/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240628.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, June 28, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 130
Headlines
246 SPRING STREET: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Agnone Alleges
3M COMPANY: Koletsky Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Larkin Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Lee Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Littleton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Marcano Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: McIntosh Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Melcolm Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Mitchell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Nearing Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
7 ELEVEN: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Nicklin Suit
A&A SERVICES: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Doherty Claims
ADTHEORENT HOLDING: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Cadent
ALLSTATE FIRE: Seeks Leave for John Stilwell
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Sundquist Suit Removed to E.D. California
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
AMAZON.COM INC: Garner Suit Seeks to Certify Registrant Class
AMBER PHILLIPS: Hooks Seeks to Certify Class Action
AMERIFLIGHT LLC: Fredericks Seeks to Certify Class of Pilots
ANCIENT BRANDS: Filing for Class Cert. Bids in Bush Due Dec. 30
AQ TEXTILES: Joint Bid Will Not impact Deadlines in Discovery Sched
ASECOMER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Conrado Labor Suit in S.D. Florida
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Class Action Settlement Hearing Set Sep. 5
AT&T INC: Crockran Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Customers' Info
ATP FLIGHT: McMinn Sues Over Flight Instructors' Unpaid Overtime
ATTALA STEEL: Brown Suit Seeks to Certify Class
AVANTCREDIT LLC: Fails to Comply With Court Orders, Huffman Says
BANK OF AMERICA: Bolshakov Suit Stayed Pending OK of Settlement
BANK OF AMERICA: Supreme Court Reverses Class Action Dismissal
BARBU GOURMET: Faces Montero Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
BELL CANADA: Pension Plan Ends Class Suit After COLA Recomputation
BELLOTA AGRISOLUTIONS: Court Directs Barnes Discovery Plan Filing
BEYOND INC: Frost and Frost Sue Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS: Ortman Sues Over OT Pay Violations
BLOOMBERG LP: Misclassified Recovery Bonds, Skolarus Says
BLUESKY HEALTHCARE: Discovery in Garcia Extended to Sept. 13
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Courts OK's Bids to File Matters Under Seal
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Newton Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Files Class Action Against PFAS Manufacturers
BUENA VISTA: Faces Castaneda Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
BUFFALO, NY: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by July 3
BURLINGTON COAT: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Spyware in Emails
CALIFORNIA: Extension to File Renewed Brief for Class Cert Sought
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Court Certifies NSF Fees Class Action Suit
CANERA INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fernandez Says
CANVAS ENERGY: Wake Energy Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
CAROLINA BEVERAGE: Cherry Sues Over Private Data Breach
CEPHALON INC: Himawan Appeals Final Judgment to Del. Supreme Court
CHAR-BROIL LLC: Digital Electric Smokers "Defective," Fares Claims
CHEMTOOL INC: Settles Plant Fire Class Action for $94.5-Mil.
CITY OF HOPE: Haskins Sues Over Compromised Patients' Info
CNBC LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bullock Alleges
CORNERSTONE FIRST: Shakoor-Delgado Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bullard Sues Over Toxic Chemicals in Baby Wipes
DOLLAR GENERAL: Burns Sues Over Illegal Fuel Payment Policy
DRM INC: Ruff Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Practices
EL MACO: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, Cotorreal Says
FAMILY GROUP: Mea Seeks Servers' Unpaid Hourly and OT Wages
FCA US: McNeely et al. Sue Over Defective Uconnect Infotainment
FORM I-9 COMPLIANCE: Wielkopolski Sues Over Clients' Disclosed Info
GREEN AND SUSTAINABLE: Faces Puglla Wage & Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Reading Sues Over Alleged Hospital Bed Monopoly
HOME DEPOT: Culbertson et al. Sue Over False Reference Pricing
INFOPAY INC: Hernandez Sues Over Commercial Use of Personal Info
KROGER CO: Faces False Advertising Class Action Over Fruit Cups
LIDA INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Espinal Suit Alleges
LONGVIEW MEDICAL: Johnson Suit Seeks Registered Nurses' Unpaid OT
LUCCHESE INC: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
MAURICE RIVER: Faces New Beginnings Suit Over Discrimination
MCLAREN PORT: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Brown Suit Claims
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic Chemicals Caused Injury, Varn Says
MDL 2873: Faces Slater Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
MDL 2873: Faces Zobel Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
MDL 3083: Wilson Sues Over Failure to Protect Private Info
MITCHELL & NESS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Espinal Says
NEW MIKADO: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Cojon Suit Claims
NIKE INC: Faces City Pension Suit Over 7% Stock Price Drop
PENNSYLVANIA: Brown Sue for Upholding Right to Carry Firearms
PERFUME OUTLET: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Danso Alleges
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Faces Carignan Over Shale Oil Prod Conspiracy
PIL PIL: Fails to Kitchen Assistants' Overtime Wages Under FLSA
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Suarez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
PUMA CO: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Suit Says
QUEBEC: Court Awards Taxi Drivers With $143MM Class Action Ruling
QUIKRETE COMPANIES: Duran Seeks Proper Wages for Class A Drivers
RAZOR PRIORITY: Delivery Drivers Seek Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
REGULATORY DATACORP: Carr Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 3rd Cir
RIKCO INTERNATIONAL: Wahab Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SAN DIEGO CONVENTION: De La Cerda Seeks Proper Wages
SKYWAY CONCESSION: Faces Rowe Suit Over Overcharged Tolls
TEE BAR: Agnone Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance With ADA
TRANS UNION: Saucedo Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Bid
TRC STAFFING: Faces Keeys Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
TRC STAFFING: McCalla Sues Over Data Security Failures
TRC STAFFING: Orubo and Johnson Sue Over Inadequate Data Security
TRIPLE J TRUCKING: Fails to Pay Driver's OT Wages Under FLSA
UIPATH INC: Steiner Sues Over Misleading Securities Statements
UNDER ARMOUR: Settles Securities Class Action Lawsuit for $434 Mil.
UNION INSTITUTE: Breaches Contractual Obligations, Alon Alleges
UNITED HAMPSHIRE: Gil Files ADA Suit Over Architectural Barriers
UNITED SERVICES: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Late Fees Suit
US FOODSERVICE: Fails to Pay Drivers' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
VIASOX LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Wahab Suit Alleges
VYSTAR CREDIT: Kuffel Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practice
WAGGLE GOLF: Reid Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website
ZCRAVE INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Competello Says
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Faces Class Action From Talcum Powder Users
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Ordered to Pay $260MM in Mesothelioma Case
*********
246 SPRING STREET: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Agnone Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
PASQUALE AGNONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. 246 Spring Street (NY), LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04363
(E.D.N.Y., June 20, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website,
"Thedominickhotel.com," to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The lawsuit alleges that the Defendant is denying the blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to services it provides to their non-disabled customers
through its website. The Plaintiff has made an attempt to visit and
use Thedominickhotel.com. He tried to learn more information about
the goods and services offered by the company on May 28, 2024, but
he was unable to do so independently because of the many access
barriers on the Defendant's website. Amongst other access barriers
experienced, the Plaintiff was unable to learn more information
about hotel location and hours of operation, compare prices and
benefits and learn more information about the goods and services in
its physical location, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
246 Spring provides to the public the website
"Thedominickhotel.com" which provides consumers with hotel rooms,
suites and penthouses along with amenities including spa, fitness
center, pool, restaurant and cafe which the Defendant offers in
connection with their physical location.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
3M COMPANY: Koletsky Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Koletsky, 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-02782-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: Larkin Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
William Larkin, 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-02753-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 Thyroid Disease and
Thyroid 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: Lee Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Lee, 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 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: Littleton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------
William Littleton, 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-02755-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 Kidney Cancer and
Bladder Cancer as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
rlee@belllegalgroup.com
gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Marcano Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eusebio Marcano, 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-02575-RMG (D.S.C.,
April 22, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish extremely
hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and
other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires").
AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian
firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to
Class B Fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for
heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in
hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal
liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers
contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional
PFAS.
The Defendants, individually and collectively, designed, marketed,
developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on,
produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled,
used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or
TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with
knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained
highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused
Plaintiff significant and devastating injury.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was
diagnosed with colorectal cancer and ulcerative colitis 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 -
Stephen A. Weisbrod, Esq.
Smith Tower
506 2nd Ave, Suite 1400
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 990-0390
- and -
Jim Hood, Esq.
Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq.
1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 803-5001
3M COMPANY: McIntosh Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terry McIntosh, 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-02783-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 and
Prostate 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: Melcolm Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Melcolm, 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-03489-RMG
(D.S.C., June 11, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and during his working career as a military and/or
civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with bladder cancer as a
result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Phone: 216-815-9000
Facsimile: 216-274-9365
3M COMPANY: Mitchell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Mitchell, 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-02586-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: Nearing Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Nearing, 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-02613-RMG (D.S.C.,
April 25, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish extremely
hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and
other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires").
AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian
firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to
Class B Fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for
heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in
hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal
liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers
contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional
PFAS.
The Defendants, individually and collectively, designed, marketed,
developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on,
produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled,
used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or
TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with
knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained
highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused
Plaintiff significant and devastating injury.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was
diagnosed with thyroid disease as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing
chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq.
WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC
3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: (202) 499-7900
Facsimile: (202) 478-1795
- and -
Jim Hood, Esq.
Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq.
1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 803-5001
7 ELEVEN: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Nicklin Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Teague v. 7 Eleven, Case
No. 4:21-cv-04097-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge entered an
order Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as
follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
7-Eleven is an American convenience store chain.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O9pbKW at no extra
charge.[CC]
A&A SERVICES: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Doherty Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA DOHERTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. A&A SERVICES d/b/a SAV-RX, Defendant, Case
No. 8:24-cv-00218 (D. Neb., June 12, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
confidence, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, declaratory judgment/injunctive relief, and violations
of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade 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 in October 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, doing business as Sav-Rx, is a pharmacy benefits
provider located in Fremont, Nebraska. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq.
CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, P.C.
650 Warrenville Road, Suite 100
Lisle, IL 60532
Telephone: (312) 858-3239
Facsimile: (312) 610-5646
Email: Bryan.Thompson@cclc-law.com
ADTHEORENT HOLDING: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Cadent
----------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm") has
recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm
in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We
are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and
are investigating AdTheorent Holding Company, Inc. (Nasdaq: ADTH),
relating to its proposed merger with Cadent, LLC. Under the terms
of the agreement, AdTheorent Holding Company shareholders will
receive $3.21 in cash for each share they own.
Click the link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/adtheorent-holding-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]
ALLSTATE FIRE: Seeks Leave for John Stilwell
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YEN NGUYEN AND THUY NGA
NGUYEN, v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
4:24-cv-00509-O (N.D. Tex.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter
an order granting the motion for leave for John W. Stilwell and the
Law Office of John Stilwell, P.L.L.C. to be able to defend
Defendant without Local Counsel.
Allstate operates as an insurance firm.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VauxVy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
John W. Stilwell, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STILWELL,
PLLC
6213 Chapel Hill, Suite B
Plano, TX 75093
Telephone: (972) 403-7400
Facsimile: (972) 403-1100
E-mail: john@stilwelldallas.com
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Sundquist Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JEFFREY P. SUNDQUIST, JR., Plaintiff v. ALLSTATE
INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE INDEM. CO., ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INS. CO., ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEM. CO., CENTURY NATIONAL
INS. CO., MIC GENERAL INS. CORPORATION, NATIONAL GENERAL ASSURANCE
CO., NATIONAL GENERAL INS. CO., INTEGON NATIONAL INS. CO., INTEGON
PREFERRED INS. CO., NATIONAL GENERAL PREMIER INS. CO., SAFE AUTO
INS. CO., ENCOMPASS INS. CO., ESURANCE INS. CO., ESURANCE PROPERTY
AND CASUALTY INS. CO., Defendants, Case No. 23CECG04013, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Fresno to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on June 20, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:24-at-00489 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendant Allstate's alleged wrongful denial
of Plaintiff's claim for underinsured motorist benefits under his
employer's policy with Allstate arising out of a motor vehicle
accident that occurred in the course and scope of his employment.
In his complaint, Plaintiff also asserted three causes of action:
(1) breach of contract; (2) breach of covenant of good faith and
fair dealing; and (3) declaratory relief.
Headquartered in Illinois, Allstate offers several insurance
products including for car insurance, home insurance, rental
insurance, and motorcycle insurance. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael R. Weiss, Esq.
AKERMAN LLP
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 6400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 688-9500
Facsimile: (213) 627-6342
E-mail: michael.weiss@akerman.com
- and -
Sowmya Bharathi, Esq.
David J. Awoleke, Esq.
201 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1800
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 463-2700
E-mail: sowmya.bharathi@akerman.com
david.awoleke@akerman.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Won v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02867 (E.D.N.Y., Filed May 20, 2021), Hon.
Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis entered an order referring the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the parties'
accompanying joint sealing motion to Magistrate Judge Joseph A.
Marutollo for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
section 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(1).
The nature of suit states Civil Rights.
Amazon.com Inc., doing business as Amazon, is an American
multinational technology company, engaged in e-commerce, cloud
computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial
intelligence.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Garner Suit Seeks to Certify Registrant Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAELI GARNER, et al., v.
AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-00750-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
-- certifying the Registrant Class and each Non-Registrant Class,
and
(i) State-Law Non-Registrant Classes consisting of:
"All [California, Florida, Maryland, New Hampshire,
Pennsylvania, Washington] residents who never registered an
Alexa device and resided with a Registrant while an Alexa
device was active and operational;
(ii) Nationwide Registrant Class consisting of:
"All persons in the United States who registered one or
more
Alexa device";
Excluded from the Proposed Classes are Defendants,
Defendants'
employees, officers, directors, legal representatives,
heirs,
successors, and wholly or partially owned subsidiaries or
affiliated companies; and
-- appointing named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and
Labaton
Keller Sucharow LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as
Class
Counsel.
The Defendants developed Alexa --a voice -- operated tool used to
respond to requests and execute commands—to illegally and
surreptitiously intercept billions of private conversations. Using
Alexa, Amazon recorded peoples’ private conversations, created
(with the assistance of unknown thirdparty contractors) verbatim
transcripts of those recorded conversations in Alexa's vicinity,
and used the recordings and transcripts for Amazon's commercial
benefit.
Amazon amassed private conversations of persons (both Registrants
and Non-Registrants) without obtaining consent or providing
compensation for their valuable and private information. This
surreptitious recording was not accidental -- it was known by
Amazon.
Amazon knowingly intercepted private conversations through Alexa
devices -- referring to the interception as "false wakes" -- to
better train its algorithms without having to pay for this valuable
data.
Amazon develops and sells consumer products, including Amazon's
Alexa.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 18, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y2CEyX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bradley S. Keller, Esq.
BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP
1000 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 622-2000
Facsimile: (206) 622-2522
E-mail: bkeller@byrneskeller.com
- and -
Michael P. Canty, Esq.
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
Guillaume Buell, Esq.
David Saldamando, Esq.
Danielle Izzo, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com
cvillegas@labaton.com
gbuell@labaton.com
dsaldamando@labaton.com
dizzo@labaton.com
- and -
Paul J. Geller, Esq.
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
Alexander C. Cohen, Esq.
Nicolle B. Brito, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER
RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
acohen@rgrdlaw.com
nbrito@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, 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: aleslie@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
- and -
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
rapeterson@locklaw.com
- and -
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Michael J. Laird, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
michael.laird@zimmreed.com
AMBER PHILLIPS: Hooks Seeks to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN HOOKS, V. AMBER L.
PHILLIPS, in her official Capacity as Correctional Program Director
2 for the TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et. al. Case No.
3:2023-CV-00671 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order certifying class action.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IcdaKD at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERIFLIGHT LLC: Fredericks Seeks to Certify Class of Pilots
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fredericks, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ameriflight, LLC,
Case No. 3:23-cv-01757 (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying a Rule 23(b)(3) class of:
"all pilots subject to Ameriflight's Training Repayment
Agreement Provision (TRAP) within the statute of limitations as to
two legal claims."
This case challenges cargo airline Ameriflight's practice of
requiring pilots to sign the TRAP indebting them to the company
purportedly in exchange for company-specific training required by
federal regulations.
The Plaintiff Kathleen Fredericks brought this case on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated, seeking to pursue claims on
behalf of a collective under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
that Ameriflight's TRAP unlawfully purports to charge employees for
training that primarily benefits Ameriflight; under the Texas Free
Enterprise and Antitrust Act that the TRAP operates as an unlawful
restraint of trade; and under the Texas Declaratory Judgments Act
that the damages that Ameriflight seeks to recoup are an unlawful
penalty. The Court need not resolve the merits of Plaintiff’s
claim at this stage.
The Plaintiff filed this action on January 1, 2023, on behalf of
herself and a putative class and collective of pilots subject to
Ameriflight's TRAP within the statute of limitations, alleging that
the TRAP violates the FLSA and Texas law.
Ameriflight is a national cargo airline.[CC]
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h0pji2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Williams Dempsey, Esq.
David Seligman, Esq.
TOWARDS JUSTICE
PO Box 371680, PMB 44465
Denver, CO 80237-5680
Telephone: (720) 441-2236
E-mail: rachel@towardsjustice.org
david@towardsjustice.org
- and -
Ashley Tremain, Esq.
TREMAIN ARTAZA PLLC
4925 Greenville Ave Ste. 200
Dallas, TX 75206
Telephone: (469) 573-0229
E-mail: ashley@tremainartaza.com
- and -
Rachel Smit, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South St. Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111, USA
Telephone: (617) 841-8188
E-mail: rachel@fairworklaw.com
- and -
Persis Yu, Esq.
STUDENT BORROWER PROTECTION CENTER
1025 Connecticut Ave NW, No. 717
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 670-3871
E-mail: persis@protectborrowers.org
ANCIENT BRANDS: Filing for Class Cert. Bids in Bush Due Dec. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bush, et al., v. Ancient
Brands, LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-00390 (N.D.N.Y., Filed April 5,
2021), the Hon. Judge Lawrence Kahn entered an order setting all
schedules and deadlines as follows:
(1) detailed status reports shall be filed by July 19, 2024,
advising the Court as to status and progress of discovery
and
this litigation;
(2) as to any proposed Protective Order or ESI Protocol Order
that
the parties seek Court endorsement, the parties shall file a
joint proposed order by July 1, 2024;
(3) Plaintiffs expert disclosure deadline is Nov. 29, 2024;
(4) The Defendant expert disclosure deadline is Dec. 30, 2024;
(5) any class certification motion shall be filed by Dec. 30,
2024;
(6) rebuttal expert disclosure deadline is Jan. 13, 2025;
(7) all discovery (including all factual and documentary
discovery
as to merit and class action; all depositions including
expert
depositions) shall be completed by Feb. 28, 2025; and
(8) dispositive motions shall be filed by March 31, 2025.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.
Ancient Brands is a manufacturing company that produces pre-gel
powder, puffed brown rice, wheat, and millet products.[CC]
AQ TEXTILES: Joint Bid Will Not impact Deadlines in Discovery Sched
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HILL, et al., v. AQ
TEXTILES LLC, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00983 (M.D.N.C., Sept. 23,
2019), Hon. Judge Loretta C. Biggs entered an order the Joint
Motion shall not impact any other deadlines in the discovery
schedule including the deadline for other expert reports/rebuttal
reports, for dispositive motions, and the motion for class
certification.
The nature of suit states Real Property -- Tort Product Liability.
AQ Textiles was founded in 2003. The company's line of business
includes the wholesale distribution of home furnishings and
housewares.[CC]
ASECOMER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Conrado Labor Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
GILBERTO J. CONRADO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASECOMER INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, D/B/A
INTERWORLD FREIGHT, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-22271 (S.D. Fla.,
June 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages and retaliatory discharge in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a full-time employee from
approximately June 13, 2020, to March 25, 2024. During his
employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff was misclassified as a
food safety manager. However, according to his primary duties, he
was a food safety technician who handled perishables. He had
additional warehousing and clerical responsibilities, the Plaintiff
says.
Asecomer International Corporation, doing business as Interworld
Freight, is an international logistics company located in Miami,
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Class Action Settlement Hearing Set Sep. 5
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of publicly-traded Astec Industries, Inc.
common stock (NASDAQ: ASTE):
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED PUBLICLY-TRADED ASTEC INDUSTRIES,
INC. ("ASTEC") COMMON STOCK BETWEEN JULY 26, 2016 AND OCTOBER 22,
2018, INCLUSIVE.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, that a
hearing will be held on September 5, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. before the
Honorable Charles E. Atchley Jr., United States District Judge of
the Eastern District of Tennessee, 900 Georgia Avenue, Courtroom
1A, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402, for the purpose of determining:
(1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the
above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of
$13,700,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the
Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether
the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of
up to one-third plus interest of the Settlement Amount,
reimbursement of expenses of not more than $330,000, and a service
payment of no more than $15,000 to Lead Plaintiff should be
approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with
prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated May
6, 2024 (the "Settlement Stipulation"). The Court reserves the
right to hold the Settlement Fairness Hearing telephonically or by
other virtual means.
If you purchased publicly-traded Astec common stock during the
period between July 26, 2016 and October 22, 2018, both dates
inclusive, your rights may be affected by this Settlement,
including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess
relating to your ownership interest in publicly-traded Astec common
stock. If you need assistance obtaining a detailed Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a
copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you may
write to, call, or contact the Claims Administrator: Astec
Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims
Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, Media, PA
19063; (Toll-Free) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985;
info@strategicclaims.net. You can also download copies of the
Notice and submit your Claim Form online at
www.strategicclaims.net/Astec. If you are a member of the
Settlement Class, to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form electronically or
postmarked no later than August 8, 2024 to the Claims
Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to share in the
recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will
be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you
make a claim.
If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that
it is received no later than August 8, 2024, in the manner and form
explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class who
have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the
Settlement Stipulation.
Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses and award to Lead Plaintiff must be in the manner and
form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than
August 8, 2024, by each of the following:
Clerk of the Court,
U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee
900 Georgia Avenue Chattanooga, TN 37402
Daniel Tyre-Karp
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue
40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
-- Lead Counsel
Elizabeth Gingold Clark
Alston & Bird
1201 West Peachtree Street, Suite 4900
Atlanta, GA 30309
-- Counsel for Defendants
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.
DATED: MAY 16, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE [GN]
AT&T INC: Crockran Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Customers' Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GWENDOLYN CROCKRAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-01438-E (N.D. Tex., June 12, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its data
systems following a data breach in March 2024. 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.
AT&T Inc. is an American multinational telecommunications holding
company headquartered in Dallas, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick Yarborough, Esq.
FOSTER YARBOROUGH PLLC
917 Franklin Street, Suite 220
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 331-5254
Facsimile: (713) 513-5202
Email: patrick@fosteryarborough.com
- and -
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN McDONALD, PLLC
102 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Telephone: (917) 983-9321
Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
Email: lfeldman@4-justice.com
- and -
Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (917) 983-2707
Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
Email: jpollack@4-justice.com
- and -
David J. George, Esq.
9897 Lake Worth Drive, Suite 302
Lake Worth, FL 33467
Telephone: (561) 232-6002
Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
Email: dgeorge@4-justice.com
- and -
Ori Raphael, Esq.
Damon Mathias, Esq.
MATHIAS RAPHAEL PLLC
13101 Preston Road, Suite 501
Dallas, TX 75240
Telephone: (214) 739-0100
Facsimile: (214) 739-0551
Email: ori@mr.law
damon@mr.law
- and -
Marshal J. Hoda, Esq.
THE HODA LAW FIRM, PLLC
12333 Sowden Road, Suite B
Houston, TX 77080
Telephone: (832) 848-0036
Email: marshal@thehodalawfirm.com
ATP FLIGHT: McMinn Sues Over Flight Instructors' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN MCMINN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons v. ATP FLIGHT ACADEMY, LLC; ATP USA, INC.; and ATP
FLIGHT ACADEMY OF ARIZONA, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-01498-TPB-CPT
(M.D. Fla., June 20, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed as a flight instructor at the ATP
training facility in Indiana from approximately July 2023 through
January 2024. Allegedly, the Plaintiff and all other flight
instructors, including lead flight instructors, were improperly
classified by Defendants as independent contractors and were not
paid overtime premium at the rate of time and one-half for all of
their hours worked over 40 in a workweek, in violation of the
FLSA.
The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated and statutory
damages, costs and attorneys' fees, service awards, as well as
declaratory relief under the FLSA
Based in Jacksonville Beach, FL, ATP Flight Academy is a for-profit
pilot training institution. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
W. John Gadd, Esq.
DEAN BURNETTI LAW
1937 East Edgewood Drive, Suite 102
Lakeland, FL 33803
Telephone: (863) 287-6388
E-mail: wig@BurnettiLaw.com
- and -
Karen Kithan Yau, Esq.
Emily J. Sullivan, Esq.
GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN PLLC
260 Fair St.
Kingston, NY 12401
Telephone: (845) 255-9370
Facsimile: (845)255-8649
E-mail: kyau@getmansweeney.com
esullivan@getmansweeney.com
ATTALA STEEL: Brown Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETTY BROWN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. ATTALA STEEL
INDUSTRIES, LLC; and MIDDLEGROUND MANAGEMENT, LP, Case No.
4:23-cv-00114-MPM-DAS (N.D. Miss.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying this case as a collective action and
approving the proposed notice.
The Plaintiff also requests this Court equitably toll the statute
of limitations from Aug. 16, 2023, through April 10, 2024.
Through the course of discovery, Attala Steel has produced payroll
documentation which exhibits there are hundreds of current and
former employees who received production bonuses and other
nondiscretionary forms of compensation in weeks they worked more
than 40 hours.
The Plaintiff is similarly situated with the current and former
employees of Attala Steel who worked at any time between Aug. 1,
2020, to present and received production bonuses and other
non-disrectionary forms of compensation in weeks he or she worked
in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
The Plaintiff commenced this action as a collective action pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of herself and all similarly
situated employees who were or are employed by Attala Steel
Industries, LLC.
The Plaintiff Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") allegations pertain
to how Attala Steel calculated its current and former employees
"regular rate of pay" and whether its calculations resulted in the
Plaintiff and the other similarly situated employees being
undercompensated for their overtime hours worked.
Attala is a manufacturer of steel foundation products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jRvCQf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William "Jack" Simpson, Esq.
LANGSTON & LOTT, PLLC
100 South Main Street
Booneville, MS 38829-0382
Telephone: (662) 728-9733
Facsimile: (662) 728-1992
E-mail: jsimpson@langstonlott.com
AVANTCREDIT LLC: Fails to Comply With Court Orders, Huffman Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON CARVER HUFFMAN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVANTCREDIT, LLC d/b/a AVANT, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00485 (M.D.N.C., June 12, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Automatic
Stay, the Discharge Injunction, the North Carolina Collection
Agency Act and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Practices
Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's willful noncompliance with the
Bankruptcy Court's orders and numerous state remedial consumer
protection statutes, particularly the stay of relief entered March
24, 2023, and the discharge order entered on July 6, 2023. The
Plaintiff has been damaged and seeks monetary, declaratory, and
injunctive relief based on the Defendant's willful choice not to
comply with the Bankruptcy Court's orders, says the suit.
AvantCredit, LLC, doing business as Avant, LLC, is a collection
agency headquartered in Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erik A. Martin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN T. ORCUTT
1738 Hillandale Road, Suite D
Durham, NC 22705
Telephone: (919) 286-1695
Email: Emartin@lojto.com
- and -
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
Brent A. Snyder, Esq.
DANNLAW
15000 Madison Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44107
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
Email: notices@dannlaw.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Bolshakov Suit Stayed Pending OK of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Julie Bolshakov, et al.,
v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 1:23-cv-10714-JGK (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge John Koeltl entered an order that the case is stayed
pending approval of the settlement in the Weinstein, et al. v. Bank
of Americal, N.A. action.
Bank of America offers saving and current account, investment and
financial services, and online banking.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KmU75i at no extra
charge.[CC]
BANK OF AMERICA: Supreme Court Reverses Class Action Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.gs-legal.com/ reports that on May 30, 2024, the Supreme
Court of the United States unanimously agreed with plaintiffs
represented by Goldenberg Schneider, LPA and its co-counsel that
the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had erred by dismissing
the plaintiffs' putative class action against Bank of America, N.A.
on federal preemption grounds.
The plaintiffs in the case obtained home mortgage loans from Bank
of America, a national bank chartered under the National Bank Act.
The contracts required plaintiffs to make monthly deposits into
escrow accounts. Escrow accounts ensure the availability of funds
to pay the insurance premium and property taxes on the borrower's
behalf. New York state law provides that a bank "shall" pay
borrowers "interest" on the balance held in an escrow account
maintained in connection with a mortgage on certain real estate. N.
Y. Gen. Oblig. Law Ann. Sec. 5 -- 601.
However, Bank of America did not pay interest on the balances held
in plaintiffs' escrow accounts, taking the position New York's
interest-on-escrow law was preempted by the National Bank Act,
which has no escrow interest requirements.
The plaintiffs, represented by Goldenberg Schneider and co-counsel,
brought putative class-action suits in federal district court,
claiming that they were entitled to interest on their mortgage
escrows. The district court concluded that nothing in the National
Bank Act or other federal law preempted the New York law.
The Second Circuit reversed, holding that because the New York law
"would exert control over" national banks' power "to create and
fund escrow accounts," the law was preempted.
The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the Second Circuit has
erred by applying the wrong standard for preemption, and remanded
the case back to the Second Circuit to conduct a proper preemption
analysis consistent with existing Supreme Court precedent. See
Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., 602 U.S. __ (2024).[GN]
BARBU GOURMET: Faces Montero Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO MONTERO, Plaintiff v. BARBU GOURMET DELI INC. and YONNI
A. CRUZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04349
(E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2024) is a class action accusing the Defendants
of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law,
and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and
Regulations.
Plaintiff Montero was employed by the Defendants from approximately
June 2023 until May 2024. During this period, his primary work duty
was as a stocker and cook, in addition to managing the store.
Allegedly, the Defendants intentionally obligated Plaintiff to work
beyond his scheduled hours without compensating him the proper
minimum and overtime wages as stipulated by federal and state laws.
In addition, the Defendants intentionally neglected to display the
legally required wage and hour posters, and failed to provide
Plaintiff with the legally mandated wage and hour records or pay
statements, says the suit.
Barbu Gourmet Deli Inc. operates as a grocery store and restaurant
in Brooklyn, NY. [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
Website: www.StillmanLegalPC.com
BELL CANADA: Pension Plan Ends Class Suit After COLA Recomputation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP reports that pensioners of the Bell Canada
Pension Plan initiated a class proceeding on September 19, 2023 to
seek compensation from Bell Canada in respect of an underpayment of
pension benefits resulting from a miscalculation of the
cost-of-living allowance ("COLA") increase applied to annual
pensions in 1998. The plaintiffs alleged that Bell only applied a
1% COLA increase in 1998, instead of 2%. Certain retirees and the
Bell Pensioners Group also complained to the federal pension
regulator, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions ("OSFI").
Several months after the class action was filed, Bell Canada agreed
to pay compensation to all retirees impacted by the 1998 COLA Error
in an arrangement it made with OSFI. Bell has recalculated and paid
the amounts owing to the pensioners impacted by the 1998 COLA
Error.
As of April 2024, of the 23,176 pensioners who were eligible for
this payment, Bell has paid approximately $84.2M to 10,563
pensioners and surviving spouses, and to the beneficiaries of 2,906
estates of deceased eligible pensioners. Bell Canada has advised
that it will continue to make payments to the estates of impacted
deceased pensioners as they continue to come forward indefinitely.
Please contact Bell Canada at 1-888-893-4446 if you have a claim in
respect of the 1998 COLA Error. If you have any other questions,
please contact the Bell Pensioners Group at 905-695-9230.
Given that the purpose of the class action has been achieved, our
firm filed a motion to the court to discontinue the class action.
On June 20, 2024, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the
motion and approved the discontinuance.[GN]
BELLOTA AGRISOLUTIONS: Court Directs Barnes Discovery Plan Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barnes v. Bellota
Agrisolutions And Tools USA LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-04077-SLD-JEH
(C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge entered an order Hon. Judge Jonathan E.
Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
Bellota manufactures agricultural tools and spare parts.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3DGRXr at no extra
charge.[CC]
BEYOND INC: Frost and Frost Sue Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Beyond Inc. d/b/a Bed, Bath, &
Beyond, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-02326 (D. Minn., June 19, 2024)
alleges violations of both the general non-discriminatory mandate
and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its
implementing regulations.
By failing to provide its website’s content and services in a
manner that is compatible with auxiliary aids, Defendant has
engaged, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other
arrangements, in illegal disability discrimination. Defendant has
violated Title III of the ADA by, without limitation, failing to
make its website's services accessible by screen reader programs,
thereby denying individuals with visual disabilities the benefits
of the Website, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs also assert a companion cause of action under the
Minnesota Human Rights Act in connection with Defendant's failure
to ensure its website to be fully accessible to, and independently
usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities.
Headquartered in Midvale, UT, Beyond Inc. owns and operates the
commercial website, www.bedbathandbeyond.com, which offers
furniture and home furnishings products. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndselaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS: Ortman Sues Over OT Pay Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN ORTMAN, individually and for others similarly situated v.
BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC. and FRESENIUS
MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE NORTH
AMERICA, Case No. 1:24-cv-11599 (D. Mass., June 20, 2024) seeks to
recover unpaid wages and other damages under the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection
Law.
The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt, hourly-paid
dialysis technician at various dialysis clinics that Fresenius owns
and/or operates in and around Middletown, Camp Hill, and
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania from approximately January 2019 through
June 2022. Throughout his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff
regularly worked more than 40 hours a week but was not properly
paid for all the hours he worked.
The Defendants allegedly implemented unlawful policies and
practices, including meal deduction and automatic rounding which
deprived Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of
overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 a workweek as
well as for all hours worked on their regular paydays.
Additionally, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff and
Class members overtime at the required premium rate as a result of
their bonus pay scheme, says the suit.
A wholly owned subsidiary of Fresenius, Bio-Medical Applications of
Pennsylvania, Inc. provides kidney dialysis services and is
headquartered in Waltham, MA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Gordon, Esq.
Kristen M. Hurley, Esq.
GORDON LAW GROUP, LLP
585 Boylston St.
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 536-1800
Facsimile: (617) 536-1802
E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com
khurley@gordonllp.com
BLOOMBERG LP: Misclassified Recovery Bonds, Skolarus Says
---------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD SKOLARUS, JAMES SMALL, and STEVEN TORTOLANI, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
BLOOMBERG, L.P. and BLOOMBERG INDEX SERVICES, LTD., Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-04375 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2024) arises from the
Defendants' conduct of misclassifying Recovery Bonds, causing
millions of electricity consumers, including Plaintiffs, to pay
inflated interest rates.
According to the complaint, Bloomberg classified Recovery Bonds as
corporate bonds primarily because by law, and by the terms of the
bonds themselves, the bonds are repaid by electricity customers via
monthly charges on their bills and thus carry little if any risk.
Although nothing changed to make these bonds any riskier or
otherwise materially different, Bloomberg disregarded its own best
indexing practices and the law in reclassifying utility Recovery
Bonds from "corporate bonds" to "asset-backed securities."
Bloomberg knew that misclassifying the bonds would increase the
perceived risk of the bonds and shrink the pool of investors
allowed to purchase the bonds. Bloomberg also knew that, as a
result, the interest rates on the bonds would rise, forcing tens of
millions of everyday Americans, many of whom are just trying to
make ends meet, to pay inflated interest.
This case concerns three Recovery Bonds that Bloomberg
misclassified: (1) ERCOT Texas Stabilization Subchapter N Bonds
(June 2022; $2.1 billion); (2) PG&E Senior Secured Recovery Bonds,
Series 2022-A (Nov. 2022; $983 million); and (3) SCE Senior Secured
Recovery Bonds, Series 2023-A (Apr. 2023; $775 million).
The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and
the other electricity customers of SCE, PG&E, and ERCOT who have
been charged, and will continue to be charged, excess Recovery Bond
repayment charges each month as a result of Bloomberg's misconduct,
seeking legal and equitable relief for the excess monthly payments
they have been and will be required to pay, including requiring
Bloomberg to fund utility bill credits sufficient to offset the
excess monthly payments Plaintiffs and the classes will be required
to make through the life of the Recovery Bonds at issue, and
enjoining Bloomberg from engaging in the misconduct alleged herein
going forward.
Bloomberg, L.P. is a privately held financial, software, data, and
media company headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, New York
City.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sahil S. Koul, Esq.
PAUL LLP
15 Crest Wood Circle
Pittsford, NY 14534
Telephone: (816) 984-8100
Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
E-mail: Sahil@PaulLLP.com
- and -
Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
Michael Schrag, Esq.
PAUL LLP
601 Walnut, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64106
Telephone: (816) 984-8100
Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com
Michael@PaulLLP.com
- and -
Roger N. Heller, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1006
E-mail: rheller@lchb.com
- and -
Michael G. King, Esq.
HENNELLY & GROSSFELD LLP
10900 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 305-2100
Facsimile: (310) 305-2116
E-mail: mking@hgla.com
BLUESKY HEALTHCARE: Discovery in Garcia Extended to Sept. 13
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Garcia v. Bluesky
Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01617 (N.D. Ohio, Filed
Aug. 20, 2023), the Hon. Judge Charles Esque Fleming entered an
order extending deadlines as follows:
(i) discovery related to court-supervised notice and
conditional
class certification shall be completed by Sept. 13, 2024;
(ii) expert reports for the party with the burden of proof as
to
such issues shall be produced by Sept. 20, 2024;
(iii) responsive expert reports shall be provided by Nov. 20,
2024;
and
(iv) expert discovery related to court-supervised notice and
conditional class certification shall be completed by Nov.
20, 2024;
(v) motions for court-supervised notice and conditional class
certification shall be filed by Nov. 20, 2024; and
(vi) dispositive motions shall be due by Nov. 20, 2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).[CC]
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Courts OK's Bids to File Matters Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Newton v. Brighthouse Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-02001 (N.D. Ga., Filed May 8,
2020), the Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg entered an order granting
motions for leave to file matters under seal.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract.
Brighthouse is a provider of annuities and life insurance in the
United States.[CC]
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Newton Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD A. NEWTON, SR.,
Individually and on behalf of a Class of Individuals Similarly
Situated, v. BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:20-cv-02001-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order allowing the Plaintiff to file under seal the following
documents:
A. Plaintiff Richard A. Newton, Sr.'s Supplemental Brief In
Support
of Motion for Class Certification;
B. Plaintiff's Supplemental Appendix In Support of Class
Certification and Exhibits.
Pursuant to Appendix H, sectionII(J)(2)a), the Plaintiff has
publicly filed all documents and/or portions of documents that he
does not seek to seal.
The Plaintiff notes that, pursuant to the Protective Order and
Appendix H, sectionII(J)(2)(d)-(e), the burden is on the
designating party, the Defendant, to show good cause as to why the
confidential information should be filed under seal.
Brighthouse is a provider of annuities and life insurance.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q3yYFT at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
J. Cameron Tribble, Esq.
THE BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Telephone: (770) 227-6375
Facsimile: (770) 227-6373
E-mail: roy@barneslawgroup.com
ctribble@barneslawgroup.com
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Files Class Action Against PFAS Manufacturers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Chiang and Nono Shen of The Canadian Press reports on CTVNews
that the British Columbia government has filed a class-action
lawsuit against manufacturers of so-called "forever chemicals,"
involved in what it calls widespread contamination of
drinking-water systems.
Attorney General Niki Sharma says the province is the first
Canadian jurisdiction to sue makers of perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS chemicals.
B.C. has filed similar class-action lawsuits in the past, targeting
tobacco manufacturers in 1998 and opioid makers in 2018 to recover
health-care costs associated with those substances.
Sharma says in a statement that the province is filing the lawsuit
to "ensure that companies that created the problem, and profited
from these chemicals, pay their fair share. "The lawsuit targets 12
companies that include firms associated with the chemical giants
3M, DuPont and BASF.
It says the defendants knew that when their products were used as
directed, "toxic PFAS chemicals would be released, would
contaminate the environment for centuries, and would pose
significant threats to human health."
"The defendants did not warn the Canadian public of the dangers
posed by their PFAS-containing products or take any steps to modify
or remove their products to avoid these harms -- instead, they
concealed and affirmatively contradicted the known dangers in
public statements and marketing campaigns designed to enrich
themselves at the public's expense," says the lawsuit, filed Friday
in the Supreme Court of B.C. in Vancouver.
According to the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences, exposure to PFAS products may lead to childhood obesity,
weakened immune systems and certain types of cancer.
University of B.C. chemical and biological engineering professor
Madjid Mohseni said PFAS products are "very ubiquitous" in daily
life, and can be found in many consumer products.
These include non-stick cookware and food packaging with waxy
coatings, waterproof clothing and stain-resistant carpets, said
Mohseni.
He said the chemicals contain a carbon-fluorine bond, the strongest
bond in organic chemistry, earning them the "forever chemical"
nickname.
"These carbon-fluorine bonds are extremely resilient and extremely
strong, they cannot be broken down easily," he said.
"Once you manufacture these products, they are very difficult to
degrade and be removed, so they stay in the environment for
years."
Mohseni said research has linked the chemicals to health problems,
including thyroid disease, kidney disease, and cancer.
"They make our lives very easy and convenient. Unfortunately, the
downside is that they are bringing harm to our environment and also
our public health," said Mohseni.[BN]
BUENA VISTA: Faces Castaneda Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROSA MARIA OLAYO CASTANEDA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUENA VISTA TORTILLAS CORP. (D/B/A
BUENA VISTA TORTILLAS CORPORATION), NOE BALTAZAR, and MICHAELA
VARGAS, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04672 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Olayo was employed by Defendants as a packaging worker
from approximately September 2013 until on or about April 2023.
Throughout her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours per week. However, the Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and
failed to pay Plaintiff Olayo appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium. Among other things, the Defendants to post at the
workplace, or otherwise provide to employees, the required postings
or notices to employees regarding the applicable wage and hour
requirements of the FLSA and NYLL, says the Plaintiff.
Based in Bronx, NY, Buena Vista Tortillas Corporation manufactures
Mexican corn products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
BUFFALO, NY: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by July 3
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Black Love Resists, et
al., v. City of Buffalo, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00719 (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed June 28, 2018), the Hon. Judge Christina Reiss entered an
order that:
-- The Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification shall be filed no later than July 3, 2024.
-- The Plaintiffs' reply shall be filed no later than July 31,
2024.
The suit alleges violations of the Civil Rights Act.
Buffalo is a city in the U.S. state of New York and the county seat
of Erie County.[CC]
BURLINGTON COAT: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Spyware in Emails
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Burlington Coat
Factory faces a new class action lawsuit that alleges the retailer
has secretly embedded web-tracking technology into its marketing
emails to collect recipients' personal data without their knowledge
or consent.
The 23-page proposed class action contends that Burlington Coat
Factory uses tracking tools known as "spy pixels" to capture
information about email recipients for the benefit of the
retailer's targeted marketing efforts. The suit claims the company
has breached an Arizona privacy law by intercepting residents'
email data without first obtaining their permission.
As the case tells it, the virtually invisible trackers gather
sensitive information such as when and where a consumer opens an
email, how long they spend reading it, their device details, their
IP address and more.
In addition, the complaint points out that the alleged spy pixels
begin collecting data as soon as a message is opened.
"To activate a spy pixel, recipients only need to open the email,"
the filing relays. "The recipient does not need to directly engage
with the pixel -- when an email is opened the tracking pixel is
automatically downloaded."
The plaintiff, an Arizona resident, says she has often opened
Burlington Coat Factory's marketing emails in the past few years.
By doing so, the woman has had her personal data illegally captured
via the company's hidden tracking tools without her authorization,
the suit charges.
The case alleges that the retailer's "invasive surveillance" of
consumers' email records has violated the protected privacy rights
of Arizona residents.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in Arizona who has opened a
marketing email containing a tracking pixel from Burlington Coat
Factory. [GN]
CALIFORNIA: Extension to File Renewed Brief for Class Cert Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR ANDERS, HENNESSEY
EVANS, ABBIGAYLE ROBERTS, MEGAN WALAITIS, TARA WEIR, and COURTNEY
WALBURGER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, v. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO, and BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Case No.
1:21-cv-00179-JLT-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order that:
(1) The deadline for Plaintiffs' renewed brief in support of
class
certification should be moved to Aug. 23, 2024,
(2) Fresno State's deadline to respond should be moved to Sept.
27,
2024; and
(3) Plaintiffs' deadline to reply should be moved to Oct. 11,
2024.
Arthur H. Bryant, lead counsel for the Plaintiffs, will be leaving
Bailey & Glasser, LLP, in the coming weeks. Some or all other
attorneys at Bailey & Glasser, LLP, who have previously served as
Plaintiffs' counsel and who Plaintiffs previously asked to be
appointed as class counsel (in their 2022 motions) will withdraw
from representation.
As such, the Plaintiffs are unable—at this moment—to identify
all the firms and individuals they will seek to have serve as class
counsel under Rule 23(g). And they will be unable to do so by
Friday, June 21, when their renewed brief in support of class
certification is currently due.
The Plaintiffs assert it would be wasteful and impractical to try
to brief class certification before Plaintiffs can more completely
identify class counsel.
On May 21, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation concerning a
proposed briefing schedule for Fresno State's motion to dismiss on
mootness grounds and Plaintiffs' renewed brief in support of class
certification.
On June 18, 2024, Plaintiffs' counsel informed Fresno State's
counsel of the situation and the need to extend the briefing
schedule as to the Plaintiffs' brief in support of class
certification. Fresno State has informed Plaintiffs' counsel that
it does not oppose an extension.
California State University is a public research university in Long
Beach.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AYifhT at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
CADDELL & CHAPMAN
Monterey, CA 93942
Telephone: (713) 751-0400
E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
cbc@caddellchapman.com
aet@caddellchapman.com
- and -
Arthur H. Bryant, Esq.
Cary Joshi, Esq.
Joshua I. Hammack, Esq.
Lori Bullock, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 272-8000
E-mail: abryant@baileyglasser.com
cjoshi@baileyglasser.com
jhammack@baileyglasser.com
lbullock@baileyglasser.com
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Court Certifies NSF Fees Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified a class action
lawsuit against the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) for
allegedly charging duplicative non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees.
The certification follows a motion by the plaintiff, who claimed
the bank violated consumer protection laws by imposing multiple NSF
fees on re-presented pre-authorized debits (PADs) and bounced
cheques.
The plaintiff alleged that CIBC charged duplicative NSF fees when
payees attempted to process already-rejected PADs or cheques a
second time. According to the plaintiff, the bank's standard form
contract does not permit such duplicative charges, allowing only
the first NSF fee. The lawsuit claimed this practice violates
Ontario's consumer protection legislation and results in unjust
enrichment for the bank while disproportionately impacting
low-income Canadians.
The statement of claim sought damages for breach of contract,
equivalent to all monies paid by the plaintiff and class members
due to the duplicative NSF fees. It also sought an order to
disgorge the value of all monies allegedly paid illegally by the
class members, punitive damages, and an equitable rate of interest
and costs.
The Superior Court granted the certification under the Class
Proceedings Act (CPA). The plaintiff needed to meet the criteria
outlined in s. 5(1) of the CPA, including disclosing a cause of
action, identifying an identifiable class, raising common issues,
demonstrating that a class proceeding is the preferable procedure,
and providing an adequate representative plaintiff.
The class is defined as all personal deposit account holders with
CIBC who were charged a non-sufficient funds fee on re-presented
PAD transactions between September 21, 2020, and May 31, 2024. The
court noted that this definition is based on objective criteria,
ensuring that potential class members can be identified without
referencing the merits of the action.
The court found that the common issues raised in the claim --
whether the bank's standard form contract prohibits charging NSF
fees on re-presented PAD transactions, whether the bank was
unjustly enriched by these fees, and whether aggregate damages can
be awarded -- are substantial and capable of advancing the
litigation.
The court determined that a class proceeding is preferable for
resolving these common issues. Individual actions would be
impractical and inefficient, given the likely modest individual
losses and the burden on court resources. The class proceeding
aligns with the goals of behaviour modification, access to justice,
and judicial economy.
The court found the proposed representative plaintiff to be
adequate, with no conflicts of interest and a clear understanding
of her role and obligations.
The court concluded that the criteria under s. 5(1) of the CPA were
met, certifying the action based on the consent order filed by the
parties. The class action will proceed to address the allegations
of duplicative NSF fees charged by CIBC. [GN]
CANERA INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fernandez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CANERA, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-04689 (S.D.N.Y., June
20, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to design, construct,
maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.victorcanera.com, to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
On Jan. 23, 2024, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website to
purchase earrings (Vintage Platinum Drop Earrings). Despite
Plaintiff's efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping
experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the
website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which
effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping
experience. The Website contains access barriers that prevent free
and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading
software, the Plaintiff claims.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, the Plaintiff
adds.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant specializes in custom-made and bespoke pieces created
using traditional techniques and the finest materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
CANVAS ENERGY: Wake Energy Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wake Energy LLC, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, v. Canvas Energy, LLC,
f/k/a Chaparral Energy, L.L.C., Case No. 5:22-cv-00822-G (W.D.
Okla.), the Plaintiff requests that the Court enter the agreed
proposed Preliminary Approval Order:
(1) certify the Settlement Class for Settlement purposes;
(2) preliminarily approve the Settlement;
(3) appoint Plaintiff as Class Representative for the Settlement
Class;
(4) appoint Brady L. Smith and Harry "Skeeter" Jordan of Brady
Smith Law, PLLC and Randy Smith of Randy C. Smith and
Associates as Co-Lead Class Counsel;
(5) approve the form and manner of the proposed Notice;
(6) appoint Kroll, LLC as Settlement Administrator;
(7) appoint Western Alliance Bank as Escrow Agent; and
(8) set a hearing date for final approval of the Settlement and
application for an award of Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees,
Litigation Expenses and Administration, Notice, and
Distribution Costs, and a Case Contribution Award to the
Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff initiated this case on September 16, 2022, with the
filing of the Complaint, in which Plaintiff alleged that Defendant
violated the Production Revenue Standards Act ("PRSA").
Accordingly, Plaintiff moves the Court to certify the Settlement
Class consisting of:
"All non-excluded persons or entities who: (1) (A) received
late payments under the PRSA from Defendant (or Defendant's
designee) for oil-and-gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells, (B)
or
whose proceeds were remitted to unclaimed property divisions
of
any government entity by Defendant; and (2) whose payments
or
whose unclaimed property did not include the statutory
interest
required by the PRSA."
Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant, its affiliates,
predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; and
(2)
agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the State of
Oklahoma or United States of America, including any Indian
tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian
allottee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2); (3) Alta
Mesa
Resources, LP, and (4) Oklahoma Energy Acquisitions, LP.
Canvas provides exploration and production services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HGgk1P at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brady L. Smith, Esq.
Harry "Skeeter" Jordan, Esq.
BRADY SMITH LAW, PLLC
One Leadership Square, Suite 1320 211 N. Robinson
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 293-3029
E-mail: brady@blsmithlaw.com
skeeter@blsmithlaw.com
– and –
Randy C. Smith, Esq.
RANDY C. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES
One Leadership Square, Suite 1310
211 North Robinson Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone (405) 212-2786
Facsimile (405) 232-6515
E-mail: randy@rcsmithlaw.com
CAROLINA BEVERAGE: Cherry Sues Over Private Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
CHEREKA CHERRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAROLINA BEVERAGE GROUP, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 5:24-cv-00148 (W.D.N.C., June 19, 2024) arises out of the
data breach that occurred on November 28, 2023 and that compromised
the personally identifiable information of several thousand current
and former employees of the Defendant.
On or about May 7, 2024, almost six months after the data breach
first occurred, the Defendant finally began notifying Class Members
about the data breach. Cybercriminals were able to breach
Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train
its employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its
agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and
securing the PII of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable
security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII --
rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals. However, the
Defendant's data breach notice obfuscated the nature of the breach
and the threat it posted -- refusing to tell its employees how many
people were impacted, how the breach happened, or why it took the
Defendant almost six months to finally begin notifying victims that
cybercriminals had gained access to their highly private
information. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, and invasion of privacy/intrusion upon seclusion.
Headquartered in Mooresville, NC, Carolina Beverage Group, LLC
produces and distributes alcoholic beverages, including beers.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
Ruth A. Sheehan, Esq.
RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C.
1612 Military Cutoff Road Suite 300
Wilmington NC 28403
Telephone: (910) 772-9960
E-mail: jrr@jrr@rhinelawfirm.com
ras@rhinelawfirm.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
CEPHALON INC: Himawan Appeals Final Judgment to Del. Supreme Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
JEFF HIMAWAN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
denying in part and granting in part the Defendants' motions to
dismiss and final judgment in the lawsuit entitled Jeff Himawan, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Cephalon, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2018-0075-SG, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
The Plaintiffs, Jeff Himawan, Josh Targoff, and Stephen Tullman,
are appointed representatives of the former stockholders of Ception
Therapeutics, Inc. Ception was acquired by Cephalon, Inc. in
February 2010. Both companies were organized under Delaware law.
The merger agreement governing that acquisition forms the basis of
this litigation. Later, in October 2011, Cephalon itself was
acquired by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. ("Teva Ltd."), an
Israeli company that lists its principal place of business in Petah
Tikva, Israel. Teva Ltd. has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(2) and for
failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Cephalon and Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. ("Teva USA"), a Delaware corporation and
a wholly owned subsidiary of Teva Ltd., have also filed a motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
The count of tortious interference with contract brought against
Defendants Teva Ltd. and Teva USA was dismissed for failure to
state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). As a result, Teva Ltd.'s
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(2) was deemed moot. The count of breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing brought against Defendant
Cephalon was also dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6). However, the count of breach of contract brought against
Cephalon survived the Defendants' motion to dismiss. As a result,
the Defendants' motions to dismiss were granted in part and denied
in part.
The appellate case is captioned Jeff Himawan, et al. v. Cephalon,
Inc., et al., Case No. 226-2024, in the Supreme Court of the State
of Delaware, filed on June 7, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JEFF HIMAWAN, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Richard L. Renck, Esq.
Mackenzie M. Wrobel, Esq.
Michael B. Gonen, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
1201 N. Market St., Ste. 501
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 657-4900
Email: RLRenck@duanemorris.com
MMWrobel@duanemorris.com
MBGonen@duanemorris.com
Defendants-Appellees CEPHALON, INC., et al. are represented by:
Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq.
Devora W. Allon, Esq.
John P. Del Monaco, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 446-4800
- and -
Alexandrea I. Russell, Esq.
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 389-5000
- and -
Kevin Shannon, Esq.
J. Matthew Belger, Esq.
POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
1313 North Market Street, 6th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-6000
CHAR-BROIL LLC: Digital Electric Smokers "Defective," Fares Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA FARES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHAR-BROIL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04878 (N.D. Ill., June 12, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
unjust enrichment/quasi-contract, breach of express warranties, and
violations of State Consumer Fraud Acts and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's design, production,
distribution, and sale of defective digital electric smokers. On
February 15, 2024, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) announced a recall of approximately 211,700 of the
Defendant's digital electric smokers sold in the United States
because they can leak electrical current during use, posing an
electric shock hazard. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct,
misrepresentations and omissions, the Plaintiff and putative Class
Members have suffered injury in fact, including economic damages,
says the suit.
Char-Broil LLC is a manufacturer of charcoal, gas and electric
outdoor grills, smokers and related products based in Columbus,
Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
SIRI | GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
lconsidine@sirillp.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon
Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
CHEMTOOL INC: Settles Plant Fire Class Action for $94.5-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Illinois property owners and renters
could receive payments from a $94.5 million Chemtool plant
settlement if they were impacted by a 2021 plant fire.
The settlement benefits Illinois citizens who, on June 14, 2021,
were owners or tenants of properties located within a 3-mile radius
of the Chemtool Manufacturing Plant in Rockton, Illinois.
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim a June 2021 fire at a
Chemtool plant in Rockton, Illinois, caused property damage and
other harm for residents and property owners in the area. According
to the class action lawsuit, renters and owners were forced to pay
for cleanup, suffered the loss of value of their property and were
unable to use their property as they normally would due to the
smoke, dust and debris from the fire.
Chemtool is a lubricant, grease and fluids manufacturing company
owned by Lubrizol Corp.
Chemtool hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $94.5
million to resolve the plant fire class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Chemtool plant settlement, class members can
receive a cash payment based on their residence in relation to the
Chemtool plant and whether they rented or owned their residence.
The objection deadline is Aug. 13, 2024. The deadline for exclusion
was May 15, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for
Sept. 27, 2024.
To receive a Chemtool plant settlement payment, class members must
submit a valid claim form by Sept. 12, 2024.
Who's Eligible
Illinois citizens who, on June 14, 2021, were owners or tenants of
properties located within a 3-mile radius of the Chemtool
Manufacturing Plant in Rockton, Illinois
Potential Award
TBD
Proof of Purchase
Utility bill, phone bills, ID card, house deed, mortgage statement
or other proof of residence.
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
09/12/2024
Case Name
Grasley, et al. v. Chemtool,Case No. 21-L-162, in the Circuit Court
of the 17th Judicial Circuit for Winnebago County, Illinois
Final Hearing
09/27/2024
Settlement Website
ChemtoolClassAction.com
Claims Administrator
Chemtool Class Action Notice Administrator
P.O. Box 2009
Chanhassen, MN 55317-2009
ChemToolClassaction@NoticeAdministrator.com
Telephone: (833) 457-5350
Class Counsel
Robert M Foote
FOOTE MILKE CHAVEZ & O'NEIL LLC
1541 E Fabyan Pkwy #101
Geneva, IL 60134
Telephone: (630) 912-5702
Daniel R Flynn
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
505 20th Street North
15th Floor, Financial Center
Birmingham, AL35203
Telephone: (205) 855-5700
Robert S Libman
MINER BARNHILL & GALLAND PC
325 N La Salle Dr #350
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 751-1170 [GN]
CITY OF HOPE: Haskins Sues Over Compromised Patients' Info
----------------------------------------------------------
DANICIA HASKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV14723
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 12, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, and
violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, the
Unfair Competition Law, and California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and
protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated patients stored within City of Hope National Medical
Center's computer systems following a data breach beginning
September 29, 2023 and until October 12, 2023. The Defendants 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.
City of Hope National Medical Center is a medical services provider
headquartered in Duarte, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caleb Marker, Esq.
Jeff Westerman, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (877) 500-8780
Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
Email: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
jeff.westerman@zimmreed.com
CNBC LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bullock Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN BULLOCK, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. CNBC LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04688
(S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, "cnbc.com,"
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The suit contends that the Defendant is denying blind and
visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services it provides to their non-disabled
customers through its website.
Despite readily available accessible technology, such as the
technology in use at other heavily trafficked retail websites,
which makes use of alternative text, accessible forms, descriptive
links, resizable text and limits the usage of tables and
JavaScript, the Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively
visual interface. The Defendant's sighted customers can
independently browse, select, and buy online without the assistance
of others. However, blind persons must rely on sighted companions
to assist them in accessing and purchasing on cnbc.com, the suit
says.
The Plaintiff has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase on
cnbc.com, most recently on June 1, 2024; June 5, 2024; and June 13,
2024, but was unable to do so independently because of the many
access barriers on the Defendant's website. Amongst other access
barriers experienced, the Plaintiff was unable to research the
financial and stock markets and unable to subscribe to the CNBC
Investing Club and the CNBC Pro, asserts the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
CNBC's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
CNBC provides real-time financial market coverage and business
information.[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
E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
CORNERSTONE FIRST: Shakoor-Delgado Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
April Shakoor-Delgado, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cornerstone First Mortgage, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05103 (N.D. Ill., June 19, 2024) arises
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law,
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for the Defendant's
alleged failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
employees all earned minimum and overtime wages.
The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as a loan officer from
November 2021 through the present. Allegedly, the Plaintiff has
been subjected to Defendant's their policy and practice of not
paying them one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for
all time they spent working in excess of 40 hours in a given
workweek. Among other things, the Defendant has failed to reimburse
Plaintiff for the costs of high-speed internet, dedicated phone,
and dedicated home office expenses, says the suit.
Cornerstone is a full-service mortgage lender based in San Diego,
CA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: 847-986-5889
Facsimile: 847-673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
11 ½ N. Franklin Street
Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bullard Sues Over Toxic Chemicals in Baby Wipes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LARISA BULLARD and MILA CORRIGAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP. and NICE-PAK
PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-03714-PHK (N.D. Cal., June 20,
2024) alleges that the Defendants' Kirkland Signature Baby Wipes,
Fragrance Free, are unfit for their intended use because they
contain unsafe levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
("PFAS").
The Product is advertised as free from specific chemicals including
chlorine, dyes, and phthalates. In addition, the Product
prominently displays to consumers that it is "made with Naturally
Derived Ingredients" and features a smiling, happy baby. Further,
by marketing the Product as "baby wipes" and including images of
happy, healthy babies, the Defendants lead consumers to understand
that the Product is safe for parents to use on their young
children, the lawsuit says.
PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals known to be harmful to
children. Because PFAS persist and accumulate over time, they are
harmful even at very low levels. Independent research conducted by
the Plaintiffs' counsel, utilizing a Department of Defense
ELAP-certified laboratory, revealed that the Product contains 3.7
parts per billion (PPB) of PFAS, the Plaintiffs aver.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring claims against the Defendants
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated for violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, violation of
California's False Advertising Law, violation of New York Gen. Bus.
Law section 349, violation of New York Gen. Bus. Law section 350,
breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud, Fraudulent
Concealment or Omission, and Negligent Misrepresentation.
Plaintiff Bullard purchased the Product online through Costco
multiple times since January 2022 and as recently as February
2024.
Plaintiff Corrigan purchased a pack of Kirkland Signature Baby
Wipes, Fragrance Free from Instacart and delivered from a Costco
store.
Costco manufactures, markets, and sells the Kirkland Signature Baby
Wipes Fragrance Free in brick-and-mortar Costco stores and online
through sites like Amazon, Walmart.com, Costco's website, and
delivery services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
Joshua B. Glatt, 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
jglatt@bursor.com
DOLLAR GENERAL: Burns Sues Over Illegal Fuel Payment Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Greg Lindenberg, writing for CSP, reports that discount retailer
Dollar General Corp. is the subject of a class-action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
Nashville Division, brought by plaintiff Cecil Burns of Lafayette
County, Mississippi, a motorist who received a Dollar General gift
card in lieu of change from his cash payment for fuel. The
plaintiff is demanding a jury trial, according to court documents.
Dollar General has "employed a nationwide and uniform scheme to
steal that choice from consumers who opt to pay cash for fuel at
the defendants' fuel pumps," the court documents say.
"Specifically, defendants maintain a policy that denies consumers
who pay for fuel in cash the right to receive their change in cash.
Instead, defendants place consumers' change onto a Dollar General
fuel card that can only be used to purchase products at defendants'
stores. Defendants carry out this scheme without first disclosing
it to consumers."
Dollar General, which opened its 20,000th store in February, opened
its first gas station in 2013, located in Hanceville, Alabama. In
2016, the company acquired 41 former Walmart Express locations,
intending to sell fuel at 37 of those locations.
According to court documents, Dollar General fuel customers must
prepay for an estimated amount of fuel with an estimated total
price, and the retailer returns any value not used for fuel to the
customer on a gift card rather than in cash. Since the cards can
only be used at Dollar General locations, the retailer has
"unjustly enriched" itself at the expense of the class.
On March 17, 2022, Burns visited a Dollar General gas station in
Sardis, Mississippi. Burns intended to fill up his vehicle, but he
did not know how much gasoline would be required to fill the tank.
He gave the cashier a $100 bill. The cashier told him he would need
a fuel card to operate the pump, which the cashier provided. The
total cost of the gas to fill his vehicle was $40.02, and Burns
returned to the cashier to collect his $59.98 in change. The
cashier refused to give Burns his change and told him that Dollar
General does not provide change in cash, instead depositing the
change on a gift card that could be used at any Dollar General
store or gas station, but nowhere else. "At no time before Burns
requested his change did the cashier inform him that any change
from his $100 would be placed on the card and not refunded to him
in cash," the court documents say. "No signage or documentation at
the cash register or by the gas pumps stated that any change
remaining from a fuel purchase made in cash would be placed on
[the] defendants' fuel card."
Burns immediately called the Sardis, Mississippi, Police
Department. A police officer talked with an employee as well as the
store manager. The store manager told the officer that it was
Dollar General's policy to place change from cash purchases of fuel
on a gift card and refused the officer's request to give Burns his
$59.98 in cash in exchange for the card, stating that she was
following the chain's policy.
The court documents define the proposed class as "all persons in
the United States who purchased gasoline in cash at a Dollar
General location and had their change placed on a Dollar General
fuel card."
The class is "entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be
proven at trial," the documents say. "Defendants' conduct
constitutes a willful, reckless disregard for the rights of
plaintiff and the class and entitles plaintiff and the class to
punitive damages, attorney fees and costs in amounts to be proven
at trial . . . . Defendants' practice is inequitable, against good
conscience and in violation of applicable state laws. As a result
of defendants' unjust enrichment, plaintiff and the class are
entitled to a refund in the amount of the change they should have
received but for defendants' unlawful fuel card practice"
Goodlettsville, Tennessee-based Dollar General did not immediately
respond to a CSP request for comment.[GN]
DRM INC: Ruff Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
ALEX RUFF, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DRM INC. d/b/a ARBY'S, Defendant, Case No.
8:24-cv-00236 (D. Neb., July 20, 2024) arises from Defendant's
inadequate data security practices that resulted to a data breach
on March 12, 2024 and compromised the personal identifiable
information of its current and former employees.
Allegedly, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems
because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on
cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents,
contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the
PII of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security
safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII -- rendering it
an easy target for cybercriminals. In addition, the Defendant's
breach notice obfuscated the nature of the breach and the threat it
posted -- refusing to tell its employees how many people were
impacted, how the breach happened, or why it took the Defendant
over a month to finally begin notifying some victims that
cybercriminals had gained access to their highly private
information. Thus, the Defendant's failure to timely report the
data breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without
any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports
to prevent unauthorized use of their PII, says the suit.
Headquartered in Nebraska, DRM Inc. owns and operates several
franchises of Arby's fast food restaurants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Domina, Esq.
DOMINA LAW GROUP PC LLO
2425 South 144th St.
Omaha, NE 68144-3268
Telephone: (402) 493-4100
E-mail: ddomina@dominalaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borelli, Esq.
Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
cmiller@straussborrelli.com
- and -
Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
305 W. Nationwide Blvd
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 224-6000
Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
EL MACO: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, Cotorreal Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO COTORREAL PEÑA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. EL MACO RESTAURANT CORP. (D/B/A EL MACO),
CRISMERY ESPINO, and JOSE MANUEL THEN, Case No. 1:24-cv-04666
(S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay
the minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law.
The Defendants allegedly maintained a policy and practice of
requiring the Plaintiff Cotorreal and other employees to work in
excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and
overtime compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations.
Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants, he
regularly worked 56 to 60 hours per week. The Defendants paid
Plaintiff Cotorreal his wages in cash. The Defendants never granted
the Plaintiff any breaks or meal periods of any kind. The
Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Cotorreal appropriately
for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium, the suit adds.
Plaintiff Cotorreal seeks certification of this action as a
collective action on behalf of himself, individually, and all other
similarly situated employees and former employees of Defendants
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
Mr. Cotorreal was employed by the Defendants as a cook at El Maco
from July 2020 until November 2021, February 2022 until July 2022,
and from April 2023 until April 17, 2024.
El Maco is a Dominican food restaurant located in the Westchester
Square neighborhood in the Bronx.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
FAMILY GROUP: Mea Seeks Servers' Unpaid Hourly and OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
PAOLO MEA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FAMILY GROUP ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a Patrizia's of
Brooklyn, PATRIZIAS OF MASPETH LLC, GIACOMO ALAIO, ANTONIO ALAIO,
GENNARO ALAIO and JOHN DOES 1 through 5, Case No. 1:24-cv-04388-RML
(E.D.N.Y., June 21, 2024) alleges multiple violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants initially as a busser and
then as a server at their restaurants located in Brooklyn and
Maspeth. The Plaintiff alleges that throughout his employment with
Defendants, he was not properly paid for all hours worked and did
not receive any overtime pay for hours worked more than 40. The
Defendants also allegedly failed to provide spread-of-hours pay
when required, did not furnish Plaintiff with required wage notices
and weekly wage statements, and failed to account for tips that
Plaintiff and other staff had earned and were entitled to receive.
The Plaintiff brings this action under the FLSA and the NYLL to
recover unpaid hourly and overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay,
tips, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Family Group Enterprises, Inc. operates a restaurant business and
is located in Brooklyn, Kings County, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Henry L. Saurborn, Jr., Esq.
KAISER SAURBORN & MAIR, P.C.
30 Broad Street, 37th floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 338-9100
E-mail: saurborn@ksmlaw.com
FCA US: McNeely et al. Sue Over Defective Uconnect Infotainment
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW MCNEELY, CLAUDINE SHERIDAN, ANGELA BOONIE, SHARON
BRENNEMAN, BRIAN HICKMAN, KENNETH LAKE JR., LISA BOSTELMAN, DOUGLAS
BAUMAN, JASON SHORT, TRAVIS SILVER, and JOHN ROTHAR, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FCA
US, LLC, d/b/a STELLANTIS NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, Case No.
2:2024-CV-11596 (E.D. Mich., June 19, 2024) alleges the Defendant
of engaging in unfair, deceptive, and misleading consumer
practices, and has breached its warranty with the purchasers and
lessees of its certain vehicles, including Plaintiffs.
Allegedly, the Plaintiffs' and Class members' vehicles are equipped
with defective Uconnect infotainment system that plagued by a
series of issues stemming from a common defect that causes many
features -- including the navigation, audio system, and Bluetooth
connectivity -- to malfunction, operate intermittently, and even
become inoperable. The defect can also render critical
safety-related systems to fail, namely the backup camera and its
display. Despite having pre-sale, superior knowledge of the defect
and the safety issues associated with it, the Defendant has failed
to issue a service campaign or technical service bulletin that
rectifies the defect, or a recall of the Vehicles, and has not made
Class Vehicle owners and lessees whole. Instead, the Defendant
failed to disclose, and actively concealed, the defect from the
public, and continues to manufacture, advertise, distribute, and
sell and re-sell the said vehicles without disclosing this material
information, says the suit.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on
behalf of the Class for negligent misrepresentation, common law
fraud, breach of express and implied warranties, violations of the
Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act fraud, violations of various state
consumer protection laws and, alternatively, unjust enrichment. In
addition to monetary damages, they seek declaratory and injunctive
relief to prevent Defendant's continued misconduct.
FCA US, LLC is an automobile manufacturer headquartered in Auburn
Hills, MI. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Jr., Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
Melissa R. Clark, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com
mclark@ahdootwolfson.com
FORM I-9 COMPLIANCE: Wielkopolski Sues Over Clients' Disclosed Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA WIELKOPOLSKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORM I-9 COMPLIANCE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-01267 (C.D. Cal., June 12, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of
third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and violations
of California's Unfair Competition Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its data
systems following a data breach. 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.
Form I-9 Compliance, LLC is a limited liability company, with its
principal place of business located in Newport Beach, California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 S. Beverly Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
Email: jnelson@milberg.com
GREEN AND SUSTAINABLE: Faces Puglla Wage & Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL GEOVANNY PUGLLA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GREEN AND SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION CORP. and
GEORGE DUFFY, as an individual, Case No. 1:24-cv-04355 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 20, 2024) accuses the Defendants of multiple violations of
Federal and New York State wage-and-hour laws.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a taper while performing
related miscellaneous duties from in or around August 2017 until in
or around March 2023. Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff was
regularly required to work approximately 55.5 hours each week, two
weeks out of each month and approximately 62.5 hours each week, two
weeks out of each month. The Plaintiff received a flat hourly rate
of approximately $25.00 per hour, however, the Defendants allegedly
failed to pay him time and a half for hours worked over 40, in
violation of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants are accused of
several other labor law violations, including failure to provide
written notice of pay rate and failure to provide accurate wage
statements, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable
remedies.
Green and Sustainable Construction Corp. is a construction company
headquartered at 96 Spring Street, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10012.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Reading Sues Over Alleged Hospital Bed Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------------
READING HOSPITAL, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. HILL-ROM HOLDINGS, INC., HILL-ROM COMPANY, INC., and
HILL-ROM SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02715 (E.D. Pa., June 20,
2024) accuses the Defendants of engaging in anticompetitive
practices in the US hospital bed market, in violation of the
Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.
This antitrust lawsuit alleges that from on or about January 1,
2013 and continuing today, Hill-Rom has foreclosed the distribution
channel by which suppliers sell hospital beds and other medical
equipment to healthcare providers through "a series of exclusionary
tactics."
The Plaintiff, a 697-bed hospital in Pennsylvania which purchased
hospital beds directly from Hill-Rom, claims that the company has
used its market power to impose long-term, exclusive "Corporate
Enterprise Agreements" and analogous exclusionary contracts
("CEAs") on hospital systems throughout the U.S. that prevent them
and their constituent hospitals from contracting with other
hospital bed suppliers. This has allegedly allowed Hill-Rom to
charge supracompetitive prices to Plaintiff and similarly situated
hospitals for hospital beds.
The Plaintiff seeks damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs,
and any other appropriate relief under the Sherman Act and the
Clayton Act.
Based in Chicago, IL, Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. manufactures and
supplies medical technologies and other related services for the
healthcare industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katie R. Beran, Esq.
Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 985-3270
E-mail: kberan@hausfeld.com
jkenney@hausfeld.com
- and -
Scott Martin, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1195
E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com
- and -
Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq.
Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (267)-702-2318
E-mail: gsmith@hausfeld.com
mlehmann@hausfeld.com
- and -
Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
RUPP PFALZGRAF, LLC
111 West 2nd Street, Suite 1100
Jamestown, NY 14701
Telephone: (716) 664-2967
E-mail: bailey@rupppfalzgraf.com
- and -
Gordon Ball, Esq.
Jonathan Tanner Ball, Esq.
GORDON BALL, PLLC
3728 West End Avenue
Nashville, TN 37205
Telephone: (865) 525-7028
E-mail: gball@gordonball.com
HOME DEPOT: Culbertson et al. Sue Over False Reference Pricing
--------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN CULBERTSON, MARIA GONZALEZ, and GRACE CONDON, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. HOME
DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02666-VMC (N.D. Ga., June 19, 2024) seeks to challenge
Defendant's false reference pricing practices on its website,
www.homedepot.com, and at its in-store locations and asserts claims
for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and for violations of the
Georgia Business Practices Act, California Unfair Competition Law,
California False Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.
The Plaintiffs claim that Home Depot's represented prices were not
true and the purported "discounts" were not the true discounts and
were not necessarily time limited. Moreover, Home Depot's conduct
artificially increases demand for the deceptively priced products
and induces customers to pay more than the prevailing market price
based on an impression of the products' falsely inflated value, the
Plaintiffs assert.
Headquartered in Atlanta, GA, Home Depot is an online and
brick-and-mortar retailer of home and gardening products, including
without limitation appliances, tools, outdoor equipment, home
equipment, furniture, garden equipment, and hundreds of other
categories. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Justin T. Holcombe, Esq.
Kris Skaar, Esq.
SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
133 Mirramont Lake Drive
Woodstock, GA 30189
Telephone: (770) 427-5600
Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com
- and -
James M. Feagle, Esq.
Cliff R. Dorsen, Esq.
SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
2374 Main Street, Suite B
Tucker, GA 30084
Telephone: (404) 373-1970
Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 477-8380
E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
sholbrook@shublawyers.com
INFOPAY INC: Hernandez Sues Over Commercial Use of Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INFOPAY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-03541 (N.D. Cal., June 12, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for misappropriation of name or likeness and
violations of California Civil Code and California Business and
Professions Code.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of making commercial
use of the names and personal information of its website users
without their consent. The Defendant obtained the personal
information in its teaser profiles on its website,
www.infotracer.com, by paying third-party data brokers. The
Plaintiff and the Class members did not consent to the commercial
use of their names, personal information, and personas to promote
subscriptions to the website, says the suit.
InfoPay, Inc. is a data technology company with its principal place
of business in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew G. Gunem, Esq.
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: agunem@straussborrelli.com
sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
- and -
Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN OSBORN
63 Fiddlers Elbow Rd.
Margaretville, NY
Telephone: (347) 645-0464
Email: ben@benosbornlaw.com
KROGER CO: Faces False Advertising Class Action Over Fruit Cups
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit alleges Kroger has misled consumers by falsely
advertising its brand of fruit cups as served in "100% Juice" given
the products contain water, preservatives and other components.
According to the 35-page lawsuit, Kroger deceptively markets packs
of single-serving "Mixed Fruit In 100% Juice" with images of fresh
fruit in a way that leads consumers to expect the product to
contain only peaches, pears and pineapples, served in pure fruit
juice. However, per the suit, the ingredients list shows that the
fruit cups also contain a "significant percentage" of low-quality
components such as water, juice concentrates and added flavorings
and preservatives.
For instance, the case says, the most predominant non-fruit
ingredient by weight is not any type of juice, but instead water,
which is second on the ingredients list and likely added
separately.
"Though water is a natural component of the peaches, pears,
pineapple, and 100 percent fruit juice, promoted on the front
label, that the second ingredient is 'Water' means that the product
likely has more water than all other ingredients except peaches,
and more water than any juice ingredient," the complaint shares.
As the filing tells it, other components listed on the bottom of
the packaging include white grape juice concentrate and lemon juice
concentrate, which are highly processed ingredients of little
nutritional value that do not match consumers' understanding of the
"100% Juice" representation.
In addition, the fruit cups contain ascorbic acid and citric acid,
two chemical additives that not only function as preservatives in
the product but are also used to synthetically enhance its sweet,
tangy taste, the lawsuit relays.
The suit contends that Kroger's fruit cups are misbranded under
federal and state labeling regulations because the items'
representations mislead consumers into believing they contain purer
and higher-quality ingredients than they actually do.
The case further alleges that the product fails to properly
disclose that ascorbic acid and citric acid are used as chemical
preservatives, in violation of labeling regulations.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in California who purchased
Kroger's "Mixed Fruit In 100% Juice" fruit cups within the state
during the applicable statute of limitations period and expected
them to contain only peaches, pears, pineapple and 100 percent
fruit juice. [GN]
LIDA INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Espinal Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIDA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04675 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law, says the suit.
Based in Demarest, NJ, Lida, Inc. owns and operates the commercial
website, the Defendant offers the commercial website,
https://walkfulton.com, which allow consumers to purchase insoles,
accessories and other products and services available online and to
ascertain information relating to pricing, shipping, ordering
merchandise and return and privacy policies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
LONGVIEW MEDICAL: Johnson Suit Seeks Registered Nurses' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LONGVIEW MEDICAL CENTER, L.P. D/B/A LONGVIEW
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 6:24-cv-00215 (E.D.
Tex., June 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a registered nurse on or
about February 3, 2020, through on or about November 4, 2023.
Longview Medical Center, L.P., doing business as Longview Regional
Medical Center, is a medical services provider located in Longview,
Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75254
Telephone: (214) 489-7653
Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
Email: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
LUCCHESE INC: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUCCHESE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-04676 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to
its website, Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons have been and
are still being denied equal access to Defendant's numerous goods,
services and benefits offered to the public through the website,
says the suit.
Lucchese, Inc. manufactures and sells footwear and accessories. It
owns and operates the commercial website, https://www.lucchese.com,
which provides consumers with access to an array of goods including
information about purchasing its products and services available
online. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
MAURICE RIVER: Faces New Beginnings Suit Over Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
NEW BEGINNINGS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. MAURICE RIVER TOWNSHIP, a
municipal corporation of the State of New Jersey; MAURICE RIVER
LAND USE BOARD; and CITY OF MILLVILLE, Case No. 1:24-cv-07123
(D.N.J., June 20, 2024) accuses the Defendants of discrimination
arising from their attempts to prevent the operation of a proposed
homeless shelter for men struggling with addiction.
New Beginnings entered into a lease for a property known as Camp
Cedar Knoll, located in Maurice River's "C" Conservation Zoning
District and owned by the Bethany Baptist Association of South
Jersey. New Beginnings spent over $400,000 renovating the property
to transform it into a shelter for homeless men and to provide
enhanced services to aid in their recovery from drug and alcohol
addiction. With that goal, New Beginnings applied to the Maurice
River Township Land Use Board for an interpretation that its
proposed use is permitted within the property's zoning district, or
in the alternative, a use variance. The Board denied New
Beginnings' application allegedly due to the public and the Board's
discriminatory animus towards the disabled clientele that New
Beginnings proposed to serve, says the suit.
This action asserts claims for Defendants' alleged violations of
the Fair Housing Act, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000, Americans with Disabilities Act, and
Rehabilitation Act.
Maurice River Township is a municipal corporation of the State of
New Jersey located at 590 Main Street, Leesburg, NJ. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Keith A. Davis, Esq.
Michael C. Donio, Esq.
NEHMAD DAVIS & GOLDSTEIN, P.C.
4030 Ocean Heights Avenue
Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey 08234
Telephone: (609) 927-1177
Facsimile: (609) 926-9721
E-mail: kdavis@ndglegal.com
mdonio@ndglegal.com
MCLAREN PORT: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Brown Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIELLE BROWN, individually and for others similarly situated v.
MCLAREN PORT HURON and MCLAREN HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, Case No.
3:24-cv-11592-JEL-APP (E.D. Mich., June 19, 2024) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime and other damages from Defendants pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Brown has worked for Defendants as patient access
representative-team lead at McLaren's Port Huron facility from
approximately March 2023 through the present. Throughout her
employment, Defendants subjected Brown to their common practice of
automatically deducting 30 minutes a workday from her recorded work
time for so-called meal breaks even if she did not actually receive
these uninterrupted breaks. As a result, the Defendants fail to pay
Brown for compensable work hours, including overtime hours, in
violation of the FLSA, says the suit.
Headquarters in Grand Blanc, MI, McLaren is a Michigan non-profit
corporation that provides healthcare services and operates 13
hospitals in Michigan, ambulatory surgery centers, imaging centers,
a 490-member employed primary and specialty care physician network.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
FAGAN MCMANUS, PC
25892 Woodward Avenue
Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910
Telephone: (248) 542-6300
E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Olivia R. Beale, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
obeale@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic Chemicals Caused Injury, Varn Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allen Varn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff 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-03414-RMG (D.S.C., June 7, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF
products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
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. The
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to allegedly
develop the serious medical conditions and complications.
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. He was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, says the suit.
The Varn case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[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
Telephone: (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
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MDL 2873: Faces Slater Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Slater, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff 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-03413-RMG (D.S.C., June 7, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF
products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
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. The
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to allegedly
develop the serious medical conditions and complications.
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. He was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, says the suit.
The Slater case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[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
Telephone: (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
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MDL 2873: Faces Zobel Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Zobel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff 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-03415-RMG (D.S.C., June 7, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF
products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. However, the
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. As a
result, the Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff
to allegedly develop the serious medical conditions and
complications.
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. He was diagnosed with
testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, says the suit.
The Zobel case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[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
Telephone: (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
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MDL 3083: Wilson Sues Over Failure to Protect Private Info
----------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION; NUANCE
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-11492 (D. Mass.,
June 7, 2024) is a class action against Defendants for their
failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other
similarly situated individuals' private information.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private
information was compromised as a result of a security vulnerability
in the Defendants' MOVEit software. The Defendants knew, or should
have known, the private information of individuals whose
information was transferred using MOVEit -- such as Plaintiff and
the Class members -- were a target for malicious actors, as
described in the Omnibus Set of Additional Pleading Facts. Despite
such knowledge, the Defendants failed to implement and maintain
reasonable and appropriate data privacy and security measures to
protect Plaintiff's and Class members' information from
cyber-attacks that Defendants should have anticipated and guarded
against, says the suit.
The Wilson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3083, IN RE:
MOVEIT CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION.
Progress Software Corporation is a Massachusetts-based software
company that offers a wide range of software products and services
to corporate and governmental entities throughout the United States
and the world, including cloud hosting and secure file transfer
services such as MOVEit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Ave. S., Ste. 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
- and -
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
1229 Tyler St., NE, Ste. 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5933
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Ave., 5th Fl.
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: Gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, 5th Fl.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: cshaffer@lfsblaw.com
MITCHELL & NESS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Espinal Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MITCHELL & NESS LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-04677 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2024) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New
York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law
by failing to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services by failing make its website available in a
manner compatible with computer screen reader programs.
Mitchell & Ness LLC operates the website,
https://www.mitchellandness.com, which provides consumers with
access to an array of goods including information about purchasing
jerseys, apparel, accessories and other products and services
available online. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
NEW MIKADO: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Cojon Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
POLICARPIO SUCUP COJON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NEW MIKADO INC. and YAO YAO LIU and TENGFEI
FANG, as individuals, Case No. 1:24-cv-04365 (E.D.N.Y., June 20,
2024) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay minimum and
overtime wage compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was regularly required to work 65 hours per week.
But, the Defendants paid him a flat daily rate of $110 per day. The
Defendants paid the Plaintiff on a bi-weekly basis, failing to
timely pay the Plaintiff for his first week of wages, thus
violating the frequency of pay requirements of NYLL section 191 by
failing to pay him on a weekly basis. Due to the Defendant's
bi-weekly payments, the Plaintiff experienced a myriad of financial
difficulties specifically in covering his regular expenses such as
bills, food, transportation, and other expenses, the Plaintiffs
aver.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 10 or more hours per
day approximately five days per week, however, the Defendants did
not pay the Plaintiff an extra hour at the legally prescribed
minimum wage for each day worked over 10 hours.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable
remedies this Court deems appropriate.
The Plaintiff Cojon was employed by the Defendants at New Mikado
Inc., from December 2023 until May 2024.[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
NIKE INC: Faces City Pension Suit Over 7% Stock Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------
CITY PENSION FUND FOR FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS IN THE CITY
OF PEMBROKE PINES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NIKE, INC., JOHN J. DONAHOE II, and MATTHEW
FRIEND, Case No. 3:24-cv-00974-AN (D. Or., June 20, 2024) is a
federal securities class action on behalf of a class of all persons
and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired NIKE Class B
common stock between March 19, 2021, and March 21, 2024, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated
thereunder.
This Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, about the
Company's business and operations.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants repeatedly touted the
purported strength of NIKE's business model, and in particular, the
claimed success of its digital and direct-to-consumer strategies to
produce sustainable growth, while downplaying the significant
competitive pressures facing the Company, the lawsuit says.
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.
Three months later, on Sept. 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 ("EPS") similarly declined 20%
year-over-year.
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 ("EMEA") 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 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, says the
lawsuit.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
decline in the market value of the Company's Class B common stock
pursuant to the revelation of the fraud, the Plaintiff and other
members of the Class have suffered significant damages, the lawsuit
asserts.
NIKE is a global athletic footwear and apparel company which
designs, markets, and sells products for its NIKE, Jordan, and
Converse brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith A. Ketterling, Esq.
Timothy S. DeJong, Esq.
STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
209 Southwest Oak Street, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 227-1600
Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
E-mail: kketterling@stollberne.com
tdejong@stollberne.com
PENNSYLVANIA: Brown Sue for Upholding Right to Carry Firearms
-------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR BROWN, SHAWN PALMER, MAX NESS, and SECOND AMENDMENT
FOUNDATION (SAF) v. COL. CHRISTOPHER PARIS, Commissioner of
Pennsylvania State Police, Case No. 1:24-cv-01015-CCC (M.D. Pa.,
June 20, 2024) is an action to uphold Plaintiffs' right to keep and
bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
According to the complaint, Defendant Col. Paris has violated the
individual Plaintiffs' and SAF's similarly situated members' right
to lawfully carry and lawfully transport a firearm in their pockets
for purposes of self-defense by requiring that they obtain a
license to carry firearms (LTCF) in order for them to do so, the
Plaintiffs contend.
Moreover, the Defendant's current enforcement of Sections 6106,
6108, 6109 and the related regulations, customs, practices, and
policies forces the individual Plaintiffs' and SAF's similarly
situated members' to either comply with the draconian and
unconstitutional mandate -- thereby being prevented from defending
themselves and their loved ones -- or be subjected to felony and
misdemeanor prosecution, the Plaintiffs add.
As a direct and proximate result of the above infringement and
impermissible burden, the individual Plaintiffs' and SAF's
similarly situated members' have suffered -- and continue to suffer
-- from an unlawful deprivation of their fundamental constitutional
right to keep and bear arms, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiffs have incurred nominal damages, attorney fees, and
costs as a direct result of prosecuting the present court action.
Ms. Brown is a natural person, over the age of eighteen but under
the age of twenty-one, a citizen of Port Royal, Pennsylvania and
the United States.
Mr. Palmer is a natural person, over the age of eighteen but under
the age of twenty-one, a citizen of Carlisle, Pennsylvania and the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua Prince, Esq.
CIVIL RIGHTS DEFENSE FIRM, P.C.
646 Lenape Road
Bechtelsville, PA 19505
Telephone: (888) 202-9297 ext 81114
Facsimile: (610) 400-8439
E-mail: Joshua@CivilRightsDefenseFirm.com
- and -
Adam Kraut, Esq.
SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005
Telephone: (425) 454-7012
E-mail: Akraut@SAF.org
PERFUME OUTLET: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Danso Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARITY DANSO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. PERFUME OUTLET DOT COM, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04693
(S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2024) accuses the Defendant of failing to
provide full and equal website access to blind or visually-impaired
people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer. Defendant owns and operates the website,
www.perfumeoutlet.com, through which consumers such as Plaintiff
may purchase Defendant's products and access other brand-related
content and services. According to the complaint, the Defendant
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people, which is a violation of
the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to
implement a change to its corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
Perfume Outlet Dot Com, LLC is a US-based online fragrance store.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Faces Carignan Over Shale Oil Prod Conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT CARIGNAN on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PERMIAN RESOURCES CORP. F/K/A CENTENNIAL RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT, INC.; CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION; CONTINENTAL
RESOURCES INC.; DIAMONDBACK ENERGY, INC.; EOG RESOURCES, INC.; HESS
CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION; and PIONEER NATURAL
RESOURCES COMPANY, Case No. 2:24-cv-00218-LEW (D. Me., June 20,
2024) arises from the Defendants' conspiracy to coordinate, and
ultimately constrain, domestic shale oil production, which has had
the effect of fixing, raising, and maintaining the price of retail
gasoline (gasoline purchased by consumers at gas stations) in and
throughout the United States of America.
Between 2017 and 2023, the Defendants met and communicated
regularly with each other, and with Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries ("OPEC"), to coordinate their collective oil
output in response to market conditions.
From at least January 1, 2021, and continuing through the present,
the Defendants and their co-conspirators entered into a continuing
agreement, understanding, and conspiracy in restraint of trade
artificially to fix, raise, and stabilize price for crude oil and
retail gasoline in the United States, including by restraining
their respective production volumes, in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, the lawsuit says.
The Defendants' cartel is a per se unlawful restraint of trade
under numerous state antitrust and competition laws, the Plaintiff
asserts.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' conduct, the
Plaintiff and members of the Classes were deprived of free and open
competition and paid more to purchase gasoline than they otherwise
would have in the absence of the Defendants' unlawful conduct. In
addition, the Defendants have profited significantly from the
conspiracy. The Defendants' profits derived from their
anticompetitive conduct and come at the expense of and to the
detriment of the Plaintiff and members of the Classes, the suit
alleges.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the members of the State Law Damages
Class in each of the following jurisdictions seek damages
(including statutory damages where applicable), to be trebled or
otherwise increased as permitted by each jurisdiction's law,
injunction (where applicable), and costs of suit, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, to the extent permitted by the
following state laws.
Centennial is an oil and gas production company that acquires and
processes shale oil in Texas and New Mexico before selling the
resulting shale oil into the U.S. domestic market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelly W. McDonald, Esq.
Richard O'Meara
MURRAY, PLUMB & MURRAY
75 Pearl Street
Portland, ME 04104-5085
Telephone: (207) 773-5651
E-mail: kmcdonald@mpmlaw.com
romeara@mpmlaw.com
PIL PIL: Fails to Kitchen Assistants' Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABUDINO GOMEZ PEREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. PIL PIL SPANISH TAPAS INC. (D/B/A PIL PIL SPANISH TAPAS
WINE BAR), NIKOLA ROMIC, and PREDAG GRUJICIC, Case No.
1:24-cv-04664 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2024) sues the Defendant for
failing to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
The suit says that the Defendants maintained a policy and practice
of requiring Plaintiff Gomez and other employees to work in excess
of 40 hours per week without providing the overtime compensation.
Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants, the
Plaintiff regularly worked 42 to 48 hours per week. The Defendants
paid the Plaintiff a fixed salary of $800 per week. For the last
two days of work (approximately 14 hours), the Defendants did not
pay the Plaintiff any wages for his work. The Defendants also never
granted Plaintiff Gomez any breaks or meal periods of any kind.
Moreover, the Defendants regularly failed to pay the Plaintiff his
wages in a timely fashion, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff Gomez seeks certification of this action as a
collective action on behalf of himself, individually, and all other
similarly situated employees and former employees of Defendants
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
Mr. Gomez was employed as a kitchen assistant by the Defendants at
Pil Pil Spanish Tapas and Wine from April 20, 2020, until Oct. 17,
2023.
Pil Pil is a Spanish tapas and wine bar.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Suarez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALVIN SUAREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-04345 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2024) is a civil rights
action against Procter & Gamble for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website,
https://www.sk-ii.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff has made an attempt to complete a purchase on
Sk-ii.com. He tried to purchase a facial essence on May 17, 2024,
but was unable to complete the purchase independently because of
the many access barriers on Defendant's website. These access
barriers have caused the website to be inaccessible to, and not
independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons, says
the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in The
Procter & Gamble's policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
The Procter & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer
goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
PUMA CO: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Puma Company Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-02402-PJS-ECW (D.
Minn., June 20, 2024) alleges that the Defendant's Website
(www.puma.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who
are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general
non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and
auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations.
As a consequence of the Plaintiff's experience visiting Defendant's
Website, including in the past year, and from investigation
performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's Website
has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like
the Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content
– content the Defendant makes available to its sighted Website
users, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others who are similarly
situated, seeks relief including an injunction requiring the
Defendant to make its Website accessible to the Plaintiff and the
putative class; and requiring the Defendant to adopt sufficient
policies, practices, and procedures, to ensure that the Defendant's
Website remains accessible in the future.
The Plaintiffs seek an award of statutory attorney's fees and
costs, damages, a damages multiplier, a civil penalty, and such
other relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and appropriate.
In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts
a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
Puma offers shoes, and clothing for sale including, but not limited
to, slides, sandals, boots, running, hoodies, dresses, skirts,
shorts, backpacks, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
QUEBEC: Court Awards Taxi Drivers With $143MM Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! News reports that years after the Quebec government
deregulated the taxi industry to allow services like Uber to
operate, taxi drivers in Quebec have scored a court victory to the
tune of $143 million, plus interest.
On June 21, 2024, a Quebec Superior Court judge awarded the sum as
part of a ruling in class-action lawsuit.
In 2019, Bill 17 was passed into law. The law abolished the taxi
permit system while integrating app-based ride-hailing services
into provincial regulations.
Around the time the law was passed, services like Uber were
expanding their operations in the province, prompting anger and
protests from taxi drivers who had spent tens of thousands, if not
hundreds of thousands, to purchase their taxi permits.
After the bill became law, the Quebec government doled out more
than $800 million in compensation to taxi drivers in the province,
but drivers didn't believe that amount was enough to make up for
their losses.
Taxi drivers organized several protests, like the one seen here in
2017, when ride-hailing services like Uber began expanding their
operations in the province. (Lauren McCallum/CBC)
The lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit, Dama Metellus,
claimed that the appropriate compensation total should've been
slightly more than $1.1 billion. Metellus was seeking roughly $300
million in extra compensation.
Justice Silvana Conte settled on a lower number in the end.
The plaintiffs tried to argue that compensation should be based on
the market value of taxi permits as of 2014. The judge ultimately
decided the compensation should be based on their value in 2016,
the year the province launched a pilot project that allowed Uber to
operate.
Despite awarding a lower sum than the plaintiffs had asked for, the
judge described the 2019 law as "disguised expropriation," agreeing
with the claim made by the lead plaintiff.
Metellus said he was happy about the ruling, calling it a "matter
of justice."
"I always thought justice would ultimately prevail," he told
Radio-Canada.
The lawsuit had also sought $1,000 in punitive damages for each
member of the class action, but the judge rejected that request.
[GN]
QUIKRETE COMPANIES: Duran Seeks Proper Wages for Class A Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA DURAN, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE QUIKRETE COMPANIES, LLC, a Georgia
limited liability company, and QUIKRETE HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02667-SDG (N.D. Ga., June
19, 2024) alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act by failing to pay Plaintiff Duran and other Class A Drivers the
required overtime compensation.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a delivery driver on or
around August 2021 until around March 15, 2024. He typically worked
between 50 and 65 hours per week. However, he only received his
regular hourly rate of $16.50 for all hours worked, including those
over 40 hours in a work week, along with modest non-discretionary
bonuses. He never received overtime premiums of one-and-one-half
his regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a work week,
says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff also brings this class action pursuant to the
Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order and the Colorado
Wage Act.
Headquartered in Atlanta, GA, the Quikrete Companies, LLC is a
limited liability company engaged in the business of manufacturing
and selling pre-blended, packaged concrete products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher P. Butler, Esq.
CHRISTOPHER BUTLER LLC
P.O. Box 13487
Atlanta, GA 30324
Telephone: (404) 295-1985
E-mail: cbutlerlaw@outlook.com
- and -
Michael D. Kuhn, Esq.
Andrew E. Swan, Esq.
Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
Colorado Bar No. 57295
LEVENTHAL | LEWIS KUHN TAYLOR SWAN PC
3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Suite 710
Denver, CO 80209
Telephone: (720) 699-3000
Facsimile: (866) 515-8628
E-mail: mkuhn@ll.law
aswan@ll.law
sengelson@ll.law
- and -
John W. Billhorn, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Suite 710
Denver, CO 80209
Telephone: (312) 853-1450
E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com
RAZOR PRIORITY: Delivery Drivers Seek Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELMER ROY CAIN III, individually, and on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v.
RAZOR PRIORITY EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00524-LPR (E.D.
Ark., June 20, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
for the Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former
day-rate delivery drivers.
The Defendant allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff and those similarly
situated overtime compensation at the applicable Fair Labor
Standards Act overtime compensation rates of pay within weekly pay
periods.
Instead, the Plaintiff and others similarly situated were paid on a
day-rate basis that did not include compensation for hours over 40
per week within weekly pay periods at the applicable FLSA overtime
compensation rates of pay, the lawsuit says.
More specifically, the Defendant had a common policy and practice
of not compensating the Plaintiff and those similarly situated for
hours worked over 40 per week at the applicable FLSA overtime
compensation rates of pay within weekly pay periods, the lawsuit
claims.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the
following similarly situated persons:
"All current and former day-rate delivery drivers who were
employed by Defendant at any time during the applicable
limitations period covered by this Collective Action
Complaint (i.e. two years for FLSA violations and, three
years for willful FLSA violations) up to and including the
date of final judgment in this matter, and who are Named
Plaintiffs or elect to join this action pursuant to the FLSA.
("opt-in plaintiffs")."
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a day-rate delivery
driver within this District.
Razor provides delivery services for Federal Express in the States
of Arkansas and Texas, and in other locations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
JACKSON, SHI DS, YEISER, HOLT
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
REGULATORY DATACORP: Carr Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 3rd Cir
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFERY N. CARR, SR. is taking an appeal from a court order denying
his motions to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Jeffery Carr,
Sr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Regulatory Datacorp Inc., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2-22-cv-02139, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
On May 16, 2023 and Apr. 18, 2024, the Plaintiff filed motions for
class certification, which the Court denied through an Order
entered by Judge Mia Roberts Perez on May 29, 2024.
The appellate case is captioned Jeffery Carr, Sr. v. Regulatory
Datacorp Inc., et al., Case No. 24-8020, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 7, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JEFFERY N. CARR, SR., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Lauren K.W. Brennan, Esq.
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
- and -
Justin T. Holcombe, Esq.
SKAAR & FEAGLE
133 Mirramont Lake Drive
Woodstock, GA 30189
Telephone: (770) 427-5600
Defendants-Appellees REGULATORY DATACORP INC., et al. are
represented by:
James J. Coster, Esq.
Michael H. Gibson, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS
230 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 818-9200
- and -
Lynne E. Evans, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS
30 S. 17th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 979-1102
RIKCO INTERNATIONAL: Wahab Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA WAHAB, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RIKCO INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-04697 (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights
Law.
Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is
compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to
understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus
denied the benefit of purchasing the diabetic socks that Plaintiff
wished to acquire from the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to
make its website fully compliant with the requirements set forth in
the ADA, and the implementing regulations.
Rikco International develops, manufactures, and markets therapeutic
footwear. It owns and operates the commercial website,
www.drcomfort.com, which allows users research about and purchase
diabetic footwear, including shoes, socks, and inserts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
SAN DIEGO CONVENTION: De La Cerda Seeks Proper Wages
----------------------------------------------------
JOSE DE LA CERDA, on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SAN DIEGO CONVENTION CENTER CORPORATION, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01058-CAB-DDL (S.D. Ca., June 19, 2024)
alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff De La Cerda has been working for the Defendant in
California as a carpenter and a non-exempt employee from about
February 2017 to present. The Plaintiff regularly worked
off-the-clock due to Defendants’ policy and practice of
automatically deducting an unpaid 30-minute meal period regardless
of his ability to actually take one. The said practice resulted in
unpaid minimum wages. In addition, Plaintiff and the aggrieved
employees earned incentives, shift differentials, and other
non-excludable remuneration that Defendants failed to include in
the overtime and double time rates in the pay periods where they
earned both. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and other damages related to
Defendant's violation of the FLSA.
San Diego Convention Center Corporation, Inc. offers facilities and
event services for conventions, trade shows, meetings and community
events. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq.
Lauren N. Vega, Esq.
FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC.
3333 Camino del Rio South, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 693-7727
Facsimile: (619) 350-6855
E-mail: nick@ferrarovega.com
lauren@ferrarovega.com
SKYWAY CONCESSION: Faces Rowe Suit Over Overcharged Tolls
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that the
company that collects the tolls on the Chicago Skyway under a
controversial 99-year lease deal with the city of Chicago has been
hit with a class action lawsuit, accusing it of pocketing too much
in tolls from drivers using the bridge to enter or exit Chicago on
the city's far South Side.
On June 18, attorneys with the firm of Krislov & Associates, of
Chicago, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court, seeking millions
of dollars in potential damages on behalf of motorists who have
paid tolls to use the Skyway toll bridge since at least 2019.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of named plaintiffs Rockwell Rowe
Jr. and Michelle Rowe, identified as residents of Cook County who
allegedly made multiple trips on the Skyway in the past two years,
and paid for their trips electronically using their iPass toll
transponder.
The lawsuit names as defendants the Skyway Concession Company LLC;
Calumet Concession Partners Inc.; Atlas Arteria; and Ontario
Teachers Pension Plan, all of which have ownership interests in the
Skyway and its operations.
The lawsuit centers on tolls charged by the Skyway operators in
recent years.
The Skyway elevated toll bridge was built by the city of Chicago
and operated by the city for decades since it opened in 1958,
offering a faster way to drive from the city's south border to the
Indiana state line.
The city, however, handed control of the Skyway over to the Skyway
Concession Company in 2005, when then-Mayor Richard M. Daley sold
off operational control for nearly the next century under a lease
deal, in exchange for $1.83 billion dollars.
According to published reports, ownership interests in the Skyway
have since been sold off again, turning profits worth billions for
their investors.
Throughout the private management, however, tolls have consistently
risen, as the lease agreement has permitted Skyway operators to
hike tolls under a formula tied to inflation.
While such annual increases were relatively low for many years,
when annual inflation clocked around 3% or less, much higher
increases in the Consumer Price Index would have allowed the Skyway
tolls to continue to rise more quickly. In 2023, the CPI increased
10.6%, and by 8.8% in 2024.
In 2017, the lawsuit notes the Skyway charged passenger cars $5 to
use the Skyway, while semi trucks would get charged $29.
Now, those same vehicles are charged $7.20 and as much as $59.20,
respectively.
However, the lawsuit asserts that even with the more rapid
allowable increases, the Skyway still allegedly hiked tolls more
than they were allowed and have allegedly overcharged personal and
commercial drivers for years.
They assert the Skyway has overcharged drivers of passenger
vehicles with two axles by 10 cents per trip, and drivers of semi
trucks and other vehicles with more axles by as much as $1.20 per
trip.
In all, the lawsuit estimates the Skyway has collected over $3
million more than it should have from drivers since 2019.
The plaintiffs assert the alleged toll overcharges have violated
Illinois' consumer fraud law and are a breach of the concession
agreement that governs the lease with the city.
The plaintiffs are seeking to expand the action to include
potentially millions of people who have used the Skyway in the past
five years, as the lawsuit notes more than 20 million trips through
the Skyway's toll plazas have been logged during that span.
The plaintiffs are seeking a court order requiring the Skyway
operators to allegedly properly calculate Skyway tolls and refund
the overcharges, plus interest and attorney fees.
Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Kenneth T. Goldstein and
Matthew G. Norgard, of the Krislov firm.
According to published reports, Skyway Concession did not comment
on the lawsuit, saying they had not yet been served with the
complaint. [GN]
TEE BAR: Agnone Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance With ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------
PASQUALE AGNONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Tee Bar Corp., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-04368 (E.D.N.Y., June 20, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons and asserts claims under
the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights
Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Defendant's website contains access barriers denying blind
customers the full and equal access to the goods, services and
facilities of the website. These barriers are pervasive and
include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure,
inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible
contact information, changing of content without advance warning,
unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccessible drop-down
menus and the requirement that transactions be performed solely
with a mouse, says the suit.
Tee Bar Corp. owns and operates an all-inclusive family resort
located in Highland, NY. The company provides to the public a
website known as Rockinghorseranch.com, which provides consumers
with access to an array of resort activities and amenities it
offers in connection with its physical location.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
TRANS UNION: Saucedo Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIANO SAUCEDO,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TRANS UNION LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-04891-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff filed administrative motion to consider whether another
party's material should be sealed.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11, 79-5, and specifically 79-5(f),
Plaintiff respectfully seeks to seal certain portions of
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and the Declaration of
Michael F. Ram in Support which refer to material designated by
Defendant Trans Union LLC as "Confidential" under the parties'
Stipulated Protective Order as approved by the Court.
The Parties have met and conferred regarding this Administrative
Motion. Defendant Trans Union does not object to the motion to seal
the identified material, and has advised Plaintiff that it will
file its response to the motion pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(f)(3)
in a timely fashion.
Trans Union operates as global information and insights company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2sE5Zx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
Dan Keller, Esq.
MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 832-9999
Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
DKeller@TheMMLawFirm.com
- and -
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Marie N. Appel, Esq.
Shelby Serig, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
711 Van Ness Ave., Ste. 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 358-7155
Facsimile: (415) 358-2037
E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
mappel@forthepeople.com
sserig@forthepeople.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael Charles O'Neil, Esq.
Albert Edward Hartmann, Esq.
Kristen A. DeGrande, Esq.
Terence N. Hawley, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
10 S. Wacker, 40th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 207-1000
Facsimile: (312) 207-6400
E-mail: michael.oneil@reedsmith.com
ahartmann@reedsmith.com
kdegrande@reedsmith.com
thawley@reedsmith.com
TRC STAFFING: Faces Keeys Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
JEANINE KEEYS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRC STAFFING SERVICES, INC. d/b/a TRC TALENT
SOLUTIONS, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02670-VMC (N.D. Ga., June
19, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to prevent the data
breach that occurred between March 25, 2024 and April 12, 2024 and
that compromised Plaintiff's and Class members' highly sensitive
private information, including their full names and Social Security
numbers.
According to a notice of data breach filed with the Attorney
General of Maine, the Data Breach has affected 158,593 individuals.
The Defendant began notifying affected persons on May 24, 2024 and
offered free credit monitoring services to those potentially
impacted by the breach. However, the Defendant's letter did not
state why it was unable to prevent the data breach or which
security feature failed, among others. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
asserts claims for negligence/negligence per se, invasion of
privacy, and unjust enrichment.
TRC Staffing Services is a staffing services company based in
Atlanta, GA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
J. Benjamin Finley, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
3535 Piedmont Road
Building 14, Suite 230
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 978-6971
Facsimile: (404) 320-9978
E-mail: njackson@thefinleyfirm.com
bfinley@thefinleyfirm.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road - Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 874-4505
E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
TRC STAFFING: McCalla Sues Over Data Security Failures
------------------------------------------------------
JA’REL MCCALLA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TRC STAFFING SERVICES, INC., d/b/a TRC TALENT
SOLUTIONS, Case No. 1:24-cv-02709-VMC (N.D. Ga., June 20, 2024)
accuses the Defendant of failing to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff and Class members' private information.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant whose private
information was compromised in a data breach that occurred on
Defendant's computer systems on or about March 25, 2024. The data
breach impacted more than 150,000 individuals, with their personal
information, including their names and Social Security numbers, now
in the possession of cybercriminals. According to the complaint,
the data breach is the direct and proximate result of Defendant's
failure to implement reasonable data security measures to protect
the private information in its custody. Additionally, the Defendant
failed to promptly inform Plaintiff and Class members of the
incident, causing further damages to the victims, the suit claims.
The Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an order requiring
Defendant to adopt reasonably adequate security practices and
safeguards to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the
future, and for Defendant to provide identity theft protective
services to Plaintiff and Class Members for their lifetimes.
TRC Staffing Services is a human resources and staffing company
based in Atlanta, GA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
4279 Roswell Road
Suite 208-108
Atlanta, GA 30342
Telephone: (678) 642-2503
E-mail: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com
- and -
Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: kelly@lcllp.com
TRC STAFFING: Orubo and Johnson Sue Over Inadequate Data Security
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRENNAN ORUBO and DASHAY JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRC STAFFING SERVICES,
INC. D/B/A TRC TALENT SOLUTIONS, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02668-VMC (N.D. Ga., June 19, 2024) arises from Defendant's
inadequate and unlawful data security, which caused the personal
information of Plaintiffs and those similarly situated to be
exfiltrated by unauthorized access by cybercriminals between
February 14, 2024 and February 26, 2024.
The data breach affected 158,593 individuals and the exfiltrated
data included personal identifiable information (PII) such as: name
and Social Security number. In addition, the Defendant failed to
provide timely notice to the affected Plaintiffs and Class Members,
thereby exacerbating their injuries. Even when Defendant finally
notified Plaintiffs and Class Members of their PII exfiltration,
Defendant failed to adequately describe the data breach and its
effects, as well as the measures it took to prevent data breaches
from occurring in the future. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek
redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and assert claims for
negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, and for breach
of implied contract.
TRC operates a staffing agency based in Smyrna, GA. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John G. Emerson, Esq.
EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300
Houston, TX 77042-2754
Telephone: (800) 551-8649
Facsimile: (501) 286-4659
E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com
- and -
Gregory John Bosseler, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN PA
191 Peachtree Street NE Suite 4200
Atlanta, GA 30303
E-mail: gbosseler@forthepeople.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ronald Podolny, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
E-mail: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com
TRIPLE J TRUCKING: Fails to Pay Driver's OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN SIMMONS v. TRIPLE J TRUCKING, INC., TERESA JONES, ROBERT
GRANT JONES and STEVEN JONES, Case No. 4:24-cv-00061-RGJ (W.D. Ky.,
June 19, 2024) is a class action alleging that the Defendant failed
to pay the Plaintiff and the similarly-situated employees overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wages
and Hours Act.
The Plaintiff worked more than ten hours per day. On the week of
May 20, 2024, the Plaintiff worked five days, and worked far more
than 40 hours. Nevertheless, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff in
the same manner for his overtime work in this week that it did for
his non-overtime work.
There is a Motor Carrier's Act exemption to the Fair Labor
Standards Act for persons driving in interstate commerce certain
vehicles weighing more than ten thousand pounds. However, the
exemption did not apply to any of the Plaintiff and the
similarly-situated employees, and Plaintiff and the
similarly-situated employees were therefore entitled to overtime
pay, because Plaintiff and the similarly-situated employees were
not driving in "interstate commerce" as defined under the Motor
Carrier's Act, the lawsuit asserts.
Like the Plaintiff, all of the other truck driver employees of the
Defendant who drove garbage and other waste performed exclusively
work that did not involve driving loads in interstate commerce,
were improperly classified by as exempt and not paid overtime
compensation. Instead, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff and the
similarly-situated employees a certain amount per load delivered.
In addition to violating the overtime laws with respect to the
Plaintiff and the similarly-situated employees by not paying
overtime compensation at all to nonexempt employees, the Defendants
illegally retaliated against the Plaintiff Simmons for having
participated in an earlier FLSA action, alleges the lawsuit.
Plaintiff Simmons was employed by the Defendants in May and June
2024 as a truck driver performing work that was not exempt from the
requirements of the FLSA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark N. Foster, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
Madisonville, KY 42431
Telephone: (270) 213-1303
E-mail: Mfoster@MarkNFoster.com
UIPATH INC: Steiner Sues Over Misleading Securities Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZACK STEINER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UIPATH, INC., DANIEL DINES, ROBERT ENSLIN,
and ASHIM GUPTA, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04702 (S.D.N.Y., June
20, 2024) asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Rule 10b-5.
The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or acquired UiPath securities between
December 1, 2023 and the close of trading on May 29, 2024
inclusive. During the said period, the Defendants misrepresented
the success of UiPath's turnaround strategy. The Defendants'
materially false and misleading statements and omissions,
artificially inflated the price of UiPath securities and operated
as a fraud or deceit on the Class. Later, when Defendants' prior
misrepresentations and fraudulent conduct were disclosed to the
market on May 29, 2024, the price of UiPath securities fell
precipitously, as the prior artificial inflation came out of the
price. As a result of their purchases of UiPath securities during
the Class Period, Plaintiff and other members of the Class suffered
economic loss or damages under the federal securities laws, says
the suit.
Headquartered in New York, NY, UiPath is a business automation
software company that provides robotic process automation tools to
its public and private sector customers. Its stock trades on the
New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "PATH." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ross Shikowitz, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
75 Virginia Road
White Plains, NY 10603
Telephone: (914) 265-2991
Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
E-mail: rshikowitz@bfalaw.com
- and -
Adam McCall, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
1330 Broadway, Suite 630
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 445-4003
Facsimile: (415) 445-4020
E-mail: amccall@bfalaw.com
UNDER ARMOUR: Settles Securities Class Action Lawsuit for $434 Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 21, 2024, Under Armour, Inc. (NYSE: UA, UAA) announced that
it has entered into an agreement in principle to resolve the
previously disclosed securities class action litigation pending in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (In
re Under Armour Securities Litigation). This lawsuit was originally
filed in 2017.
The company has consistently denied the accusations and entered
into this agreement in principle, which is not an admission or
finding of fault or wrongdoing, given the costs and risks inherent
in litigation.
Under the terms of the agreement, Under Armour will pay $434
million to settle claims brought on behalf of purchasers of Under
Armour's publicly traded shares from September 16, 2015, to
November 1, 2019. Under Armour has also agreed to two governance
changes for a specified time period that are detailed in the
company's 8-K filed with the SEC.
The settlement, if approved by the court, would resolve all claims
against Under Armour and other defendants in this matter.
"We firmly believe that our sales practices, accounting practices,
and disclosures were appropriate, and deny any wrongdoing in this
case," said Mehri Shadman, Under Armour's Chief Legal Officer and
Corporate Secretary. "The announcement allows us to move past this
more than seven-year-old matter so we can avoid the ongoing
distraction of litigation and provide certainty to the business at
a time when we are executing on important strategic priorities."
The settlement is subject to definitive documentation and final
court approval.
The company intends to pay the settlement amount through cash on
hand and/or by drawing on its $1.1 billion revolving credit
facility. As of March 31, 2024, the company had $859 million of
cash and equivalents. As previously disclosed, Under Armour had
recorded an accrual of $100 million in litigation reserves related
to this matter. As a result of this agreement, the company now
expects the total accrual to reach $434 million during the first
quarter of fiscal year 2025. Following this settlement, the company
expects to end fiscal 2025 with approximately $500 million in cash
and cash equivalents and no borrowings outstanding under its $1.1
billion revolving credit facility.
About Under Armour, Inc.
Under Armour, Inc., headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland, is a
leading inventor, marketer, and distributor of branded athletic
performance apparel, footwear, and accessories. Designed to empower
human performance, Under Armour's innovative products and
experiences are engineered to make athletes better. For further
information, please visit http://about.underarmour.com.
Forward-Looking Statements
Some of the statements contained in this press release constitute
forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements relate to
expectations, beliefs, projections, future plans and strategies,
anticipated events or trends, and similar expressions concerning
matters that are not historical facts, such as statements in this
press release regarding the ability to reach an agreement on
definitive documentation with respect to the proposed settlement
and to obtain final court approval of the proposed settlement; the
ability to satisfy the conditions of the proposed settlement; the
charges expected to be incurred and the source of funds to be used
to resolve these matters; and our expectations regarding our future
cash and liquidity forecasts. The forward-looking statements in
this press release reflect our current views and assumptions, as of
the date of this press release, about future events. They are
subject to risks, uncertainties, assumptions, and changes in
circumstances that may cause events or our actual activities or
results to differ significantly from those expressed in any
forward-looking statement. Although we believe the expectations
reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we
cannot guarantee future events, results, actions, activity levels,
performance, or achievements. Readers are cautioned not to place
undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. We undertake no
obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect
events or circumstances after the date on which the statement is
made or to reflect unanticipated events. [GN]
UNION INSTITUTE: Breaches Contractual Obligations, Alon Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY ALON, JASMINE THOMAS, ANA RAMOS, MEGAN EFSEAFF, SARA KIPP,
KEVIN DANIELS, JENNIFER ROTHROCK, ELIZABETH HILTON, CHELSEA
MANNION, VANESSA TORTORA, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated students v. UNION INSTITUTE AND UNIVERSITY, EDGAR L.
SMITH, JR., DR. JEFFREY M. SHEPARD, DONALD FELDMAN, ROGER ALLBEE,
KAREN BIESTMAN, DR. GLADYS GOSSET HANKINS, DR. EDWIN C. MARSHALL,
CHRISTINE VAN DUELMAN, AND DR. KAREN SCHUSTER WEBB, Case No.
1:24-cv-00334-JPH (S.D. Ohio, June 20, 2024) alleges that the
Defendants have breached contractual obligations to the Plaintiffs
in violation of the common law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are estopped from
denying promises made to the Plaintiffs under Ohio Common Law. The
Plaintiffs seeks declaratory, injunctive, compensatory, economic,
liquidated, punitive, and other relief against the Defendants to
redress violations of the Plaintiff's common law rights.
The Plaintiffs are or were students of the University.
The Individual Defendants are board of trustees of Defendant
Union.[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 -
Rachel J. Guin, Esq.
Michelle K. Floyd, Esq.
ROTHBERG LAW FIRM
505 E. Washington Blvd.
Fort Wayne, IN 46859
Telephone: (260) 422-9454
Facsimile: (260) 422-1622
E-mail: rguin@rothberg.com
mfloyd@rothberg.com
UNITED HAMPSHIRE: Gil Files ADA Suit Over Architectural Barriers
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CARLOS GIL, on behalf of all other similarly situated
mobility-impaired individuals, Plaintiff v. UNITED HAMPSHIRE US
PARENT REIT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02507 (E.D. Pa.,
June 7, 2024) is an action for injunctive relief, a declaration of
rights, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Defendant, owns, operates, and oversees a commercial property
located at 2900 Island Ave., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The
Plaintiff has visited the Commercial Property on multiple occasions
including, without limitation, February 22, 2024. He encountered
multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability
to use and enjoy the subject Commercial property due to
architectural barriers. These barriers to access at Defendant's
Commercial Property and businesses within the Commercial Property
have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the
Commercial Property and endangered his safety, says the suit.
United Hampshire US Parent REIT, Inc. is the United States
subsidiary of United Hampshire US Real Estate Investment Trust
which is based out of Singapore.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Greg Koson Kuroda, Esq.
16 Robin Lake Drive
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
Telephone: (609) 332-0712
E-mail: gregkuroda@gmail.com
- and -
George W. Wickhorst, III, Esq.
R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
ADADVOCATES LLC
777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 481-9809
E-mail: george@adadvocates.org
Ed@adadvocates.org
UNITED SERVICES: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Late Fees Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Santana, writing for MYSA, reports that a judge in Maryland
says a lawsuit against USAA and its other subsidiaries' over late
fees will move forward. Maryland District Judge Peter Messitte
ruled against a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit against a
policyholder Walter Black on June 11, according to court documents.
The lawsuit is allowed to continue despite San Antonio-based USAA
agreeing to pay back $8.1 million in July 2020 to around 130,000
policyholders as ordered by the Maryland Insurance Commissioner
(MIC) after an investigation. The agreement was made after the MIC
determined the late fees were charged to policyholders without
permission of the Maryland Insurance Administration, court
documents say.
Black received a reimbursement of $30, court documents say, but he
allegedly didn't receive the assessed interest nor did the other
policyholders. That total comes out to over $7 million. Messitte's
opinion says that USAA "knew full well that they had the use of the
late fees," and "they understood the time-value of the fees." MySA
reached out to USAA for comment.
Event though this lawsuit was filed in 2021, USAA is facing
multiple possible lawsuits that MySA has reported on this year. The
first is another possible class action lawsuit accusing USAA of
deceptive membership practices, alleging that more benefits are
received by people in the officer class. This includes officer
candidates, their unmarried widows, non-commissioned and senior
non-commissioned officers.
Another lawsuit comes directly from the California district
attorney, accusing USAA and Progressive of a scheme to "undervalue
and underpay automobile total loss claims" on a vehicle.[GN]
US FOODSERVICE: Fails to Pay Drivers' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELIER ZERMENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC., a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Illinois, and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:24-at-00769 (E.D. Cal., June 19, 2024) sues
the Defendant for their failure to pay the Plaintiff and his fellow
employees for all hours worked, under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
When he was first hired, the Plaintiff was given a badge by HR that
he would use to clock in and out. The Defendants were supposed to
pay the Plaintiff hourly. However, about a week after he was hired,
the Plaintiff was asked by his manager to stop clocking in and out
using the badge and was instead asked to keep track of his hours on
his own. The Plaintiff was also informed that he would be paid
using "Component Pay" system, where he would be paid per case, per
stop, and per mile. However, the Plaintiff has pre-trip and
post-trip tasks such as putting the palette jack and hand cart into
his truck, getting paperwork and keys to the store, and checking
out that the semi is safe to operate. These pre-trip and post-trip
tasks usually take about an hour each time but the Defendants
refused to pay for these non-productive time since they only paid
Plaintiff on a per mile/per load basis, the lawsuit adds.
As a result, the Plaintiff, the Class, and the Aggrieved Employees
were denied compensation for all hours worked, in violation of Cal.
Labor Code section1194, and were denied compensation at the minimum
wage in violation of Cal. Labor Code sections 1197 and 1199. The
Defendant also failed and refused to provide the Plaintiff and the
Class Members with overtime compensation at a rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for the hours they worked
over eight hours in a day or more than 40 hours in a week, the
Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff is a California resident and, from March 15, 2023,
was employed by the Defendants as a driver in San Joaquin County,
California.
U.S. Foodservice is a food distributor servicing restaurants, the
healthcare industry, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark D. Potter, Esq.
James M. Treglio, Esq.
POTTER HANDY LLP
100 Pine St., Ste 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: mark@potterhandy.com
jimt@potterhandy.com
VIASOX LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Wahab Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA WAHAB, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VIASOX, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04695 (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2024) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City
Human Rights Law in connection with its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
Plaintiff Wahab was injured when she attempted multiple times, most
recently on May 8, 2024 to access Defendant's website from
Plaintiff's home in an effort to purchase diabetic socks, but
encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to
Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Defendant failed
to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen
access programs. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
Viasox, LLC manufactures and sells diabetic socks, and operates the
website, www.viasox.com, which provides consumers an access to
product updates, product news, and special promotions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
VYSTAR CREDIT: Kuffel Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTEN KUFFEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VYSTAR CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No.
24-002627-CI (Fla. Cir. Ct., 6th Jud. Cir., Pinellas Cty., June 12,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA).
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending electronic
mail communications to consumers between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in
connection with the collection of a consumer debt. The Defendant
did not have the consent of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers to communicate with them between the hours of 9:00 PM and
8:00 AM. As such, by and through each of the electronic
communications, the Defendant violated Sec. 559.72(17) of the
FCCPA, says the suit.
Vystar Credit Union is a debt collector with its principal place of
business located in Jacksonville, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
WAGGLE GOLF: Reid Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website
-----------------------------------------------------
MONIQUE REID, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. WAGGLE GOLF LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04361 (E.D.N.Y., June 20, 2024) arises
from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff seeks to challenge Defendant's policy and practice of
denying the blind access to the goods and services offered by its
website. Due to its failure and refusal to remove its website's
access barriers, the Defendant denied the blind with the access to
goods, services, and information made available through the
website, says the Plaintiff.
Waggle Golf, LLC is a Minnesota foreign limited liability that owns
and operates the commercial website, www.getyourwaggleon.com, which
allows the user to browse the wide range of men's and women's golf
fashion apparel and accessories including, polos, shorts, visors,
hats, outerwear, and related products, make purchases, and perform
a variety of other functions. [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
E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
ZCRAVE INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Competello Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN COMPETELLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZCRAVE, INC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04393 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2024) is a civil action against
Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate the Defendant's Website, https://www.zcrave.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law.
On May 20, 2024, Plaintiff, while at her residence in New York
County, attempted to access Defendant's Website with the intention
of purchasing certain discounted items. However, the Plaintiff was
unable to purchase these specific items, despite their attractive
pricing, due to numerous accessibility barriers on the Defendant's
Website. These barriers included "missing alternative text," and
"linked images without alternative text." In addition, the
Plaintiff encountered a multitude of "broken links." Many of these
broken links were labeled with vague text such as "click here," or
not labeled at all, the suit says.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
ZCRAVE, Inc. is a fashion clothing company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Faces Class Action From Talcum Powder Users
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs who are at increased risk of ovarian cancer due to
long-term use of Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder have filed a class
action lawsuit in New Jersey federal court seeking to hold Johnson
& Johnson and a number of corporate subsidiaries and executives
responsible for future liability and to establish a
court-supervised system to monitor the ongoing health condition of
talcum powder users.
The proposed class action alleges that the defendants had knowledge
of the presence of asbestos and other carcinogenic substances in
the company's talcum powder products, including the Johnson's Baby
Powder and Shower to Shower brands, but chose to suppress that
evidence and failed to inform the public about the health risks.
"It is an unconscionable tragedy that this company deliberately
chose to deny and conceal evidence of the risks of talc and insist
through its marketing that women can safely use the products," says
Leigh O'Dell of the Beasley Allen Law Firm.
The motion requests compensatory and punitive damages, as well as
the establishment of a medical monitoring program to support the
early detection of the disease, which affects an estimated 20,000
women annually in the United States.
"By pursuing this class action, we intend to ensure that J&J cannot
abandon its responsibility, not only to women who currently suffer
from ovarian cancer due to talc, but also to all of those future
victims who are at increased risk because of the dangerous
constituent ingredients -- including asbestos -- that have been
present in talc for more than 50 years," says Andy Birchfield of
Beasley Allen.
J&J recently announced the pursuit of a prepackaged bankruptcy plan
to shed responsibility for talc claims in an unspecified federal
court in Texas. Two previous bankruptcy filings by the company have
been denied by the courts in New Jersey, where J&J is
headquartered.
"The inadequate funding of this bankruptcy ploy doesn't
realistically address the needs of women who could develop ovarian
cancer in the future because of past baby powder use," says Chris
Tisi of Levin Papantonio Rafferty. "A key objective of this
complaint is to protect those women."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Ordered to Pay $260MM in Mesothelioma Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Dunleavy, writing for fiercepharma.com reports that Johnson &
Johnson is pursuing a "plan of reorganization" aimed at resolving
99.75% of the 60,000-plus talcum powder lawsuits the company faces.
While that $6.5 billion settlement plan would clear the company of
ovarian cancer claims, there's still talc-related mesothelioma
lawsuits for J&J to reckon with.
And while the drugmaker recently said it has resolved 95% of the
mesothelioma lawsuits, the ones that remain are problematic.
Case in point: a Portland, Oregon, jury awarded $260 million to a
49-year-old woman who claimed that more than 30 years of use of
Johnson's Baby Powder caused her mesothelioma.
Kyung Lee, who is a mother of three from Beaverton, Oregon, was
diagnosed with the uncurable cancer in August of 2023. The disease,
which attacks the lining of the lungs, is caused by exposure to
asbestos.
"For years, Kyung and her family used Johnson & Johnson's Baby
Powder not having any idea it could lead to a life-ending illness,"
Lee's attorney Ben Adams of Dean Omar Branham Shirley, said in a
release.
The jury's award consisted of $200 million in punitive damages and
$60 million in compensatory damages. J&J legal chief Erik Haas said
in a statement that J&J plans to "immediately appeal" and is
"confident that the verdict will be reversed, like the majority of
aberrant adverse verdicts that have no basis in the law or
science."
*********
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 ***