further
asserted that NIKE's investments in digital and other areas
prompted Defendants to be "very confident in our long-term strategy
and our growth outlook." On this news, the price of NIKE Class B
common stock declined $7.72 per share, or nearly 7%, from a close
of $110.50 per share on June 27, 2022, to close at $102.78 per
share on June 28, 2022.
Three months later, on September 29, 2022, investors learned more
when NIKE reported its first quarter fiscal year 2023 financial
earnings after market close. In spite of modest revenue growth,
NIKE reported that its net income declined 22% year-over-year and
that diluted earnings per share similarly declined 20%
year-over-year. NIKE also reported a significant reduction in gross
margin (down 220 basis points year-over-year) driven by the
disposal of excess inventory -- which was 44% higher than in the
first quarter of 2022. On this news, the price of NIKE Class B
common stock declined $12.21 per share, or nearly 13%, from a close
of $95.33 per share on September 29, 2022, to close at $83.12 per
share on September 30, 2022.
Notwithstanding the Company's struggles with NIKE Direct and its
direct-to-consumer strategy, Defendants continued to tout the
purported strength of NIKE's business model over the next year,
telling investors that NIKE's "competitive advantages continue to
fuel our momentum" and that NIKE is primed to "leverage our
competitive advantages to not only gain share but also grow the
market."
On December 21, 2023, however, investors learned more about the
competitive pressures facing NIKE when the Company issued its
second quarter fiscal year 2024 financial results and held its
related investor earnings call after market close. Defendant Friend
admitted that NIKE's "total retail sales across the marketplace
fell short of our expectations," and that NIKE's digital platforms
lost consumer traffic to competitors because of "higher promotional
activity across the marketplace." Given these challenges, Defendant
Friend revealed that NIKE was "adjusting [its] channel growth plans
for the remainder of the year" and "identifying opportunities
across the company to deliver up to $2 billion in cumulative cost
savings over the next 3 years." On this news, the price of NIKE
Class B common stock declined $14.49 per share, or nearly 12%, from
a close of $122.53 per share on December 21, 2023, to close at
$108.04 per share on December 22, 2023.
Finally, on March 21, 2024, NIKE announced its third quarter fiscal
year 2024 financial results after market close, revealing a 3%
year-over-year decline in revenue in its Europe, Middle East, and
Africa segment, a 3% year-over-year decline in NIKE Digital
revenue, and scant quarterly revenue growth of approximately 0.4%
year-over-year in NIKE Direct. On the related investor earnings
call held that same day, Defendant Donahoe admitted that "NIKE is
not performing [to its] potential" even though moments earlier he
claimed that "Q3 performed in line with our expectations."
Moreover, Defendant Donahoe revealed the Company's decision to
reduce reliance on its direct-to-consumer strategy and "lean in
with our wholesale partners to elevate our brand and grow the total
marketplace." According to Defendant Donahoe, NIKE made a
"reinvestment with our wholesale partners, so we bring a more
holistic offense that grows the market and gets in the path of our
consumer." Furthermore, Defendant Friend revealed that NIKE was
"prudently planning for revenue in the first half of the fiscal
year [2025] to be down low single digits" as Defendants "shift our
product portfolio toward newness and innovation." On this news, the
price of NIKE Class B common stock declined $6.96 per share, or
nearly 7%, from a close of $100.82 per share on March 21, 2024, to
close at $93.86 per share on March 22, 2024.
WHAT CAN I DO?
NIKE investors may, no later than August 19, 2024, move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff for the class, through Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing
and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP encourages NIKE investors who have suffered significant losses
to contact the firm directly to acquire more information.
To sign up for the case, go to:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/nike-inc?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=nke&mktm=r
WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?
A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries.
For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
please visit www.ktmc.com.
May be considered attorney advertising in certain jurisdictions.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Contacts
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
Jonathan Naji, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (844) 887 9500
info@ktmc.com [GN]
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Babystacks Cafe Suit Removed to D. Nevada
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as BABYSTACKS CAFE, LLC, a Domestic Limited
Liability Company; REBEL KITCHEN INC. dba MANIZZA'S PIZZA, a
Foreign Limited Liability Company; TIMELESS CUISINE, LLC dba
ESTHER'S KITCHEN, a Domestic Limited Liability Company; GAETANO'S
HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC dba GAETANO'S RISTORANTE, a Domestic Limited
Liability Company; MUNCH A-SUB LLC, a Domestic Limited Liability
Company, and on behalf of the Class of similarly situated
individuals v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Foreign Corporation;
RASIER, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company; BERCHMANN
MELANCON, an individual; NICK "DOE", an individual; KARINA "DOE",
an individual; DOE CEO, I through X; DOE SALES REPRESENTATIVE, I
through X; DOE MANAGER, I through X; DOE DRIVER, I through X; DOE
EMPLOYEE, I through X; DOES I through X; ROE CORPORATIONS, XI
through XX; and ROE ENTITIES, XI through XX, inclusive, Case No.
A-24-891860-C was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court
of Nevada, Clark County, to the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada on June 12, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-01098-JCM-MDC.
The Amended Complaint alleges that "Defendants" created the
Ubereats.com website and app, which permitted restaurants, claiming
to be in Nevada, to onboard to Uber Eats without requiring
reasonable authentication for restaurants, thus allowing unknown
impostor restaurants to use the Uber Eats platform to coopt the
identities and goodwill of actual businesses. The Plaintiffs allege
that the "Uber Defendants" set up the Uber Eats app with the intent
to harm small restaurant businesses, or at least profited from the
fraudulent transactions despite actual or constructive knowledge
that the restaurants using their service were not the actual
business owners.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kirk B. Lenhard, Esq.
Maximilien D. Fetaz, Esq.
Jamie P. Leavitt, Esq.
NRE
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, NV 89106
Phone: 702.382.2101
Facsimile: 702.382.8135
Email: klenhard@bhfs.com
mfetaz@bhfs.com
jleavitt@bhfs.com
- and -
Kate Spelman, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2246
Phone: (213) 239 2246
Facsimile: (213) 239-5199
- and -
Remi Jaffre, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
1155 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-2711
Phone: (212) 303-2536
Facsimile: (212) 891-1699
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jane Doe; John Doe 1; and John Doe 2,
individually and on behalf of all other students similarly situated
v. NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2024 CH 4027 was removed from
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 11,
2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-04831.
The Plaintiffs allege that in exchange for paying tuition to
Northwestern, they expected Northwestern to provide a campus where
they could be "free to safely move about." According to Plaintiffs,
an "encampment" was created on April 25, 2024 at the center of
Northwestern's Evanston campus. The Plaintiffs contend that the
encampment, which they call the "Liberated Zone," featured
anti-Semitic signs, participants "openly glorifying Hamas," and
protestors chanting anti-Semitic slogans. The Plaintiffs allege
that Northwestern's policies regarding student demonstrations
required prior approval for use of public campus space, did not
allow installation of tents, prohibited use of sound amplifiers,
and did not allow the posting of flyers or posters except in
designated areas. The Plaintiffs claim that Northwestern breached
an express or implied contract with them – and the putative class
members – when it did not enforce these policies with regard to
the encampment and thereby failed to provide them with a safe
campus experience.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
James A. Morsch, Esq.
Casey Grabenstein, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Thompson, Esq.
Megan Warshawsky, Esq.
SAUL EWING LLP
161 North Clark Street, Suite 4200
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 876-7100
Email: james.morsch@saul.com
casey.grabenstein.com
elizabeth.thompson@saul.com
megan.warshawsky@saul.com
- and -
Joshua W.B. Richards, Esq.
SAUL EWING LLP
Centre Square West
1500 Market Street, 38th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (215) 972-7777
Email: joshua.richards@saul.com
OFFICE DEPOT: Encinas Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Private Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Encinas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Office Depot, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-01463-JJT (D. Ariz., June 18, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's alleged surveillance of Plaintiff's sensitive reading
habits and clandestine collection of her confidential email records
in violation of the Arizona's Telephone, Utility and Communication
Service Records Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant embeds hidden spy pixel
trackers within its emails. 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. However, the
Defendant never received subscribers' consent to collect this
private information, says the suit.
Office Depot, LLC provides office and business supplies, services,
products and technology solutions. It has over 900 retail store
locations across the United States, including 23 stores in Arizona.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald Barrett, Esq.
WARD, KEENAN & BARRETT, P.C.
3838 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1720
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: (602) 279-1717
Facsimile: (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
OPW FUELING: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Canales
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ovis Matamoros Canales, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. OPW Fueling
Components, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00459-BO-RJ (E.D.N.C.), the Hon.
Judge Robert Numbers, II entered an order setting the following
scheduling order:
1. Initial Disclosures
If the parties have not already done so, they will make the
initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) no later than
14
days after entry of this order.
2. Phased Discovery
Discovery in this case will take place in two phases. Phase I
will begin upon entry of this scheduling order. No later than
21
days after the court rules on Plaintiff's motion for
conditional
and/or class certification, the parties must meet and confer
to
develop a discovery plan for Phase II.
3. Scope of Discovery
a. The factual circumstances underlying a potential motion
for
class certification on Plaintiff’s state class claims
under
the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, pursuant to Rule 23
of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
b. The factual circumstances underlying a potential motion
for
collective action certification on Plaintiff’s federal
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act; and
Plaintiff's
individual claims under the North Carolina Retaliatory
Employment Discrimination Act ("REDA") and under North
Carolina public policy (Counts Three and Four of ECF
100),
which are not brought on behalf of others similarly
situated.
4. Discovery Plan a. Phase I discovery must be completed no
later
than Friday, November 8, 2024.
5. Deadline to Seek Class Certification
The Plaintiff must file any motion seeking conditional and/or
class certification no later than 30 days after the of any
mediation impasse and the close of Phase I discovery,
whichever
is later.
6. Dispositive Motion Deadline
The parties shall file any dispositive motions no later than
30
days after the close of Phase II discovery Opw designs and
manufactures fueling equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rBYV6W at no extra
charge.[CC]
OSTERKAMP TRANSPORTATION: Duncan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OSTERKAMP
TRANSPORTATION GROUP, et al. The case is styled as Valenta Rafael
Duncan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. OSTERKAMP TRANSPORTATION GROUP, et al., Case No. 24CV011597
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 11, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Osterkamp Transportation Group -- https://www.osterkampgrp.com/
--specializes in transportation and logistic services.[BN]
OVERBY-SEAWELL CO: Settlement Deal Gets Initial Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
the class action lawsuit Re: Overby-Seawell Company Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 1:23-md-03056-SDG (N.D. Ga.),
the Hon. Judge Steven Grimberg entered a preliminary approval order
as follows:
1. Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only.
The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Class
defined
as follows:
"All individuals whose Personal Information was impacted by
the
Data Security Incident."
The Settlement Agreement further provides for a Fulton Bank
Settlement Subclass defined as:
"All Settlement Class Members who provided their Personal
Information to Fulton Bank and were notified that their
Personal
Information may have been impacted as a result of a Data
Security Incident discovered on or about July 5, 2022 by
Overby-
Seawell Company."
Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are the
judges
presiding over this Action and members of their direct
families,
and Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request for
Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline.
2. Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class
Counsel.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs Mariann Archer, Mark Samsel,
Tim
Marlowe, Melissa Urciuoli, James Urciuoli, Patrick Reddy,
Jacint
Pittman, Joseph John Turowski, Jr., Teresa Turowski, Melissa
D.
Kauffman, Lebertus Vanderwerff, Adrianne Khanolkar, Dhamendra
Khanolkar, and Joynequa West will likely satisfy the
requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as
the
Class Representatives.
Additionally, the Court finds that MaryBeth V. Gibson of
Gibson
Consumer Law Group, LLC and M. Anderson Berry of Clayeo C.
Arnold A Professional Corporation will likely satisfy the
requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as
Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1).
3. Final Approval Hearing. A Final Approval Hearing shall be
held
at 2:00 pm EST on Monday, December 9, 2024,
4. Settlement Administrator. The Court appoints KCC Class Action
Services LLC as the Settlement Administrator, with
responsibility for class notice and settlement
administration.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QyilKC at no extra
charge.[CC]
PACIFIC MARITIME: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 27, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAMELA HILL, et al., v.
PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00336-TSH
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Hixson entered a case management
order as follows:
Deadline to Seek Leave to Amend Pleadings Oct. 3, 2024
Deadline to Move for Class Certification Feb. 27, 2025
Deadline to File Opposition to Class Mar. 27, 2025
Certification Motion
Deadline to File Reply in Support of Apr. 10, 2025
Class Certification Motion
Hearing on Class Certification Motion May 1, 2025
Pacific Maritime negotiates and administers maritime labor
agreements with the International Longshore & Warehouse Union.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oGHogy at no extra
charge.[CC]
PANERA LLC: Forster Sues Over Data Security Failures
----------------------------------------------------
DAVID FORSTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PANERA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-00849 (E.D. Mo., June 18, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to protect highly sensitive data of its current and former
employees.
The Defendant allegedly lost control of over that data when
cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer
systems in a data breach that began prior to March 23, 2024.
However, Defendant waited over until June 17, 2024, before it began
notifying Plaintiff and other data breach victims--a full 86 days
after the data breach was discovered. The Defendant deprived them
the opportunity to try and mitigate their injuries in a timely
manner. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy,
unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory
judgment.
Headquartered in Missouri, Panera, LLC owns and operates 2,187
cafes throughout the United States [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago IL, 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com
sam@straussborrelli.com
RIPPLE LABS: Court Dismisses Securities Suits, Mulls XRP Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elena R, writing for CoinPedia, reports that Ripple won a partial
victory by dismissing most class action lawsuits against them.
Garlinghouse, Ripple CEO, will face trial for allegedly misleading
investors about XRP sales in 2017.
Despite the legal battles, the price of XRP remains stable with no
clear direction in the short term.
The war between Ripple and the SEC just got hotter! In a recent
development, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed several major claims in a class action lawsuit
against Ripple, providing a procedural victory for the company.
But wait . . . what does that mean?
Judge Phyllis Hamilton granted Ripple's motion for summary judgment
on federal class claims for unregistered securities and state law
securities claims, effectively removing most class action
allegations against Ripple. Stuart Alderoty, Ripple's Chief Legal
Officer, expressed satisfaction with this outcome.
XRP Status: Still Unresolved
Despite these dismissals, the court did not resolve the critical
question of whether XRP is a security. This pivotal issue will be
decided by a jury, which will evaluate if XRP meets the criteria of
the Howey Test. The uncertainty surrounding XRP's status continues
to loom large over the company and its investors.
In a separate civil securities lawsuit against Ripple CEO Brad
Garlinghouse, a California judge ruled that Garlinghouse must face
trial over allegations of making misleading statements about XRP
sales in 2017. While the court dismissed four other claims, it
determined that the trial would center on whether Garlinghouse's
actions influenced investors' decisions.
This ruling differs from Ripple's partial victory in New York.
Potential Outcomes
The trial aims to clarify if XRP should be legally classified as a
security. Judge Hamilton's decision contrasts sharply with a ruling
by Judge Analisa Torres in the Southern District of New York, who
found that XRP was not a security when sold to retail investors, as
it did not fulfill all elements of the Howey Test.
Legal expert Fred Rispoli highlighted the potential for settlement
in the California case due to low damages and the risk of a
negative jury verdict for Ripple.
Upcoming Deadlines and Motions
Both parties have been ordered to reconsider their motions to seal
parts of their briefs and have until July 8, 2024, to file a
revised motion to seal specific exhibits. The court's final
decision on these motions will follow shortly thereafter.
XRP Market Performance
Currently, XRP is nearing the local support level of $0.4922
despite a slight rise. If it breaks this level, it could drop to
around $0.4850. On a larger time frame, XRP trades sideways between
$0.4850 and $0.50, with neither buyers nor sellers showing clear
dominance. On the weekly chart, XRP remains within a wide channel
between $0.4309 and $0.5714, with low volume suggesting limited
chances of high volatility until the end of the month. XRP is
presently trading at $0.4947.
Although Ripple secured a partial victory by dismissing several
claims, the ultimate status of XRP remains undecided and will be
determined by a jury. Many believe that this ruling will
significantly impact XRP's price.
Stay tuned for more updates as this high-stakes legal battle
continues to unfold. [GN]
ROYAL MAIL: Faces Class Action Over Anti-Competitive Conduct
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Lawson of The Guardian reports that the owner of Royal Mail is
facing a near GBP900m class action claim over accusations it abused
its "dominant position" in the market for sending out bulk mail,
including bank statements and weekly magazines.
International Distribution Services (IDS) has been served with an
GBP878m action by a newly formed company that said it represents an
estimated 290,000 customers who claim they were overcharged as a
result of Royal Mail’s behaviour.
Bulk mail is typically sent by businesses and organisations
including retailers, utility companies, charities and publishers.
It includes council tax and bank statements, charity fundraising
appeals, weekly magazines and energy bills.
The action, brought by Bulk Mail Claim Limited, argues that
businesses and organisations that bought bulk mail services after
2014 suffered owing to "anti-competitive" behaviour by Royal Mail.
It argues that Royal Mail prevented competition, pushing up prices
for the collection, sorting and delivery of letters in bulk.
The class action comes as the billionaire Czech energy tycoon
Daniel Křetínský’s EP Group attempts to buy IDS in a GBP3.57bn
deal.
In 2018, the industry regulator, Ofcom, fined Royal Mail GBP50m
after it found the company "broke the law by abusing its dominant
position in bulk mail delivery". Ofcom said "Royal Mail’s
behaviour was unacceptable and it denied postal users the potential
benefits that come from effective competition".
Royal Mail has unsuccessfully attempted to appeal against Ofcom’s
decision. It faces a GBP600m claim, separate from the class action,
brought by Whistl, which scaled back its operations in 2015 with
the loss of 2,000 jobs. That case is expected to reach the high
court next year.
Robin Aaronson of Bulk Mail Claim Ltd said: "Where there has been
an abuse of dominant position, as has occurred in this case, it is
important that those suffering loss are able to obtain redress.
"A collective claim is the only fair and efficient form of redress
in this case, given that there are hundreds of thousands of
affected customers and it would be commercially unviable for them
to bring individual proceedings."
Andrew Wanambwa, a partner at Lewis Silkin, the law firm aiding the
claimants, said: "Royal Mail abused its dominant position,
resulting in hundreds of thousands of bulk mail customers being
overcharged. The purpose of this claim is to hold Royal Mail
accountable for its actions and secure compensation for affected
customers."
Royal Mail said: "We confirm that we have received an application
for a collective proceedings order from an entity called Bulk Mail
Claim Ltd which we consider to be without merit and we will defend
it robustly."
The class action claim has been filed with the UK Competition
Appeal Tribunal. [GN]
SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Canady Sues Over Private Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRANDI N. CANADY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 8:24-cv-00231 (D. Neb., June 18, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of
its clients' patients and asserts claims for negligence, breach of
third-party beneficiary contract, and unjust enrichment.
On January 18, 2024, the Defendant detected suspicious activity on
its network and immediately began an investigation. The
investigation determined that an unauthorized party accessed
certain files of Defendant's network between January 17, 2024, and
January 18, 2024. Moreover, the data breach was a direct result of
the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect its
clients' patients' private information from a foreseeable and
preventable cyber-attack. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this
class action lawsuit on behalf all those similarly situated to
address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members'
private information that it collected and maintained, and for
failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and
other Class Members that their information had been subject to the
unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what
specific type of information was accessed.
Headquartered in Omaha, NE, Signature Performance, Inc. provides
healthcare administrative solutions and services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651.3700
Facsimile: (513) 665.0219
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Faces Enriquez Suit Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
MONICA ENRIQUEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00235 (D. Neb., June 18, 2024) arises
from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff's and other patients' protected health information and
personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's
information network.
The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it
caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff and, at
least, 70,000 other similarly situated persons in the massive and
preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on
January 18, 2024, in which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's
inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly
sensitive PHI/PII that was being kept unprotected. 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,
unjust enrichment, and for violations of the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.
Based in Omaha, NE, Signature Performance, Inc. provides healthcare
administrative solutions and services to healthcare providers
across the country. [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
E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.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
SNOWY HOLLOW: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Christianson Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY CHRISTIANSON, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. SNOWY HOLLOW, INC., and SCOTT A.
BULKLEY, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00290-CWD (D. Idaho, June 18,
2024) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed
to Plaintiff pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
October 2022 to June 2023 as a delivery driver at Defendants'
Domino's store located in Lewiston, ID. The Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants' reimbursement policy is flawed because it reimburses
Plaintiff and other delivery drivers on a per-delivery basis.
However, the per-delivery reimbursement equates to an amount below
the Internal Revenue Service' business mileage reimbursement rate
or any other reasonable approximation of the cost to own and
operate a motor vehicle. As a result, the Plaintiff's and other
drivers' net wages are diminished beneath the federal minimum wage
requirements, says the suit.
Snowy Hollow, Inc. own and operate numerous Domino's franchise
stores including stores in Idaho. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad Nicholson, Esq.
Steven Fisher, Esq.
McCONNELL WAGNER SYKES + STACEY, PLLC
827 E. Park Blvd., Ste. 201
Boise, ID 83712
Telephone: (208) 489-0100
Facsimile: (208) 489-0110
E-mail: sfisher@mwsslawyers.com
SUNSET OPPORTUNITIES: Brito Sues Over ADA Non-compliant Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO, Plaintiff v. SUNSET OPPORTUNITIES B1, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-22360-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 18, 2024)
is a class action accusing the Defendant of violating the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at Defendants' commercial property, and the
businesses within it. The barriers have each denied or diminished
Plaintiff's ability to visit the said property and have endangered
his safety. Accordingly, the Plaintiff requests the inspection in
order to participate in crafting a remediation plan to address
Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief.
Sunset Opportunities B1, LLC owns, operates, and oversees a
commercial property located in Miami Dade County, FL. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, Fl 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com
amejias@lawgmp.com
aquezada@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com
ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
SUPERIOR AIR-GOUND: Spann Balks at Failure to Secure Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
KIRKSTON SPANN II, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUPERIOR AIR-GOUND AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04704 (N.D. Ill., June 6, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard sensitive information of its patients
including Plaintiff.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
sensitive personal information -- which they entrusted to Defendant
on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against
disclosure -- was targeted, compromised, and unlawfully accessed
due in a data breach. The data breach was a direct result of
Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect its
patients' private information from a foreseeable and preventable
cyber-attack, says the suit.
As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft, the suit asserts.
Superior Air-Gound Ambulance Service, Inc. is a corporation that
provides ambulance and other healthcare-related travel
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
TASMANIA: Youth Detention Centre Victims Agree to Settle Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jano Gibson, writing for ABC News, reports that 129 former inmates
of Tasmania's only youth prison have agreed to settle a legal claim
against the state of Tasmania for the sum of $75 million, their
lawyer says.
It was alleged the inmates, whose periods of incarceration at the
Ashley Youth Detention Centre ranged between 1960 and 2023, had
suffered, witnessed or were threatened with sexual abuse, serious
physical abuse and false imprisonment.
What's next?: Tasmania's government has stated it plans to close
the facility in mid-2026, despite calls for it to be immediately
shut down.
Tasmanians who were abused as children in the notorious Ashley
youth detention centre have reached an in-principle agreement to
settle their class action with the state government for $75
million, their lawyer says.
The class action, which was filed in the Supreme Court in 2022,
involved 129 former detainees who were at the facility between 1960
and 2023.
It was alleged they suffered, witnessed or were threatened with
sexual abuse, serious physical abuse and false imprisonment.
"The compensation will be a tangible acknowledgement of the
wrongdoing," lawyer Angela Sdrinis, who led the class action,
said.
"And that's really, really important to survivors, to have the
government say, 'We've heard your story. We believe you.'"
The detention centre, which was previously known as the Ashley Home
for Boys, was a key focus of the 2023 commission of inquiry into
abuse in Tasmanian government-run institutions.
The controversial facility, located in Deloraine, has been
variously described as a "gladiator pit", a "war zone" and a
"kindergarten for the adult prison".
Ms Sdrinis said some of the claimants were as young as 11 when they
first entered the facility.
"[It was] pretty daunting to hear a client tell you they arrive at
Ashley age 12.
"They're strip searched, sometimes including cavity searches,
sometimes in front of a number of guards, sometimes in front of
other detainees.
"They have scabies cream applied to their naked bodies, and then
they're thrown into isolation, for some of them more than a day at
a time."
Ms Sdrinis said some of the former detainees were subjected to
abuse from multiple perpetrators who worked at the centre.
"Many of them went into Ashley already damaged. Unfortunately, many
of them came out of Ashley completely crushed."
Ms Sdrinis said the government had been "pro-active" in reaching a
prompt in-principle resolution in a trauma informed way.
"I am pleased that the matter has resolved in principle and that we
have been able to give our clients a voice.
"The government lawyers were provided with details of the
allegations and impacts on each member of the class and I am
satisfied that they were heard.
"I believe that our clients will be happy with the outcome."
The settlement is still subject to final approval from the court,
which could take a further six months.
Ms Sdrinis said she expected all claims to be resolved and paid
within the next year.
She said clients will be offered financial counselling.
The commission of inquiry's final report, which was released in
September last year, said child sexual abuse at Ashley "remains a
live and current risk".
The government had previously promised to close the facility by the
end of this year, but is now planning to do so by mid-2026.
The ABC has approached the Tasmanian government for comment. [GN]
TESLA INC: Ball Suit Asserts Breach of Certificate of Incorporation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD BALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TESLA, INC., ELON MUSK, ROBYN DENHOLM, IRA
EHRENPREIS, JOE GEBBIA, JAMES MURDOCH, KIMBAL MUSK, JB STRAUBEL,
and KATHLEEN WILSON-THOMPSON, Defendants, Case No. 2024-0621 (Del.
Ch., June 6, 2024) seeks to remedy Tesla's breach of its Amended
and Restated Certificate of Incorporation dated August 4, 2022,
also known as the "Charter," in connection with a stockholder vote
that was scheduled for June 13, 2024, regarding the reincorporation
of Tesla from a Delaware corporation to a Texas corporation.
On April 17, 2024, in connection with Tesla's 2024 Annual Meeting,
Tesla filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. On April 29, 2024, Tesla filed a Final Proxy
Statement with the SEC. In the Proxy, the Board recommends and
solicits Tesla stockholder approval to (a) reincorporate from
Delaware to Texas (the "Redomestication") and (b) purportedly
"ratify" the Grant rescinded by this Court (the "Ratification").
As for the Ratification, the Board is asking Tesla's stockholders
to ratify the rescinded Grant "under Delaware common law or
statutory law, including Section 204 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law." But the voting standards contained in the Proxy
for the Redomestication are plainly in conflict with the express
language of Article IX of Tesla's Charter, says the suit.
In addition to seeking remedy of Tesla's breach of its Amended and
Restated Certificate of Incorporation, the Plaintiff brings this
action for: (i) Tesla's invalid attempt to "ratify" an
equity-compensation package for Elon Musk, director of Tesla, that
the Court already rescinded because it resulted from breaches of
fiduciary duties; (ii) Musk's coercion of Tesla's stockholders in
connection with the June 13, 2024 vote; and (iii) the Director
Defendants' breach of fiduciary duties based on materially
misleading and incomplete disclosures in connection with the June
13, 2024 vote.
The Plaintiff is a stockholder of Tesla, owning a total of 28,245
shares of TSLA common stock.
Tesla Inc. is an American multinational automotive and clean energy
company headquartered in Austin, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Uebler, Esq.
Brian V. DeMott, Esq.
Adam J. Waskie, Esq.
Terisa A. Shoremount, Esq.
Allison Neff, Esq.
MCCOLLOM D'EMILIO SMITH UEBLER LLC
2751 Centerville Road, Suite 401
Wilmington, DE 19808
Telephone: (302) 468-5960
TESLA MOTORS: Court Certifies Repair Monopoly Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Teague, writing for thetruthaboutcars.com, reports that
electric vehicles don't require the same routine maintenance that
gas models do, but they're not completely repair-free. Tesla has
made getting repairs a real headache for some owners, as the
automaker hasn't allowed them to get work done at third-party
shops. That policy has led owners to seek class-action status
against the company, and a California judge recently gave the group
the green light to move forward with a suit.
Tesla generated $8.3 billion in service revenues last year, a
significant chunk of its almost $97 billion in overall revenue, due
to its requirements that owners service vehicles at one of its
shops. The owners were under threat of having their warranties
canceled if they chose to pursue third-party repairs.
The judge heard arguments that Tesla vehicles contain proprietary
components and software that only it can service, but they also
learned that the automaker failed to open enough locations to
handle the repair demand. Tesla also prohibits parts from reaching
independent shops, making it impossible to repair one even if the
ban on external service was lifted.
While most owners would head to a third-party shop, those issues
mean that even out-of-warranty Teslas can't be serviced
independently. The judge initially rebuffed the group's
class-action efforts late last year, but newer developments in the
case have convinced them to allow the case to move forward.
Right-to-repair is a hot-button issue across several industries,
with companies of all types pushing back hard against efforts to
allow owners to either DIY a repair or have a product serviced by a
third party. If you own a vehicle, you should be able to fix it
yourself or have the repairs performed by the shop of your choice,
so this lawsuit moving forward is a positive step toward fixing the
situation for Tesla owners. [GN]
TRULIANT FEDERAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Payne Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN PAYNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRULIANT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; and DOXIM,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00488-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C., June
13, 2024) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of the
Plaintiff and the class.
According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of
the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a
foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that
Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired
by data thieves, says the suit.
Truliant Federal Credit Union operates as a financial cooperative.
The Union provides financial solutions such as loans, investment,
savings, credit and debit cards, online banking, and other related
services. [BN]
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5003
Email: sharris@milberg.com
- and -
Todd S. Garber, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP
FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 298-3281
Email: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
TSCHETTER SULZER: Inflates Tenants' Past-Due Rent Fees, Segura Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY SEGURA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TSCHETTER SULZER, P.C., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-01617 (D. Colo., June 11, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices
Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's use of false representations
or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect debts allegedly
owed by the Plaintiff and similarly situated tenants. Specifically,
the Defendant knowingly mischaracterizes the amount and character
of legal fees supposedly owed at the time of filing its eviction
complaints, thereby inflating the amounts tenants believe they need
to pay to avoid eviction and displacement. As a result of the
Defendant's misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and Class members
suffered harm and damages, says the suit.
Tschetter Sulzer, PC is a debt collection agency based in Denver,
Colorado. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Legg, Esq.
CADIZ LAW, LLC
501 S. Cherry St., Ste. 1100
Denver, CO 80246
Email: jason@cadizlawfirm.com
- and -
Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
UIPATH INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP ("BFA") announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit for violations of the federal securities laws
against UiPath, Inc. ("UiPath" or the "Company") and certain of the
Company's senior executives. The complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on
behalf of investors in UiPath securities between December 1, 2023
and the close of trading on May 29, 2024 inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and is captioned Zack Steiner v.
UiPath, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-4702.
If you suffered a loss on your UiPath investments and would like to
discuss this matter, please submit your information at
https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/uipath-inc-investigation.
You can also contact Ross Shikowitz, Esq., at 212-789-3619, or by
email to ross@bfalaw.com.
Why was UiPath Sued for Securities Fraud?
UiPath provides business automation software, specifically a set of
robotic process automation ("RPA") and Artificial Intelligence
("AI") powered automation tools that allow its customers to
automate repetitive business tasks typically performed by humans.
With the evolution of AI technology in recent years, UiPath has
sought to enhance its offering with AI-powered products that work
in conjunction with its RPA tools.
On September 27, 2022, after a period of stagnating growth and
declining demand for its products, the Company announced a
turnaround strategy designed to accelerate growth. The turnaround
strategy included rebranding UiPath as an AI-powered Business
Automation Platform and overhauling the Company's go-to-market
sales strategy. The sales strategy overhaul included several
facets, such as:
(1) prioritizing selling UiPath's platform of products as
opposed to allowing its customers to pick and choose single product
offerings; and
(2) increasing sales resources dedicated to the Company's
largest customers and focusing sales efforts on its customers'
C-suites.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements concerning the
success of UiPath's turnaround strategy. For instance, defendants
represented that the Company was "executing against that strategy,
and we're seeing [the] results in the deal quality and the customer
quality," asserted that "our strategic investments in innovations
and our go-to-market ecosystem positions us well for continued
momentum," and that "there's no doubt there's [been] better
execution" since the implementation of the turnaround strategy.
These statements were materially false and misleading. In truth,
UiPath's turnaround strategy had failed. Fruitless investments and
inconsistent execution plagued the Company's overhauled
go-to-market strategy. Additionally, UiPath's AI-powered Business
Automation Platform caused "confusion" among customers and was not
able to be adequately scaled. As a result, UiPath experienced
significant difficulties closing and/or expanding large multiyear
deals.
On May 29, 2024, UiPath announced the sudden departure of CEO
Robert Enslin. On the same day, UiPath announced disappointing 1Q
25 financial results and significantly cut its FY 25 revenue
guidance by 10%, or $150 million. The Company attributed the poor
results and guidance to several factors related to its failed
turnaround strategy, including an inadequate "execution strategy to
scale" the Company's AI-powered growth products "to reach their
full potential," and that AI had "create[ed] a little bit of
confusion with our customers." Ui Path also described how the
"investments we have made to reaccelerate growth have fallen short
of our expectations, [and] made us less agile in responding to
customer needs" while experiencing "contract execution challenges
on large deals."
This news caused the price of UiPath stock to decline $6.23 per
share, or more than 34%, from $18.30 per share on May 29, 2024, to
$12.07 per share on May 30, 2024, resulting in significant harm to
investors.
What are my Rights?
If you purchased or otherwise acquired UiPath securities between
December 1, 2023 and the close of trading on May 29, 2024, you may
ask the Court no later than August 19, 2024, which is the first
business day after 60 days from the date of the publication of this
notice, to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of your
choice. To be a member of the Class, you need not take any action
at this time. The ability to share in any potential future recovery
is not dependent on serving as Lead Plaintiff.
Submit your information here:
https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/uipath-inc-investigation
Why BFA Law?
Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP is a leading international law firm
representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder
litigation. It was named among the Top 5 plaintiff law firms by ISS
SCAS in 2023 and its attorneys have been named Titans of the
Plaintiffs' Bar by Law360 and SuperLawyers by Thompson Reuters.
Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million
in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors (pending court
approval), as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind.
Ltd. [GN]
USHEALTH ADVISORS: Friedman Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM FRIEDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. USHEALTH ADVISORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
0:24-cv-61050-RS (S.D. Fla., June 18, 2024) seeks injunctive relief
to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct of engaging in unsolicited
text messaging to promote its goods and services to customers who
have already opted out of Defendant's solicitations.
Plaintiff Friedman alleges that Defendant's conduct violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act. Such conduct has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of Plaintiff and the Class members. In this complaint, the
Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and
members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies.
Headquartered in Forth Worth, TX, USHealth Advisors, LLC sells
individual health insurance plans and supplementary products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW PA
515 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste 120
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 732-2792
E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
VENTURE TRANSPORTATION: Vargas Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
JULIO VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VENTURE TRANSPORTATION PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a
VENTURE LOGISTICS, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00952-JRS-MG (S.D.
Ind., June 6, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
failing to adequately secure and safeguard the personally
identifying information(PII) and protected health information of
Plaintiff and the Class, breaching the terms of Venture's implied
contracts with its patients, and failing to comply with industry
standards regarding the use and transmission of PII.
In May 2023, Venture lost control over Plaintiff and other
employees' highly sensitive personal information in a data breach
by cybercriminals. As a consequence of the Data Breach, Plaintiff
and Class members' sensitive PII has been released into the public
domain and they have had to, and will continue to have to, spend
time to protect themselves from fraud and identity theft, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class are victims of
Venture's negligence and failure to honor its promise to keep PII
private. Specifically, Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class
trusted Venture with their PII. But Venture betrayed that trust and
failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to prevent the
Data Breach. When the Data Breach was discovered, Defendant failed
to promptly notify victims of the Data Breach of the types of
information that was stolen, the suit alleges.
Venture Transportation Partners, LLC is a national full-service
logistics company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
amize@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
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
VSHRED LLC: Collects Web Users' Without Consent, De La Torre Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALESSANDRO DE LA TORRE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VSHRED, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-04917 (C.D. Cal., June 11, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy
Act and the Video Privacy Protection Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's aiding, agreeing with,
employing, procuring, or otherwise enabling the wiretapping of the
electronic communications and video viewing information of visitors
to its website, vshred.com. The Defendant aids, agrees with,
employs, or conspires with third-party service providers to collect
information from visitors without prior consent. As a result of the
Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals suffered damages, says the suit.
Vshred, LLC is a software company, headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
jwilner@bursor.com
XGIMI TECHNOLOGY: Garrido Sues Over Projectors' False Ads
---------------------------------------------------------
LUIZ C. PECK GARRIDO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. XGIMI TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-04290 (E.D.N.Y., June 18, 2024) seeks redress for
Defendant's deliberate and unlawful misleading representations
regarding the light output of its projectors, including but not
limited to the Xgimi Horizon Pro 4K, Horizon 1080P, Elfin, and
Halo.
Allegedly, the Defendant purposefully and deceptively inflated the
brightness specifications of its projectors in its product
descriptions and advertising. Due to the Defendant's unlawful
conduct, the Plaintiff asserts claims for deceit and fraudulent
concealment, common law fraud/affirmative representation, breach of
express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose, unfair and deceptive practices in violation of
the New York General Business Law, unjust enrichment, and for
violations of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act.
Headquartered in Sunnyvale, CA, Xgimi Technology designs,
manufactures, and sells projectors and laser TVs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
Migliaccio & Rathod LLP
412 H St. NE, Suite 302
Washington, D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
XPO LOGISTICS: Turman Sues Over Forklift Drivers' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
ENESI TURMAN and ROBERT BLAND, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. XPO LOGISTICS FREIGHT
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00996 (D. Conn., June 6, 2024) is
a collective action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and a class action pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, to recover unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, and other applicable penalties.
According to the complaint, although Plaintiffs and putative
collective/Class members have routinely worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek, they were not paid overtime of at least one and
one-half of their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours per workweek.
The FLSA Collective members and the IMWL Class members are those
current and former hourly forklift drivers who were employed by XPO
at any time from June 5, 2021, through the final disposition of the
matter.
XPO Logistics Freight Inc. provides shipping and logistics services
throughout the United States for its business customers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC
750 Main Street, Suite 904
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 522-8888
Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin Anderson, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
carier@a2xlaw.com
- and -
Jennifer McManus, Esq.
FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C.
25892 Woodward Avenue
Royal Oak, MI
Telephone: (248) 658-8951
Facsimile: (248) 542-6301
E-mail: imemanus@feganlawpc.com
XPONENTIAL FITNESS: City of West Sues for Securities Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH POLICE PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. XPONENTIAL FITNESS,
INC., ANTHONY GEISLER, JOHN MELOUN, MARK GRABOWSKI, BRENDA MORRIS,
CHELSEA GRAYSON, BofA SECURITIES, INC., JEFFERIES LLC, MORGAN
STANLEY& CO. LLC, GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC, PIPER SANDLER & CO.,
ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED, RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES,
INC., ROTH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, and R. SEELAUS & CO., LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-01333 (C.D. Cal., June 18, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities Act of 1933.
The Plaintiff brings this securities class action on behalf of all
purchasers of Xponential's Class A common stock pursuant to the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
Xponential's secondary offering on or about April 6, 2022, seeking
to pursue strict liability remedies under the Securities Act of
1933. The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus for the secondary offering were negligently prepared
and, as a result, contained materially false and misleading
statements of fact and failed to disclose material facts as
required under the rules and regulations governing the preparation
of such documents.
Headquartered in Irvine, CA, Xponential is a global franchisor of
boutique fitness brands. Its common stock trades on the New York
Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "XPOF." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
X. Jay Alvarez, Esq.
Douglas R. Britton, Esq.
Jeremy W. Daniels, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: jaya@rgrdlaw.com
dougb@rgrdlaw.com
jdaniels@rgrdlaw.com
*********
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 ***