/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240701.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 1, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 131 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Catania Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Davidson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Lucio Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Mcneill Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Mincey Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Pritchard Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Richardson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Serrano Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Sutton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Tamares Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 5E BORON AMERICAS: Allen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ACCELERATED SERVICES: Alcantar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ACCRETIVE CAPITAL: Nichols' Bid for Discovery Responses Denied AIR PRODUCTS: Class Cert Bid Filing in CamCara Extended to Sept. 20 APPLE INC: Pascual Sues Over False and Misleading Advertisement AT&T INC: Penning Sues Over Data Breach and Compromised Information AT&T INC: Telford Sues Over Failure to Secure Sensitive Information ATLANTICUS SERVICES: Meyers Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BLACK DIAMOND: Tyus Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BLUE LINK WIRELESS: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BOSTON MEDICAL: Rejects Nonvaccinated Applicants, Masserman Alleges BP ENERGY: Phase I Scheduling Order Entered in Natural Gas Case BROAD STREET OYSTER: Murillo Sues Over Unpaid Compensation CHEEMA FREIGHTLINES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Prince Due July 7 CHILDREN'S PLACE: To Settle Rael Consumer After Mediation CHRISTOPHER SUNUNU: G.K. Seeks to File Supplemental Declaration CITY OF HOPE: Singleton Sues Over Compromised Patients' Info CONSUMER ADJUSTMENT: Petruso Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida CRG LYNWOOD: Rodriguez Sues Over Disclosed Info to Third Party DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES: Faces Antitrust Suit in Canadian Court DUTCH BOTANICALS: Zeiner Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Growers EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Stimmel FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. New York FARMACY BEAUTY: Suarez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Stallone Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII FORBES & YORK: Tom Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Suit Says FUSION LEARNING: Lobaton Suit Removed to N.D. California GEICO CASUALTY: $1-Mil. Settlement in Wright Suit Has Final Nod GILEAD SCIENCES: Myers Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages HADAF LLC: Zeller Files Suit in W.D. New York HALAL SHACK MIAMI: Backzkowski Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida HISMILE INC: Teeth Products' Efficiency Ads "False," Ledesma Says HYUNDAI MOTOR: Collects and Sells Drivers' Data, Miller Suit Claims INSTACART: Sandoval Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages KRYSTAL FRUITS: Faces Melendez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Weakley Labor Suit in W.D. Virginia LAGUNITAS BREWING: McCarthy Files Suit in C.D. California LAMAR GOURMET: Faces Valle Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. LEGACY SAFETY: Roller Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Inspectors LIVANOVA USA: Schultz Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info LOYAL SOURCE: Pembrick Suit Removed to S.D. California MA JEWELRY: Underpays Jewelry Store Attendants, Rivero Suit Alleges MDL 2804: SC Rules 5-4 to Reject Purdue Plan, Sackler Releases MDL 2873: Bayles Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemicals Exposure MDL 2873: Beal Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemicals Exposure MDL 2873: Bickford Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Bisby Alleges Injury Due to Exposure of Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Breedlove Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Conner Alleges Injury Due to Film-Forming Foams Exposure MDL 2873: Crocco Alleges Injury Due to Film-Forming Foams Exposure MDL 2873: Davis Alleges Injury to Film-Forming Foams Exposure MDL 2873: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Bailey Says MDL 2873: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Bonneau Says MDL 2873: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Edwards Says MDL 2873: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Hill Claims MDL 2873: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Johnson Says MDL 2873: Faces Schnyder Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Lafountain Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 3083: Faces Rodda Suit Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info MOBILE MEDIC: Oliver Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice MR. BAR-B-Q PRODUCTS: Ryan Files Suit in N.D. California NEW YORK: Anthony Sues Over Unlawful Solitary Confinement NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: $282K in Fees & Costs Awarded in Olson Suit PACIFIC MARKET: Brown Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington PERRY JOHNSON: O'Neill Sues Over Compromised Patients' Info PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Devine Sues Over Data Breach PIZZA NETWORK: Hernandez Suit Seeks Restaurant Cooks' Unpaid Wages POSC PAC: Robbins Sues Over Unlawful Pre-Recorded Calls POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Sued Over Unlawful Collection of Information PRAIRIE DU CHIEN: Doe Suit Remanded to Crawford County Cir. Court PRESSLER FELT: Wilson Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey SHOPS ON OLD: Disabled Can't Access Property, Pardo Suit Claims SIRIUS XM: Kirkpatrick Sues Over Music Plan Price's Deceptive Ads STEVE CORSI: Must Respond to Filyaw Class Cert Bid by July 1 TAMPA FAMILY: Vazquez Seeks Unpaid OT for Maintenance Technicians TEGRIA HOLDINGS: Chery Suit Parties Must Resolve Issues by July 12 TOMMY BAHAMA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Wilkins Due Nov. 15 TORRID HOLDINGS: Faces Waswick Shareholder Suit in California Court TRANS UNION: Saucedo Seeks to Certify Class of California Consumers TWITTER INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class UNITED NETWORK: Manipulates Black Patients' eGFR Scores, Rowe Says UNITED STATES: Can Withdraw Pending Bid for Various Reliefs UPSTART HOLDINGS: Class Certification Hearing Set for July 11 US CITIZENSHIP: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Patel Suit VENUS CONCEPT: Status Conference in Keller Suit Set for Sept. 17 VIVENDI TICKETING: Class Settlement in Peterson Gets Initial Nod VNGR BEVERAGE: Faces Lesh Suit Over Poppi Sodas' Healthy Gut Claims WALGREEN CO: Court Dismisses Bargetto Suit WELLS FARGO: Parties Seek to Reschedule July 11 Hearings WISCONSIN: Faces Huber Suit Over Confiscation of Prisoners' Tablets XACTUS LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Cinner Amended to Nov. 1 XOOM ENERGY: Bid to Decertify Class in Mirkin Suit Tossed ********* 3M COMPANY: Catania Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Catania, 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-03482-RMG (D.S.C., June 11, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostate and bladder cancers 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: Davidson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- William Davidson, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:24-cv-02796-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Navy and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tessa G. Cuneo, Esq. Alexandra W. Robertson, Esq. ASK LLP 2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 400 St. Paul, MN 55121 Phone: (651) 406-9665 Facsimile: (651) 406 Email: tcuneo@askllp.com arobertson@askllp.com 3M COMPANY: Lucio Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- George Lucio, 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-03472-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 hypothyroidism and coronary artery disease 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: Mcneill Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Walter Mcneill, 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-02785-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his firefighting career and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Phone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Mincey Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Mincey, 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-02778-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his firefighting career and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Phone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Pritchard Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael Pritchard, 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-02380-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 non-Hodgkin lymphoma as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq. WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC 3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 499-7900 Facsimile: (202) 478-1795 - and - Jim Hood, Esq. Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq. 1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Phone: (601) 803-5001 3M COMPANY: Richardson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------------ Halana Richardson, 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-02483-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 kidney 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 3M COMPANY: Serrano Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Munoz Serrano, 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-02574-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 thyroid disease and colon cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq. WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC 3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 499-7900 Facsimile: (202) 478-1795 - and - 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: Smith Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Angela Smith, and Douglas Smith by the Proposed Administrator and Next-of-Kin, Angela Smith, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:24-cv-02569-RMG (D.S.C., April 24, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Decedent was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Decedent to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein including death. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Angela Smith is the proposed personal representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Douglas Smith, who regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Sutton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Vincent Edward Sutton, 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-02581-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 kidney cancer and thyroid cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq. WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC 3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 499-7900 Facsimile: (202) 478-1795 - and - Jim Hood, Esq. Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq. 1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Phone: (601) 803-5001 3M COMPANY: Tamares Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nestor Tamares, 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-02383-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 kidney 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 - 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 5E BORON AMERICAS: Allen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 5E BORON AMERICAS, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Evan Owen Allen, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 5E BORON AMERICAS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 5E ADVANCED MATERIALS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2416231 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Bernardino Cty., May 8, 2024). The case type is stated as "Complex Civil Unlimited." 5E Advanced Materials, Inc. -- https://5eadvancedmaterials.com/ -- is a boron and lithium company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com ACCELERATED SERVICES: Alcantar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against ACCELERATED SERVICES LLC, et al. The case is styled as Israel Alcantar, all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public v. ACCELERATED SERVICES LLC, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2415634 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Bernardino Cty., May 1, 2024). The case type is stated as "Complex Civil Unlimited." Accelerated Services LLC -- https://autotrans.com/ -- is a nationally recognized auto transport carrier and auto transport broker service provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: AEGIS LAW FIRM PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 379-6250 Fax: (949) 379-6251 ACCRETIVE CAPITAL: Nichols' Bid for Discovery Responses Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses and staying Phase II discovery in the lawsuit titled TERRI LEE NICHOLS, Plaintiff v. ACCRETIVE CAPITAL, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-10473-FKB-APP (E.D. Mich.). The Plaintiff initiated this purported class action Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case on Feb. 24, 2023. Phase I discovery began on Nov. 28, 2023, and Phase II discovery began on March 28, 2024. Currently before the Court is the Plaintiff's May 21, 2024 motion to compel discovery responses, for which a response was due on June 4, 2024. On June 10, 2024, Attorneys Anthony I. Paronich, Isaac Julian Colunga, and Michael Leo Pomeranz appeared for a video status conference. During the conference, defense counsel explained that no response was filed because the parties were working on resolution of the motion. Defense counsel also explained that some of the requested discovery related to Phase II and that the Defendant soon would be filing a motion for summary judgment. The parties all agreed that Phase II discovery ought to be delayed, pending a decision on the impending motion for summary judgment. Upon consideration, Judge Patti rules further discovery is stayed pending the Court's resolution of the Defendant's forthcoming motion for summary judgment. If this case survives the dispositive motion, then there will be an additional scheduling conference for Phase II discovery, which the parties should request from the chambers at that point. Judge Patti holds that the Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied without prejudice pursuant to the parties' agreement to exchange certain answers/responses by June 28, 2024. If this does not occur, then the Plaintiff may renew her motion, even during the stay period if necessary, to the extent it relates to Phase I discovery. Finally, considering Judge F. Kay Behm has referred this case for pretrial matters, excluding dispositive motions, Judge Patti reminds the parties to review his Practice Guidelines regarding "Discovery and Discovery Motions" and "Motion Practice." A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 12, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/54hh7mjs from PacerMonitor.com. AIR PRODUCTS: Class Cert Bid Filing in CamCara Extended to Sept. 20 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CamCara, Inc., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, d/b/a AST Manufacturing, v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Case No. 5:21-cv-02264-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl entered an order extending the deadlines contained in the March 3, 2024 Scheduling Order as follows: 1. The deadline for Defendant to serve rebuttal expert reports on Plaintiff's counsel shall be extended from July 3, 2024 to July 15, 2024; 2. The deadline for the parties to conclude expert depositions, if any, shall be extended from July 19, 2024 to Aug. 16, 2024; 3. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification and supporting brief shall be extended from Aug. 19, 2024 to Sept. 20, 2024; 4. The deadline for the Defendant to file a brief in opposition to the motion for class certification shall be extended from Sept. 18, 2024 to Oct. 25, 2024; and 5. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a reply brief in further support of its motion for class certification shall be extended from Oct. 2, 2024 to Nov. 15, 2024. Air Products is an American international corporation whose principal business is selling gases and chemicals for industrial use. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YmoHmh at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff are represented by: Stephanie C. Chomentowski, Esq. Heidi G. Crikelair, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP One Logan Square 130 North 18th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998 Telephone: (215) 569-6998 E-mail: chomentowski@blankrome.com hcrikelair@blankrome.com The Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant are represented by: William H. Narwold, Esq. Mathew P. Jasinski, Esq. Jessica C. Colombo, Esq. Michael J. Quirk, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC One Corporate Center 20 Church Street, 17th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 882-1681 Facsimile: (860) 882-1682 E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com mjasinski@motleyrice.com jcolombo@motleyrice.com mquirk@motleyrice.com APPLE INC: Pascual Sues Over False and Misleading Advertisement --------------------------------------------------------------- Isabelo Pascual and Ashley Green, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APPLE INC., Case No. 24STCV11157 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 2, 2024), is brought against the Defendants false and misleading advertisement and marketing of their Apple Watch Series 6 and Series 7 smart watches ("Products"). The Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, labels, and sells the Products that Defendant represents to be "Swimproof." Unfortunately for consumers, the Products are not Swimproof as advertised. The Defendant's advertising and marketing of the Products emphasizes their water resistance. The Defendant displays the Products surrounded by water droplets, on the arm of a swimmer below water, and with statements such as "in and out of water", "H2O. You're good to go.", "whether you're in open water or tracking your splits and sets at the pool, you're covered", "Track your daily activity [. . .] even underwater", "Make a splash with your watch", "Perfect for swimming, surfing, or water balloon fights", and "Swimproof". Despite using images of the devices in and around water and using marketing language like "H2O. You're good to go.", "Make a splash with your watch", "Perfect for swimming, surfing, or water balloon fights", and "Swimproof", the Products are not water-resistant as understood by Plaintiffs and consumers, and routinely fail in brief encounters with water. The Plaintiffs paid more for the Products than they would have had they known they were not swimproof and water resistant, as they would have paid less. The Plaintiffs chose between Defendant's Products and products represented similarly, but which did not misrepresent their attributes, features, and/or components. The Plaintiffs intend to, seek to, and will purchase the Products again when they can do so with the assurance they are swimproof and water resistant. The Plaintiffs are unable to rely on the representations not only of these Products, but other similar products, because they are unsure whether those representations are truthful. If Defendant's representations were to be truthful, Plaintiffs could rely on the representations of other such products, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased one of the Apple Watch Series. The Defendant is a seller of consumer electronics.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Manfred P. Muecke, Esq. MANFRED APC 600 W Broadway Ste 700 San Diego CA 92101 Phone: (619) 550-4005 Fax: (619) 550-4006 Email: mmuecke@manfredapc.com AT&T INC: Penning Sues Over Data Breach and Compromised Information ------------------------------------------------------------------- Stacy Penning, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-02657-KAW (N.D. Cal., May 2, 2024), is brought on behalf others who had their sensitive personal information ("Personal Information") disclosed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach compromising AT&T, identified in early 2024 (the "Data Breach"). Though AT&T claims in that same letter that "we are committed to keeping your information secure," it concedes that the data set involved in the Data Breach was likely from 2019. AT&T provides no explanation as to why it still maintained Personal Information in its systems for 65.4 million individuals who are no longer AT&T customers, and who may not have been customers for nearly five years. AT&T was aware, or should have known, its data security shortcomings. It collects and maintains sensitive Personal Information about its customers and potential customers, including Social Security numbers ("SSNs") and financial information. It requires customers to provide this information in connection with using its services. Putting aside that large companies that collect sensitive Personal Information are routinely breached and that AT&T is aware of this, AT&T itself suffered a prior data breach in March 2023, which also exposed customer data. Despite this history of data incidents, AT&T failed to make necessary changes to implement industry standard data privacy measures, exposing its customers, and former customers, to the risk of being impacted by a breach. AT&T also evidently took no steps to delete or minimize Personal Information it no longer needed for its regular course of business, including the Personal Information for individuals who were former AT&T customers. AT&T's failures to ensure that its servers and systems were adequately secure fell far short of its obligations and Plaintiff's and Class Members' reasonable expectations for data privacy, jeopardized the security of Plaintiff's and Class Member's Personal Information, and exposed Plaintiff and Class Members to fraud and identity theft or the serious risk of fraud and identity theft. As a result of Defendant's conduct and the resulting Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members' privacy has been invaded, their Personal Information is now in the hands of criminals, they have either suffered fraud or identity theft, or face an imminent and ongoing risk of identity theft and fraud. Accordingly, these individuals now must take immediate and time consuming action to protect themselves from such identity theft and fraud, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a current customer of AT&T. AT&T, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware, with a principal place of business located in Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. Alyssa Brown, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505-4521 Phone: 310.474.9111 Facsimile: 310.474.8585 Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com abrown@ahdootwolfson.com AT&T INC: Telford Sues Over Failure to Secure Sensitive Information ------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Telford, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00798-BEN-SBC (S.D. Cal., May 3, 2024), is brought against Defendant for failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' trusted Defendant with their sensitive personal information, including but not limited to full names, addresses, date of birth, phone numbers, and Social Security numbers (hereinafter, "personally identifiable information" or "PII") on the understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure. Instead, that PII was targeted, compromised, and unlawfully accessed due to Defendants' lax security measures in or about March 2024, where the details of 73 million former and current AT&T Customer accounts, including full names, email addresses, mailing addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, social security numbers, AT&T account number and passcode were leaked online (hereinafter, the "Data Breach"). AT&T collected and maintained certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members who are (or were) customers at Defendant. The PII compromised in the Data Breach was exfiltrated by cyber criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target PII for its value to identity thieves. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and approximately 73 million Class Members (including 7.6 million current customers and 65.4 million former customers), suffered concrete injuries in fact including, but not limited to: invasion of privacy; theft of their PII; lost or diminished value of PII; uncompensated lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; loss of benefit of the bargain; lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; statutory damages; nominal damages; and the continued and certainly increased risk to their PII, which: remains unencrypted and available for unauthorized third parties to access and abuse; and remains backed up in Defendant's possession and is subject to further unauthorized disclosures so long as Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect the PII, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim and received a Notice of Data Breach Email. AT&T is one of the largest wireless carriers and internet providers in the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Dr., Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: (805) 270-7100 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com ATLANTICUS SERVICES: Meyers Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Meyers, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. ATLANTICUS SERVICES CORPORATION D/B/A FORTIVA, Case No. 24-001968-CI (Fla. 6th Judicial Cir. Ct., Pinellas Cty., May 3, 2024), is brought for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unlawful debt collection. On a date better known by Defendant, Defendant began attempting to collect a debt (the "Consumer Debt") from Plaintiff. The Consumer Debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to pay money arising from a transaction between the creditor of the Consumer Debt, Defendant, and Plaintiff (the "Subject Service"). The Communication was sent by Defendant to Plaintiff at 9:16 PM in Plaintiff's time zone. The Communication was received by Plaintiff from Defendant at 9:16 PM in Plaintiff's time zone. The Electronic Communication was sent to Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time zone of Plaintiff. Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to communicate with Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM. As such, by and through the Electronic Communication, Defendant violated the FCCPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of Florida, residing in Pinellas County, Florida. The Defendant is a Georgia corporation, with its principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Behavioral Intervention Association. The case is styled as Daisy Ramirez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Behavioral Intervention Association, a California corporation, Case No. 24CECG01917 (Cal. Super. Ct., Fresno Cty., May 3, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited - Other Employment." Behavioral Intervention Association (BIA) -- https://www.bia4autism.org/ -- provides applied behavior analysis (ABA) services to children and adolescents ages 18 months to 18 years of age.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean Hopkins Power, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 880 E Broadway Glendale, CA 91205-1218 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: jean@d.law BLACK DIAMOND: Tyus Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Black Diamond Paver Stones & Landscape. The case is styled as Torrean L. Tyus, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Black Diamond Paver Stones & Landscape, an entity of unknown form, Case No. 24CV008537 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 2, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Black Diamond Paver Stones & Landscape -- https://blackdiamondlandscape.com/ -- have provided full-service hardscape and landscape design and installation.[BN] BLUE LINK WIRELESS: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Link Wireless, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Sandy Gonzalez, Erich Mues, Leigha Scott, Lawrence Williamson, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. BLUE LINK WIRELESS, LLC, SAAD J. NADHIR, DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC24614396 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 3, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Blue Link Wireless -- https://blwireless.com/ -- is proud to be one of the largest AT&T Authorized Retailers in the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward J. Wynne, Esq. WYNNE LAW FIRM 80 E Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ste. 3G Larkspur, CA 94939-1709 Phone: 415-461-6400 Fax: 415-461-3900 BOSTON MEDICAL: Rejects Nonvaccinated Applicants, Masserman Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- CINDY MASSERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-11565-SDK-APP (E.D. Mich., June 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case arises from the Defendant's rejection of the Plaintiff's fully remote job application because she was not vaccinated against COVID-19 due to her sincerely held religious beliefs. Despite the Plaintiff's explanation of her sincerely held religious beliefs, the Defendant did not consider any religious accommodation or temporary medical accommodation, affirmatively denying her employment. As a result of the Defendant's employment policy, the Plaintiff has been harmed, the suit says. Boston Medical Center is a medical center located in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq. HURWITZ LAW PLLC 340 Beakes St., Ste. 125 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (844) 487-9489 Email: noah@hurwitzlaw.com BP ENERGY: Phase I Scheduling Order Entered in Natural Gas Case --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Winter Storm Uri Natural Gas Litigation, Case No. 6:24-cv-01073-DDC-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Angel Mitchell entered a Phase I Scheduling Order as follows: Event Date Jointly proposed protective order June 27, 2024 and ESI order submitted to court Motion and brief in support of June 27, 2024 proposed protective and/or ESI order (only if parties disagree about need for and/or scope of order) Motions to amend Aug. 1, 2024 Substantial completion of document Oct. 4, 2024 production relating to Phase I (class certification) Phase I fact discovery complete Dec. 17, 2024 On June 20, 2024, U.S. Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell conducted a scheduling conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, by videoconference. Plaintiffs in the consolidated cases appeared through counsel Jay F. Fowler, Scott C. Nehrbass, and Samuel Walenz. Each of these consolidated cases is a putative class action brought under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act ("KCPA"). After consultation with the parties, the court enters this Phase I scheduling order to govern the initial phase of discovery, focusing on class-certification issues. After the court decides plaintiff' anticipated motion for class certification, the court will enter a Phase II scheduling order with the remaining case-management deadlines. This Phase I scheduling order is summarized in the following table: A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rj3dzd at no extra charge.[CC] BROAD STREET OYSTER: Murillo Sues Over Unpaid Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------- Estela V. Murillo, as an aggrieved employee, and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees under the Labor Code Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004 v. BROAD STREET OYSTER COMPANY LLC, a limited liability company; BROAD STREET OYSTER COMPANY GCM, LLC, a limited liability company; BROAD STREET OYSTER COMPANY GHRSQ, LLC, a limited liability company; BROAD STREET OYSTER COMPANY SURF CITY, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV11208 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 3, 2024), is brought under the Labor Code Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004 for civil penalties under Labor Code as a result of failure to pay proper compensation. The Defendants had and have a policy or practice of failing to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees in the State of California in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, without limitation, Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees working over 8 hours per day, 40 hours per week, and/or 7 straight workdays in a workweek without paying them proper overtime wages, as a result of, Without limitation, failing to accurately track and/or pay for all minutes and hours actually worked at the proper overtime rate of pay; engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work off the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring employees: to come early to work and leave work late without being able to clock in for all that time, to complete pre- shift tasks before clocking in and post-shift tasks after clocking out, to clock out for meal periods and continue working and/or suffering under Defendants' control, to clock out for rest periods, to don and doff uniforms off the clock; and for paying straight pay instead of overtime pay, all to the detriment of Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from September of 2022 through March of 2023. BROAD STREET is a limited liability company organized, authorized and licensed to do business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jasmin K. Gill, Esq. Cassandra Franco, Esq. J. GILL LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 459-6023 Fax: (310) 728-2137 Email: jasmin@jkgilllaw.com cassandra@jkgilllaw.com - and - David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com jeff@tomorrowlaw.com CHEEMA FREIGHTLINES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Prince Due July 7 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN PRINCE, v. CHEEMA FREIGHTLINES, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02907-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered a scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery shall be completed May 30, 2025 no later than: -- Expert Discovery The parties shall April 4, 2025 disclose initial experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than: -- Plaintiff's motion for class July 7, 2025 certification, shall be filed on or before: -- All dispositive motions, except motions Sept. 19, 2025 for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, shall be filed on or before: The Defendant provides truckload services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mjj1qC at no extra charge.[CC] CHILDREN'S PLACE: To Settle Rael Consumer After Mediation --------------------------------------------------------- The Children's Place, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended May 4, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2024, that after mediation, the company will settle the case "Rael v. The Children's Place, Inc.," a purported class action, pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. In the initial complaint filed in February 2016 where the plaintiff alleged that the company falsely advertised discount prices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in April 2016, adding allegations of violations of other state consumer protection laws. In August 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, adding an additional plaintiff and removing the other state law claims. The plaintiffs' second amended complaint sought to represent a class of California purchasers and sought, among other items, injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The company engaged in mediation proceedings with the plaintiffs in December 2016 and April 2017. The parties reached an agreement in principle in April 2017, and signed a definitive settlement agreement in November 2017, to settle the matter on a class basis with all individuals in the U.S. who made a qualifying purchase at The Children's Place from February 11, 2012 through January 28, 2020, the date of preliminary approval by the court of the settlement. The company submitted its memorandum in support of final approval of the class settlement on March 2, 2021. On March 29, 2021, the court granted final approval of the class settlement and denied plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, with the amount of attorney's fees to be decided after the class recovery amount has been determined. The settlement provides merchandise vouchers for qualified class members who submit valid claims, as well as payment of legal fees and expenses and claims administration expenses. Vouchers were distributed to class members on November 15, 2021 and they were eligible for redemption in multiple rounds through November 2023. On February 23, 2024, a hearing on motion for preliminary injunction and permanent injunction and to enforce judgement and settlement agreement was held. Pending receipt of the court's ruling, upon the court's order, the plaintiff filed a renewed motion for attorneys' fees, costs and incentive awards on March 4, 2024, to which the company filed a statement of non-opposition on April 1, 2024. Because the plaintiff was seeking less than the maximum amount agreed to in the settlement, the company requested that such difference in amount be distributed as vouchers to authorized class members, pursuant to the settlement agreement. The hearing for the motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards resulted in the court granting the plaintiff's counsel approximately $0.3 million in fees, costs and incentive awards. The Children's Place, Inc. and its subsidiaries operate an omni-channel children's specialty portfolio of brands with a digital-first operating model. Its global retail and wholesale network includes two digital storefronts, more than 500 stores in North America, wholesale marketplaces and distribution in 16 countries through six international franchise partners. CHRISTOPHER SUNUNU: G.K. Seeks to File Supplemental Declaration --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as G.K., et al., v. CHRISTOPHER SUNUNU, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00004-PB (D.N.H.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- Granting Plaintiffs leave to file supplemental declarations of Dr. Theodore Cross and Daryl Chansuthus in support of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification to address the claims of recently added Named Plaintiff B.D., attached as Exhibit A and B, respectively; and -- Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yvx4JE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michelle Wangerin, Esq. Kay E. Drought, Esq. NEW HAMPSHIRE LEGAL ASSISTANCE 154 High Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Telephone: (603) 431-7411 Facsimile: (603) 431-8025 E-mail: mwangerin@nhla.org kdrought@nhla.org - and - Gilles R. Bissonnette, Esq. Henry R. Klementowicz, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 18 Low Avenue Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 224-5591 E-mail: gilles@aclu-nh.org henry@aclu-nh.org - and - Jennifer A. Eber, Esq. Kayla J. Turner, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER-NH, INC. 64 North Main Street, Suite 2 Concord, NH 03301-4913 Telephone: (603) 228-0432 Facsimile: (603) 225-2077 E-mail: jennifere@drcnh.org kaylat@drcnh.org - and - Ira Lustbader, Esq. Kathleen Simon, Esq. Carolyn Hite, Esq. Aarti Iyer, Esq. Rebecca Ritchin, Esq. Madeleine MacNeil Kinney CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC. 88 Pine Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 683-2210 Facsimile: (212) 683-4015 E-mail: ilustbader@childrensrights.org ksimon@childrensrights.org chite@childrensrights.org aiyer@childrensrights.org rritchin@childrensrights.org mkinney@childrensrights.org - and - Konrad L. Cailteux, Esq. Sarah Ryu, Esq. Kathleen Stanaro, Esq. Katheryn Maldonado, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Telephone: (212) 310-8000 Facsimile: (212) 310-8007 E-mail: Konrad.Cailteux@weil.com Sarah.Ryu@weil.com Kathleen.Stanaro@weil.com Katheryn.Maldonado@weil.com CITY OF HOPE: Singleton Sues Over Compromised Patients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------ JASON SINGLETON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF HOPE, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-05115 (C.D. Cal., June 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and the California Unfair Competition Law, negligence and breach of implied contract. The case arises from the Defendant's 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 its computer systems following a data breach on or around September 19, 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, the suit says. City of Hope is a healthcare services provider, with its principal place of business located at 1500 East Duarte Road, Duarte, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com CONSUMER ADJUSTMENT: Petruso Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Consumer Adjustment Company, Inc. The case is styled as James Petruso, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Consumer Adjustment Company, Inc. doing business as: CACI, Case No. 6:24-cv-00862-WWB-EJK (M.D. Fla., May 7, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Consumer Adjustment Company, Inc. -- https://cacionline.net/ -- provides accounts receivable management services. The Company offers early out insurance resolutions, bad debt collection, accounts receivable clean-up projects, worker's compensation processing, temporary staff supplementation, and pre collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq. 2682 SW 14th Court Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Phone: (754) 213-7957 Email: simil.law@gmail.com - and - Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com CRG LYNWOOD: Rodriguez Sues Over Disclosed Info to Third Party -------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRG LYNWOOD, LLC D/B/A LYNWOOD MANOR, a Delaware entity; and THE CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION d/b/a Excelerate Healthcare Services, an Ohio entity, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-11576-LJM-CI (E.D. Mich., June 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. 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 their computer systems following a data breach in July of 2021. 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. CRG Lynwood, LLC, doing business as Lynwood Manor, is a healthcare company, with its principal place of business in Adrian, Michigan. The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, doing business as Excelerate Healthcare Services, is a healthcare company with its principal place of business in Cleveland Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Blanchard, Esq. BLANCHARD & WALKER PLLC 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 929-4313 Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com - and - Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. Leigh Montgomery, Esq. Alexander G. Kykta, Esq. ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77066 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 Email: jarett@ellzeyaw.com leigh@ellseylaw.com alex@ellzeylaw.com DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES: Faces Antitrust Suit in Canadian Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2024, that it is facing an action brought on behalf of a class of all persons, from January 1, 2012 to the present, who purchased generic drugs in the private sector. The Statement of Claim states that it seeks damages against all defendants on a joint and several basis, attorney's fees and costs of investigation and prosecution. On June 3, 2020, a Class Action Statement of Claim was filed by an individual consumer in Federal Court in Toronto, Canada, against the company's U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries and 52 other generic drug companies. This alleged an industry-wide, overarching conspiracy to violate Sections 45 and 46 of the Canadian Competition Act by conspiring to allocate the market, fix prices, and maintain the supply of generic drugs in Canada. An Amended Statement of Claim was served on the company's U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries on January 15, 2021 and added an additional 20 generic drug companies. The Amended Statement of Claim also removed the identification of defendant companies with conspiracy allegations regarding specific generic drugs and alleges a conspiracy to allocate the North America Market as to all generic drugs in Canada. A Second Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim was served on the company's U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries on August 24, 2022 and adds an additional 10 drug companies. The Second Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim reinstituted the identification of defendant companies with conspiracy allegations regarding specific generic drugs. On June 1, 2023, Plaintiffs served and filed a Motion Record for Certification of the proposed class action. In December 2023 plaintiffs' counsel advised that they intend to further amend their Second Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim to clarify the proposed class. The plaintiffs' further amended claim has not yet been delivered. The certification motion hearing has been set by the court for five days in the week of May 12, 2025. The deadline for the company's responding evidence to the certification motion has been agreed upon between the parties as July 5, 2024, subject to court approval. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited is an integrated global pharmaceutical company committed to accelerating access to affordable and innovative medicines mainly global generics and pharmaceutical services and active ingredients. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited was first incorporated in India in 1956. DUTCH BOTANICALS: Zeiner Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Growers ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW ZEINER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DUTCH BOTANICALS LLC d/b/a/ MORGANICS CONCENTRATES and JENNY TRAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01654-STV (D. Colo., June 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order, and the Colorado Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a grower at their Aurora, Colorado facility from on or about June 15, 2023, until on or about February 22, 2024. Dutch Botanicals LLC, doing business as Morganics Concentrates, is a manufacturer of cannabis and cannabis products, headquartered in Aurora, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Kuhn, Esq. Andrew E. Swan, Esq. Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. LEVENTHAL | LEWIS KUHN TAYLOR SWAN PC 3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive, Suite 710 Denver, CO 80209 Telephone: (720) 699-3000 Facsimile: (866) 515-8628 Email: mkuhn@ll.law aswan@ll.law sengelson@ll.law - and - John W. Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive, Suite 710 Denver, CO 80209 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 Email: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Stimmel FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Carolyn Stimmel, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated consumers v. Equifax Information Services LLC, New York Community Bank, Case No. 030771/2023 was removed from the Rockland County Supreme Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 6, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:24-cv-03476-NSR to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Equifax Information Services LLC -- http://www.equifax.com/-- provides data solutions. The Company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions.[BN] The Plaintiffs is represented by: Daniel Zemel ZEMEL LAW LLC 660 Broadway Patterson, NJ 07514 Phone: (862) 227-3106 Fax: (973) 525-2552 Email: dz@zemellawllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Carley Hawkins Thompson, Esq. KING & SPALDING 1180 Peachtree Street N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 572-4683 Email: chthompson@kslaw.com - and - Mateo DE LA Torre, Esq. Anthony Carmine Valenziano KING & SPALDING LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas, Ste. FL. 36 New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 556-2356 Email: mdelatorre@kslaw.com avalenziano@shermanatlas.com FARMACY BEAUTY: Suarez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Alvin Suarez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Farmacy Beauty, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04607 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for their 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. The Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Walker Brothers provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.farmacybeauty.com (hereinafter "Farmacybeauty.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). The Website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Because Defendant's website, Farmacybeauty.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Walker Brothers' policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Farmacybeauty.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Farmacy Beauty.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 287-3458 Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Stallone Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Stallone, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01901 (E.D. Pa., May 4, 2024), is brought against FBCS for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated customers' ("Class Members," as defined infra) sensitive personal identifiable information, including their names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and account information ("PII"). By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, FBCS assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. On April 26, 2024, FBCS announced that certain systems in its network had been subject to unauthorized access between February 14 and February 26, 2024, and the unauthorized actor had the ability to view or acquire certain information on the FBCS network during the period of access ("Data Breach"). In a filing with the Office of the Maine Attorney General, FBCS revealed that the PII of 1,955,385 individuals was exposed by the Data Breach. FBCS failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to FBCS' negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its customers' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. FBCS disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to implement and maintain adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required, and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's PII was compromised as a result of the Data Breach. FBCS is a nationally licensed debt collection agency in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Fax: (954) 525-4300 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 201 Alhabra Circle, Suite 1100 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: 786-206-9057 Email: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe St., Ste. 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com FORBES & YORK: Tom Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------- David Tom, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FORBES & YORK INSURANCE LLC D/B/A MEDADVANTAGE PARTNERS AND THE ASSURANCE PIVOT, LLC D/B/A SKYBRIDGE LEADS, Case No. 1:24-cv-01208-KAS (D. Colo., May 2, 2024), is brought against Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") for making telemarketing calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, including his own. At no point did the Plaintiff consent to receiving telemarketing calls from the Defendants prior to receiving the calls at issue The Plaintiff's privacy has been violated by the above-described telemarketing calls. The Plaintiff never provided his consent or requested the calls. The Plaintiff and all members of the Class, have been harmed by the acts of Defendants because their privacy has been violated and they were annoyed and harassed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual who resides in the Middle District of Florida. Forbes & York Insurance LLC d/b/a MedAdvantage Partners is a Florida LLC that sells insurance throughout the United States, including Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mount Carmel Avenue Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: 215-225-5529 (CALL-LAW) Facsimile: 888-329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com - and - Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (617) 485-0018 Facsimile: (508) 318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- BROOKE SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS PARENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01497-N (N.D. Tex., June 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence; breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, intrusion upon seclusion/invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its network system following a data breach on or before April 13, 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. Frontier Communications Parent, Inc. is a provider of telecommunications services based in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com FUSION LEARNING: Lobaton Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jason Lobaton, individually and on behalf of all other others similarly situated v. FUSION LEARNING, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-24-611664 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 3, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03715-CAS-RAO. In the Complaint, Lobaton alleges the following causes of action: Unpaid Minimum Wage; Unpaid Overtime Wages; Unpaid Meal Premiums; Unpaid Rest Premiums; Untimely Payment of Final Wages; Untimely Payment of Wages; Non-Compliant Wage Statements; Failure to Keep Requisite Records; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; and Violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Scott J. Witlin, Esq. Caroline C. Dickey, Esq. Rochelle L. Calderon, Esq. 2029 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 284-3880 Facsimile: (310) 284-3894 Email: scott.witlin@btlaw.com caroline.dickey@btlaw.com rochelle.calderon@btlaw.com GEICO CASUALTY: $1-Mil. Settlement in Wright Suit Has Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Brian A. Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana grants the unopposed motion for final approval of class settlement in the lawsuit styled CARLA WRIGHT v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00823-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La.). The parties have reached a settlement in this case. Through an unopposed motion for final approval of class settlement, they seek, among other things, that the Court (1) certify the proposed class for settlement purposes; (2) approve the Class Action Settlement Agreement; (3) find that notice to the Settlement Class was fair, adequate, and comported with due process; and (4) enter an order finally approving the Settlement and a Final Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice. Plaintiff Carla Wright, individually and on behalf of the proposed Settlement Class, and Defendant GEICO Casualty Company, along with all related, parent, and subsidiary companies (GEICO) have agreed, subject to approval by the Court, to settle this Action upon the terms and conditions in the Agreement. The Parties have made an application for final approval of the Settlement of this Action, as set forth in the Agreement, and on Jan. 19, 2024, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, ordered that Notice be directed to the Settlement Clas, and preliminarily certified the Settlement Class. On April 2, 2024, Class Counsel filed a Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Service Award to the Named Plaintiff, Ms. Carla Wright. Ms. Wright was approved in the Preliminary Approval Order as the Class Representative. The Court finds that GEICO and Class Counsel have satisfactorily demonstrated to the Court that the Notice Plan was followed as agreed to in the Agreement. A Final Fairness Hearing was held on May 15, 2024, at which all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and at which there were no objections lodged to the Settlement. The Court approves the Agreement, and finds the Settlement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, but, as stated in this Court's Preliminary Approval Order, such finding is not to be deemed an admission of liability or fault by GEICO or by any other Person, or a finding of the validity of any claims asserted in the Action. The Court finds that the Class Action Fairness Act Notice given by the Settlement Administrator on behalf of GEICO was in full compliance with 28 U.S.C. 1715(b). The Court appoints Carla Wright as Class Representative and Jacob Phillips of Jacobson Phillips PLLC, Ed Normand of Normand PLLC, and Chris Hall of Hall & Lampros, LLP, as Class Counsel. The Court reaffirms and appoints JND as the Settlement Administrator. Consistent with the Agreement, the Court certifies for purposes of settlement the Settlement Class as defined in the Preliminary Approval Order, subject to the exclusions set forth therein. The Court finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the Class Members. In accordance with the terms of the Settlement and the Preliminary Approval Order, the Parties implemented the Notice Plan approved by the Court. GEICO's counsel and Class Counsel have confirmed that the Parties complied with the Notice Plan. As such, the Court grants final approval of the Settlement, and the Parties are directed to consummate the Settlement in accordance with its terms. The Class claims in this Action are dismissed in their entirety, on the merits, with prejudice and without leave to amend, and all members of the Settlement Class, the Releasing Parties, and any of their respective heirs, executors, administrators, partners, agents, and the successors and assigns of each of them, will be forever barred and permanently enjoined from asserting, either directly or indirectly, individually, or in a representative capacity or on behalf of or as part of a class, and whether under State or Federal statutory or common law, any Released Claim against any Released Person. As of the Effective Date, by operation of the entry of the Final Judgment, each Settlement Class Member will be deemed to have fully released, waived, relinquished and discharged, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all Released Claims that the Released Parties may have against all the Released Persons. Having considered such factors as a cross-check, the Court agrees $260,000 in attorneys' fees and costs, which is 26% of the of the settlement value of $1,022,125, is fair and reasonable and approves such amount. All Releasing Parties are barred and enjoined from asserting any Released Claims against GEICO or its affiliates. GEICO and the Released Parties are released from the Released Claims. This Court reserves continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the Parties to this Agreement, including GEICO and Settlement Class Members, to administer, supervise, and enforce this Agreement in accordance with its terms. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal and close this case. A full-text copy of the Court's Ruling and Order dated June 12, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4247h23f from PacerMonitor.com. GILEAD SCIENCES: Myers Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- Amelia Myers and Fatoumata Barry Yapo, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC. AND KITE PHARMA, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-02668-DMR (N.D. Cal., May 3, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the supporting United States Department of Labor regulations, as well as the California Labor Code, California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 9-2001 ("Wage Order 9"), and the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). The Plaintiffs and other FLSA Collective Members are similarly situated in that they are subject to Defendants' common compensation policy, pattern, or practice, including, without limitation, Defendants' failure to properly calculate the regular rate of pay by not including all compensation in overtime premiums, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants. Gilead is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the State of Delaware, and is headquartered in Foster City, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 Email: jsagafi@outtengolden.com - and - Justin M. Swartz, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 Email: jswartz@outtengolden.com HADAF LLC: Zeller Files Suit in W.D. New York --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hadaf LLC. The case is styled as Melissa Zeller, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hadaf LLC doing business as: Brillia, Case No. 6:24-cv-06271-FPG (W.D.N.Y., May 2, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Hadaf LLC doing business as Brillia -- https://discoverbrillia.com/ -- is a holistic anxiety medication program that helps reduce anxiety in children and adults and improves focus and clarity.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Cepler, Esq. DENLEA & CARTON LLP 2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410 White Plains, NY 10604 Phone: (914) 331-0100 Fax: (914) 331-0105 Email: ccepler@denleacarton.com HALAL SHACK MIAMI: Backzkowski Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Halal Shack Miami LLC. The case is styled as Aaron E. Backzkowski, and other similarly situated individuals v. The Halal Shack Miami LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-21754-KMW (S.D. Fla., May 6, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Halal Shack Miami LLC -- https://www.thehalalshack.com/ -- offers authentic middle eastern street food.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Vanessa Ramos-Bigley, Esq. BOND, SCHOENECK AND KING, PLLC 4001 Tamiami Trail North Suite 105 Naples, FL 34103 Phone: (239) 659-3803 Email: kramosbigley@bsk.com - and - Michael D. Billok, Esq. BOND SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC 268 Broadway, Suite 104 Sartoga Springs, NY 12866 Phone: (518) 533-3236 Email: mbillok@bsk.com HISMILE INC: Teeth Products' Efficiency Ads "False," Ledesma Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER LEDESMA and HELEN TANAKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HISMILE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-03626 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its teeth whitening products. According to the complaint, HiSmile drives sales by inundating social media platforms with a high volume of falsified before-and-after advertisements, misleading celebrity endorsements, and deceptive influencer marketing, thereby distorting perceptions and fueling unrealistic expectations of its products. HiSmile furthers this fraud by posting self-sponsored "customer reviews" of its products and having its own employees pretend to be satisfied customers on various social media and shopping platforms. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers suffered damages, says the suit. HiSmile, Inc. is a manufacturer of teeth whitening products, headquartered in Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 Email: sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Collects and Sells Drivers' Data, Miller Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA and VERISK ANALYTICS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-01288 (C.D. Cal., June 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust enrichment and violations of the Wiretap Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The case arises from Defendant Hyundai's practice of collecting its customers' driving behavior data through its "Driving Score" program, and selling that data to Defendant Verisk. Verisk then sold the data to insurance companies, which have used the data as justification to increase drivers' auto insurance rates. Drivers, including the Plaintiff, were not required to explicitly and specifically consent and opt into the Driving Score program, nor were they advised that the Defendants would sell their driving behavior data to insurance companies. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, they have been unjustly enriched at the expense of, and to the detriment of, the Plaintiff and members of the Class and Subclass, says the suit. Hyundai Motor America is an automobile manufacturer, headquartered in Fountain Valley, California. Verisk Analytics, Inc. is a data broker headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip M. Black, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 Email: pblack@wolfpopper.com INSTACART: Sandoval Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Abraham Sandoval, an individual, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals v. INSTACART, a Delaware Corporation; MAPLEBEAR INC., Wb/a INSTACART a Delaware Corporation; and DOES I through 25, Inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2415658 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Bernadino Cty., May 2, 2024), is brought as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wage; failure to pay overtime compensation; reimbursement of employment expenses; unlawful deduction from wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and perm rest periods; failure to furnish accurate wage statements; waiting time penalties; and unfair competition. The Defendants unlawfully misclassified Delivery Drivers as independent contractors; failed to reimburse Delivery Drivers for necessary business expenditures; failed to pay wages for all hours worked by Delivery Drivers; failed to pay Delivery Drivers the applicable legal minimum wage; failed to pay overtime wages due to Delivery Drivers; failed to provide meal and rest periods due to Delivery Drivers; failed to provide the Delivery Drivers With timely and accurate wage and hour statements; failed to pay the Delivery Drivers compensation in a timely manner upon their termination or resignation; failed to maintain complete and accurate payroll records for the Delivery Drivers; wrongfully withheld wages and compensation due to the Delivery Drivers; and committed unfair business practices in an effort to increase profits and to gain an unfair business advantage at the expense Of the Delivery Drivers and the public, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former Delivery Driver or Shopper for Defendant. INSTACART provides logistics and on-demand delivery services of grocery products to its customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. Tamar Chobanian, Esq. BOYAMIAN LAW, INC. 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 547-5300 Facsimile: (818) 547-5678 Email: michael@boyamianlaw.com tamar@boyamianlaw.com - and - Sahag Majarian, Esq. Garen Majarian, Esq. MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC 18250 Ventura Blvd, Tarzana, CA 913564229 Phone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 Email: sahag@majarianlawgroup.com garen@majarianlawgroup.com KRYSTAL FRUITS: Faces Melendez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID MELENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KRYSTAL FRUITS & VEGETABLES, INC. D/B/A KRYSTAL FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, MICHAEL LONGO, and DANNY LONGO, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04255 (E.D.N.Y., June 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide spread-of-hours pay, failure to provide wage notices, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Mr. Melendez was employed at Krystal Fruits & Vegetables from approximately July 2011 until September 2021. Krystal Fruits & Vegetables, Inc., doing business as Krystal Fruits and Vegetables, is a retail and wholesale fruits and vegetables distributor in Syosset, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway, Suite 6085 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 Email: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Weakley Labor Suit in W.D. Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH WEAKLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and AEROJET ROCKETDYNE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00047-NKM (W.D. Va., June 13, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a senior executive administrative assistant from in or about June 2003 until his termination on or about April 11, 2024. Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc. is an aerospace company, with its principal office in Cordova, California. L3Harris Technologies, Inc. is the parent company of Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc. based in Melbourne, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Samantha R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, P.C. 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Email: craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com LAGUNITAS BREWING: McCarthy Files Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lagunitas Brewing Company. The case is styled as Michael McCarthy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lagunitas Brewing Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-02641-SK (C.D. Cal., May 2, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. The Lagunitas Brewing Company -- https://lagunitas.com/ -- founded in 1993 in Petaluma, California, is a subsidiary of Heineken International.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Gerald Gunem, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Ave.. Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: agunem@straussborrelli.com - and - Marisol Corral Mork, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 555 S. Flower St., Ste. 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 689-5137 Email: marisol.mork@squirepb.com LAMAR GOURMET: Faces Valle Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- JAVIER VALLE and PEDRO CAMACHO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LAMAR GOURMET DELI CORP, THIRD AVE DELI GOURMET CORP d/b/a DIALA DELI, ABRAHIM KASSIM, and MARWAN KASSIM, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04547 (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notices, failure to provide accurate wage statements, unpaid spread-of-hours pay, and untimely paid wages. Plaintiffs Valle and Camacho worked for the Defendants as deli workers from in or about 2010 until approximately February 7, 2024, and from on or about April 17, 2019, until April 26, 2023, respectively. Lamar Gourmet Deli Corp is a deli and convenience store operator located at 1570 E. 174th St., Bronx, New York. Third Ave Deli Gourmet Corp, doing business as Diala Deli, is a deli and convenience store operator located at 3214 3rd Ave., Bronx, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Oscar Alvarado, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (718) 269-2207 Facsimile: (718) 559-6517 Email: OAlvarado@SaccoFillas.com LEGACY SAFETY: Roller Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Inspectors --------------------------------------------------------------- CLINT ROLLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEGACY SAFETY & CONSULTING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00604-KK-JFR (D.N.M., June 13, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an inspector from in or about November 2022 until June 2023. Legacy Safety & Consulting, LLC is a safety services company in New Mexico. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 Email: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com LIVANOVA USA: Schultz Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info ----------------------------------------------------------- CRYSTAL SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIVANOVA USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-02276 (S.D. Tex., June 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-part beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's 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 its computer systems following a data breach on or about October 26, 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. LivaNova USA, Inc. is a global medical technology company based in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com grunfeld@kolawyers.com LOYAL SOURCE: Pembrick Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Monique Pembrick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LOYAL SOURCE GOVERNMENT SERVICES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and DOES 1–50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2024-00022267-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on June 17, 2024, and assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-01308. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: Failure to Pay All Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; Meal Period Violations; Rest Period Violations; Failure to Pay All Sick Time; Wage Statement Violations; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael C. Robinson, Jr., Esq. Orion S. Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON DI LANDO A Professional Law Corporation 801 South Grand Avenue, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 229-0100 Facsimile: (213) 229-0114 Email: mrobinson@rdwlaw.com orobinson@rdwlaw.com MA JEWELRY: Underpays Jewelry Store Attendants, Rivero Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- MILENA RIVERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MA JEWELRY CORPORATION, ESMERALDA JEWELRY CORP, ADDIEL ALFONSO, and MARLENE ESCOBAR, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-22303 (S.D. Fla., June 13, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a jewelry store attendant in Miami, Florida from January 03, 2024, through March 18, 2024. Ma Jewelry Corporation is a jewelry retailer in Miami, Florida. Esmeralda Jewelry Corp is a jewelry retailer 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 MDL 2804: SC Rules 5-4 to Reject Purdue Plan, Sackler Releases -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Supreme Court on Thursday, June 27, resolved a three-year legal battle in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. The issue in the case was whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, a release that extinguishes claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, without the claimants' consent. The High Court in a 5-4 decision struck down the plan of reorganization of Purdue Pharma on the grounds that it contained impermissible 'Sackler Releases' that were outside the power of the Bankruptcy Court to grant. The SC decision notes that the Sacklers have not filed for bankruptcy or placed all their assets on the table for distribution to creditors, yet they seek what essentially amounts to a discharge. "[N]othing in present law authorizes the Sackler discharge," Associate Justice Gorsuch writes for the majority. Between 1999 and 2019, approximately 247,000 people in the U.S. died from prescription-opioid overdoses. Owned and controlled by the Sackler family, Purdue began marketing OxyContin, an opioid prescription pain reliever, in the mid-1990s. After Purdue earned billions of dollars in sales on the drug, in 2007 one of its affiliates pleaded guilty to a federal felony for misbranding OxyContin as a less-addictive, less-abusable alternative to other pain medications. Thousands of lawsuits followed. The SC decision notes that, fearful that the litigation would eventually impact them directly, the Sacklers initiated a "milking program," withdrawing from Purdue approximately $11 billion -- roughly 75% of the firm's total assets -- over the next decade. Those withdrawals left Purdue in a significantly weakened financial state. And in 2019, Purdue filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. During that process, the Sacklers proposed to return approximately $4.3 billion to Purdue's bankruptcy estate. In exchange, the Sackers sought a judicial order releasing the family from all opioid-related claims and enjoining victims from bringing such claims against them in the future. The bankruptcy court approved Purdue's proposed reorganization plan, including its provisions concerning the Sackler discharge. But the district court vacated that decision, holding that nothing in the law authorizes bankruptcy courts to extinguish claims against third parties like the Sacklers, without the claimants' consent. A divided panel of the Second Circuit reversed the district court and revived the bankruptcy court's order approving a modified reorganization plan. "Today's decision is a narrow one. Nothing in the opinion should be construed to call into question consensual third-party releases offered in connection with a bankruptcy reorganization plan. Nor does the Court express a view on what qualifies as a consensual release or pass upon a plan that provides for the full satisfaction of claims against a third-party nondebtor. Additionally, because this case involves only a stayed reorganization plan, the Court does not address whether its reading of the bankruptcy code would justify unwinding reorganization plans that have already become effective and been substantially consummated," Gorsuch clarifies. Justices Thomas, Alito, Barrett, and Jackson joined. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined. Justice Kavanaugh calls the majority's decision "wrong on the law and devastating for more than 100,000 opioid victims and their families," saying the ruling restricts the long-established authority of bankruptcy courts to fashion fair and equitable relief for mass-tort victims. "As a result, opioid victims are now deprived of the substantial monetary recovery that they long fought for and finally secured after years of litigation. Bankruptcy seeks to solve a collective-action problem and prevent a race to the courthouse by individual creditors who, if successful, could obtain all of a company's assets, leaving nothing for all the other creditors. The bankruptcy system works to preserve a bankrupt company's limited assets and to then fairly and equitably distribute those assets among the creditors -- and in mass-tort bankruptcies, among the victims," Justice Kavanaugh writes. According to Mathew Gold, partner with Kleinberg Kaplan, for the creditors of Purdue Pharma this decision has the effect of invalidating the existing complex series of interrelated compromises among Purdue's creditors and between them and the Sackler family, and will force them to either renegotiate those agreements without non-consensual Sackler Releases or embark on a series of litigations against the Sacklers. It is expected that the parties will engage in a high-stakes mediation over the next two months to determine whether a new series of agreements can be reached. Kleinberg Kaplan represents the State of Washington, which played a pivotal role in spearheading an appeal from the confirmation order and then in negotiating during the appeal a settlement with the Sacklers that added over a billion dollars to creditor recoveries. MDL 2873: Bayles Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemicals Exposure --------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD BAYLES, on behalf of himself and those 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; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03468-RMG (D.S.C., June 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, 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. 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. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed with hypothyroidism, alleges the suit. 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. The Bayles 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: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Beal Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemicals Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD BEAL, on behalf of himself and those 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; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03475-RMG (D.S.C., June 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, 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. 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. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed with kidney cancer, alleges the suit. 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. The Beal 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: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Bickford Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------- TERRENCE BICKFORD, on behalf of himself and those 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; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03481-RMG (D.S.C., June 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, 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. 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. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, alleges the suit. 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. The Bickford 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: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Bisby Alleges Injury Due to Exposure of Toxic Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN BISBY, on behalf of himself and those 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; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03491-RMG (D.S.C., June 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, 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. 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. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, alleges the suit. 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. The Bisby 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: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Breedlove Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals --------------------------------------------------------- LEIGHTON BREEDLOVE, on behalf of himself and those 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; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03487-RMG (D.S.C., June 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, 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. 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. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, alleges the suit. 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. The Breedlove 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: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Conner Alleges Injury Due to Film-Forming Foams Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------------ KEITH CONNER, on behalf of himself and those 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; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03464-RMG (D.S.C., June 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, 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. 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. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis and Lupus anticoagulant, alleges the suit. 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. The Conner 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: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Crocco Alleges Injury Due to Film-Forming Foams Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHARLES CROCCO, on behalf of himself and those 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; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03483-RMG (D.S.C., June 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, 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. 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. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, alleges the suit. 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. The Crocco 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: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Davis Alleges Injury to Film-Forming Foams Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------- NORMAN DAVIS, on behalf of himself and those 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; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03471-RMG (D.S.C., June 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, 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. 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. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, alleges the suit. 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. The Davis 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: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Bailey Says -------------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE BAILEY, on behalf of himself and those 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; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03477-RMG (D.S.C., June 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, 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. 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. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed with prostate and colon cancers, alleges the suit. 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. The Bailey 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: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Bonneau Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MITCHELL BONNEAU, on behalf of himself and those 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; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03485-RMG (D.S.C., June 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, 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. 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. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, alleges the suit. 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. The Bonneau 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: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Edwards Says --------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL EDWARDS, on behalf of himself and those 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; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03463-RMG (D.S.C., June 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, 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. 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. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, alleges the suit. 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. The Edwards 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: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Hill Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL HILL, on behalf of himself and those 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; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03466-RMG (D.S.C., June 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, 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. 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. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed with kidney cancer, alleges the suit. 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. The Hill 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: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Johnson Says --------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and those 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; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03490-RMG (D.S.C., June 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, 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. 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. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, alleges the suit. 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. The Johnson 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: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Faces Schnyder Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN SCHNYDER, on behalf of himself and those 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; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03461-RMG (D.S.C., June 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, 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. 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. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, alleges the suit. 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. The Schnyder 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: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Lafountain Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------- JAMES LAFOUNTAIN, on behalf of himself and those 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; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03460-RMG (D.S.C., June 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, 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. 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. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed with bladder cancer and hypothyroidism, alleges the suit. 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. The Lafountain 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: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 3083: Faces Rodda Suit Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHERRIE RODDA, CRISTINA KAVANAUGH, and FELICIA CRUSE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLTOK, INC., VIRGIN PULSE, INC., BAYLOR SCOTT & WHITE HEALTH, PREMIER HEALTH SYSTEM, and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-11566 (D. Mass., June 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, disclosure of non-public information, declaratory relief, and violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, and Massachusetts General Laws. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated patients stored within Progress Software's MOVEit system following a data breach in May 2023. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. The Rodda case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3083, In Re: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul G. Levenson. Welltok, Inc. is a software-as-a-service (Saas) patient engagement company based in Providence, Rhode Island. Virgin Pulse, Inc. is a software development company based in Providence, Rhode Island. Baylor Scott & White Health is a healthcare system headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Premier Health System is a healthcare system headquartered in Dayton, Ohio. Progress Software Corporation is a software company based in Burlington, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristen A. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Fl. Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 Email: kristenj@hbsslaw.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE, PC 1229 Tyler St., NE, Ste. 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5933 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 Email: emdrake@bm.net - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Fl. Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 Email: 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 Email: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com - and - Karen H. Riebel, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Ave. S., Ste. 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 612-339-0981 Email: khriebel@locklaw.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 Email: cshaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com MOBILE MEDIC: Oliver Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDIN OLIVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOBILE MEDIC AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00180-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss., June 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case arises from the Defendant's termination of more than 50 employees who were based out of the Gulfport Location, including the Plaintiff, without providing the requisite 60-day notice pursuant to the WARN Act. Moreover, the Defendant failed to include the employees' nondiscretionary, retention bonuses into its calculation of each employee's regular rate of pay in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff worked for Mobile Medic as a paramedic up until his termination on May 24, 2024. Mobile Medic Ambulance Service, Inc. is a provider of ambulance and other medical services in Mississippi. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Simpson, Esq. LANGSTON & LOTT, PLLC 100 South Main Street Post Office Box 382 Booneville, MS 38829 Telephone: (662) 728-9733 Facsimile: (662) 728-1992 Email: jsimpson@langstonlott.com MR. BAR-B-Q PRODUCTS: Ryan Files Suit in N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mr. Bar-B-Q Products LLC. The case is styled as Darren Ryan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mr. Bar-B-Q Products LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-02605-BLF (N.D. Cal., May 1, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Mr. Bar-B-Q -- https://mrbarbq.com/ -- is a leading brand of innovative, premier barbecue accessories and outdoor lifestyle tools at an excellent value.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Highway, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: (949) 270-2798 Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - John Glugoski, Esq. Matthew Righetti, Esq. RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C. 220 Halleck St., Suite 220 San Francisco, CA 94129 Phone: (415) 983-0900 Email: jglugoski@righettilaw.com matt@righettilaw.com NEW YORK: Anthony Sues Over Unlawful Solitary Confinement --------------------------------------------------------- Maurice Anthony, Corey Allen, Anna Adams, Andy Gneco, Andre Greene, Eric Lee, Stephanie Peña, Boubacare Tunkara, and Altereak Witherspoon, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, DANIEL F. MARTUSCELLO III, Acting Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH, and ANNE MARIE SULLIVAN, Commissioner, New York State Office of Mental Health, Case No. 512871/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., May 7, 2024), is brought on behalf of two overlapping groups of incarcerated people with disabilities whom Defendants subject to solitary confinement in violation of The Humane Alternatives to Long Term Solitary Confinement Act ("HALT"). HALT prohibits the use of segregated confinement in New York's prisons for people with disabilities and creates rehabilitative alternatives to solitary that are proven to reduce violence. But, since HALT's passage, Defendants have refused to implement this law. HALT's disability exclusion bars Defendants from placing any person with a disability in segregated confinement for any length of time. The exclusion is informed by penological and medical consensus concerning the disastrous--and frequently irreversible--effects of solitary confinement on people with disabilities. As one Plaintiff described it, solitary can feel like being locked in a casket that you cannot escape. The Plaintiffs ask this Court to hold Defendants to account for their unlawful conduct that violates HALT's disability-based exclusion. For centuries, people with disabilities have been harmed by the deprivations and indignities of solitary confinement. As one Plaintiff summarized: "Solitary is destroying me but I'm trying to stay strong." HALT sought to end this harm once and for all. Without Court intervention, however, Plaintiffs and the classes they represent will continue to have their legal rights under HALT violated, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have been incarcerated by DOCCS. Daniel F. Martuscello III is the acting Commissioner of DOCCS and is thus responsible for its administration and operation, including its compliance with New York state law.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Riley Doyle Evans, Esq. Katherine Haas, Esq. Stefen Short, Esq. Lauren Stephens-Davidowitz, Esq. THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY PRISONERS' RIGHTS PROJECT 49 Thomas St., 10th Floor New York, NY 10013 Phone: (212) 577-3530 Email: revans@legal-aid.org khaas@legal-aid.org sshort@legal-aid.org lstephensdavidowitz@legal-aid.org - and - Brittany Castle, Esq. Joshua Rosenthal, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 655 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 644-8644 Email: bcastle@dralegal.org jrosenthal@dralegal.org - and - Rosa Lee Bichell, Esq. 2001 Center Street, 3rd Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 Phone: (510) 529-3432 Email: rbichell@dralegal.org - and - Jeffrey L. Kessler, Esq. Eva W. Cole, Esq. Michelle D. Tuma, Esq. Gabriela B. Wolk, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 Park Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10166 Phone: (212) 294-6700 Email: JKessler@winston.com EWCole@winston.com Mtuma@winston.com GWolk@winston.com NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: $282K in Fees & Costs Awarded in Olson Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled WOLFGANG OLSON, Plaintiff v. NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT, INC. and NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01616-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Plaintiff $209,859 in attorney's fees and $71,835 in costs. The matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Wolfgang Olson's motion for attorney's fees and costs, and motion to alter or amend judgment. The case began as a putative class action with three named Plaintiffs: Seth Villafan, Josh Graves, and Wolfgang Olson. On June 14, 2023, the Court dismissed Mr. Villafan's, Mr. Grave's, and the putative class claims. Only Plaintiff Wolfgang Olson's claims remained. Olson's claims arose from his purchase of a 2001 Dodge Ram 3500 pickup truck ("the truck") from Defendant Northwest Motorsport, Inc. Defendant Northwest Motorsport, LLC, is Defendant Northwest Motorsport, Inc.'s successor-in-interest. At the time Olson purchased the truck, he signed, among other documents, a "Vehicle Buyer's Order" containing a prevailing party attorney's fees shifting provision. He alleged that the truck had a modified emissions control system, that these modifications caused the truck to be noncompliant with various federal and state regulations, that the modifications caused the truck's mechanical condition and resale value to deteriorate at an accelerated rate, and that the modifications caused the truck to lose coverage under the vehicle service contract he purchased from the Defendants. He proceeded to trial on claims against the Defendants for violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), breach of contract, breach of implied warranties, and negligence. After a two-day bench trial, the Court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Court found that Olson had proved his CPA and breach of contract claims but had not proved his breach of implied warranties or negligence claims. The Court awarded Olson $3,999 in damages for the amount he paid for the service contract and $182 in damages for the amount he paid to an emissions control repair shop, Gateway Auto Repair. The Court concluded that Olson was not entitled to treble damages under the CPA. The Court also concluded that, under the CPA and the prevailing party fee clause in the "Vehicle Buyer's Order," Olson was entitled to an award of his attorney's fees and costs. Mr. Olson was represented throughout this case and at trial by Eugene N. Bolin, Jr., Esq., of the Law Offices of Eugene N. Bolin, Jr., P.S., and by Guy W. Beckett, Esq., of the law firm Berry & Beckett PLLP. Olson has now filed a motion for his attorney's fees and costs, and a motion for the Court to alter its judgment for an award of treble damages and prejudgment interest. Plaintiff Olson moves for an award of attorney's fees and costs totaling $514,658.83. Of that amount, $379,718.75 is attorney's fees for services provided by the Law Offices of Eugene N. Bolin, Jr., P.S., $48,105.00 is attorney's fees for the services provided by Berry & Beckett PLLP, and $86,835.08 is for litigation costs, including expert witness fees. The Defendants suggest that Olson be awarded no more than $52,942.50 in attorney's fees. Mr. Olson submitted Mr. Bolin's and Mr. Beckett's billing records to show that their hourly rates and time expended on this case were reasonable. Mr. Bolin billed his services at a rate of $425 per hour, the services of two contract attorneys at $325 and $350 per hour, and the services of his paralegals at $200 per hour; Mr. Beckett billed his services at a rate of $450 per hour. The Defendants do not challenge these hourly rates. In light of Mr. Bolin's and Mr. Beckett's experience, and based on the Court's knowledge of prevailing hourly rates for attorneys and legal services in the area, the Court finds Mr. Bolin's and Mr. Beckett's hourly rates to be reasonable. The Defendants contend that the 1,209.52 hours sought for Mr. Bolin are not reasonable because much of the time is unrelated to the claims that Olson succeeded on at trial or are otherwise duplicative. The Court agrees with the Defendants that Mr. Bolin's total hours are not reasonable. As the Defendants outline in their response brief and related declaration, many of the hours Olson seeks for Mr. Bolin are related solely to the dismissed claims of Mr. Villafan, Mr. Graves, and/or the putative class. Judge Zilly opines that Olson is not entitled to attorney's fees for work done for dismissed claims or plaintiffs or done for claims which Olson did not succeed on at trial. Olson fails to allocate Mr. Bolin's hours to the unsuccessful claims and the Court's review indicates that at least half of Mr. Bolin's hours went to dismissed or otherwise unsuccessful claims. Accordingly, the Court finds that a reduction in the hours awarded to Mr. Bolin is warranted, and the Court will reduce the fees for Mr. Bolin's time to $189,859.37. Likewise, Judge Zilly notes, a substantial portion of the 106.9 hours sought for Mr. Beckett are related solely to claims that were dismissed prior to trial. Of Mr. Beckett's remaining billed hours, many are duplicative of the hours billed by Mr. Bolin. Mr. Beckett did, however, participate in this case through all its phases, including at trial, and Olson is entitled to some amount of attorney's fees for Mr. Beckett's work. Accordingly, the Court will reduce the amount of attorney's fee awarded to Olson for Mr. Beckett's time by $28,105.00, bringing the amount of attorney's fees awarded for Mr. Beckett's time to $20,000. Mr. Olson also seeks an award of $86,835.08 for costs he incurred in this litigation. The Defendants raise no objections to the majority of the costs Olson seeks. The Defendants do, however, argue that some of the expert witness fees Olson is seeking are for reports that were prepared and disclosed after this case's expert witness disclosure deadline and that were stricken by the Court. Judge Zilly holds that expert reports that were stricken from the record were of no use to Olson during this litigation and he is not entitled to an award of costs for those reports. Nor is Olson entitled to an award of costs for work performed by the experts in relation to the dismissed claims of Mr. Villafan, Mr. Graves, or the putative class. Accordingly, the Court reduces Olson's costs by $15,000. In total, Olson is awarded $209,859.37 in attorney's fees, consisting of $189,859.37 for services provided by Mr. Bolin, $20,000 for services provide by Mr. Beckett, and $71,835.08 in costs. Mr. Olson also moves the Court to amend its judgment to award him treble damages for prevailing on his CPA claim. In its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Court explicitly found that Olson was not entitled to treble damages under the CPA. The Court treats Olson's motion to amend the judgment for an award of treble damages as a motion for reconsideration. Because whether to award treble damages to a prevailing CPA plaintiff is within the discretion of the Court, the Court finds that it was not manifest error to deny Olson treble damages. Further, the Court advised Olson's counsel before trial that, even if successful, Olson's damages were very limited. The Court, in its discretion, concludes that the case does not justify treble damages under all the circumstances. Hence, Olson's motion to amend or alter the judgment is denied in part to the extent that it seeks an award of treble damages. Mr. Olson also contends that an award of prejudgment interest is warranted here because his damages are determinable with exactness and without reliance on the Court's opinion or discretion. The Defendants do not dispute this contention but nonetheless offer two reasons to justify no award of prejudgment interest. First, the Defendants contend that because Olson never made a claim under the purchased service contract, he was never deprived of the use of the money he paid for the service contract. Second, the Defendants argue that Olson should not get prejudgment interest for the time period during which the case was sought to be certified as a class action. Judge Zilly notes that the Defendants offer neither case law nor any reasoning for why the time period when this case was a putative class action should be excluded from the prejudgment interest calculation. The Court finds that Olson is entitled to an award of prejudgment interest from the date his claims arose through the date of judgment. Having found that Olson is entitled to an award of prejudgment interest, the Court must set the interest rate. Washington law allows for, and Olson proposes, a prejudgment interest rate of 12 percent. The Defendants do not dispute that 12 percent is an appropriate prejudgment interest rate and, in fact, use it as the interest rate in their own prejudgment interest calculations. The Court sets the prejudgment interest rate at 12 percent per year. Applying the prejudgment interest rate of 12 percent per year to Olson's total damages of $4,181, results in a prejudgment interest award of $3,295.96. For these reasons, the Court orders that Plaintiff Wolfgang Olson's motion for attorney's fees and costs is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted in part and Olson is awarded $209,859.37 in attorney's fees, consisting of $189,859.37 for services provided by Mr. Bolin, $20,000 for services provided by Mr. Beckett, and $71,835.08 in costs. The motion is denied as to all other relief sought therein. Plaintiff Wolfgang Olson's motion to alter or amend the judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to Olson's request for prejudgment interest. Olson is awarded $3,295.96 in prejudgment interest. The motion is denied as to Olson's request to modify the judgment to award treble damages. The Clerk is directed to enter an amended judgment consistent with this Order. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 12, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc7anyrz from PacerMonitor.com. PACIFIC MARKET: Brown Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Mackenzie Brown, Meiling Robinson, Shea Ritchie, and Nora McCarl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PACIFIC MARKET INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 2:24-cv-01765 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on May 2, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00635-TL to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Pacific Market International, LLC manufactures, markets, and designs food and beverage gear.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Davit Avagyan, Esq. John M. Rushing, Esq. Ryan P. McCarl, Esq. Elisabeth Grace Nations, Esq. RUSHING MCCARL LLP (CA) 2219 Main Street, Ste 144 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Phone: (818) 351-6510 Email: info@rushingmccarl.com ryan.mccarl@rushingmccarl.com elisabeth.nations@rushingmccarl.com - and - Jason T Dennett, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Ave., Ste. 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 682-5600 Fax: (206) 682-2992 Email: jdennett@tousley.com The Defendant is represented by: James F. Speyer, Esq. E. Alex Beroukhim, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844 Phone: +1 213.243.4000 Facsimile: +1 213.243.4199 Email: james.speyer@arnoldporter.com alex.beroukhim@arnoldporter.com PERRY JOHNSON: O'Neill Sues Over Compromised Patients' Info ----------------------------------------------------------- BRIDGET O'NEILL, KIRK MOSES, MICHAEL NEWTON, NOEL CARTER, MARTIN KURTEV, and IZABELA DEBOWCZYK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PERRY JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., COOK COUNY HEALTH & HOSPITALS SYSTEM, and COOK COUNTY HEALTH, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04963 (N.D. Ill., June 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence; breach of implied contract; unjust enrichment, in the alternative; bailment; and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated patients stored within their data systems following a data breach. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs 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. Cook County Health is an Illinois hospital system with its principal place of business at 4800 W. Chicago Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. Cook County Health & Hospitals System is a healthcare services provider with its principal place of business in Cook County, Illinois. Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc. is a provider of medical transcription services to various healthcare organizations with its headquarters in Troy, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 Email: tom@attorneyzim.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Facsimile: (212) 202-4322 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com - and - Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 Email: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 665-0204 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 239-4778 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 Email: aberry@justice4you.com PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Devine Sues Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------- Christopher Devine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Philadelphia Inquirer, LLC, Case No. 240500884 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., May 3, 2024), is brought arising from the Defendant's recent data breach ("Data Breach") resulting from its failure to implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices. The Plaintiff brings this Complaint against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including, but not limited to: names, Social Security numbers, Driver's license or state ID numbers, financial account information, credit card numbers, debit card numbers, medical and health information, and account usernames, passwords, and other access codes ("Private Information"). Former and current subscribers to, and employees at, the Inquirer are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private Information, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities. Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Plaintiff received a Notice of Data Breach letter (the "Notice Letter") from Defendant on or about April 29, 2024. According to this Notice Letter, Defendant learned of a cybersecurity incident on May 11, 2023, and pursued an investigation into the threat. After the incident was initially detected, it took several days for Defendant to correct the problem and secure its systems. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and their utter failure to protect its employees' and subscribers' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard its employees' and subscribers' Private Information and give the victims timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received the Notice Letter, via U.S. mail, directly from Defendant, dated April 29, 2024. The Defendant is the purveyor of a daily newspaper which circulates throughout Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, and Maryland reaching more than 350,000 people every day.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq. SHUB & JOHNS LLC Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (610) 477-8380 Email: bjohns@shublawyers.com sholbrook@shublawyers.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DE MARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 651-3700 Fax: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com PIZZA NETWORK: Hernandez Suit Seeks Restaurant Cooks' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ VICTOR HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIZZA NETWORK INTERNATIONAL INC. and JOHN BERNTSEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04251 (E.D.N.Y., June 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notice at the time of hiring, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Mr. Hernandez was employed by the Defendants as a cook from approximately August 2011 until June 8, 2024. Pizza Network International Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator based in Oakdale, New York. [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 POSC PAC: Robbins Sues Over Unlawful Pre-Recorded Calls ------------------------------------------------------- Zachary Robbins, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. POSC PAC D/B/A NATIONAL POLICE OFFICERS ALLIANCE PAC, Case No. 1:24-cv-11188-RGS (D. Mass., May 3, 2024), is brought involving a campaign by the Defendant to market its political action committee through the use of pre-recorded calls in plain violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the "TCPA"). The recipients of POSC PAC's illegal calls, which include Plaintiff and the proposed class, are entitled to damages under the TCPA and because the technology used by POSC PAC makes prerecorded calls en masse, the appropriate vehicle for their recovery is a class action lawsuit. The Plaintiff received a pre-recorded call from the Defendant on at least April 4, 2024 at 12:22 PM. The Plaintiff did not consent to the call, never requested the call, and the call was not necessitated by an emergency. The aforementioned call to the Plaintiff was unwanted. The call was a non-consensual encounter. Plaintiff and all members of the Class, have been harmed by the acts of Defendant because their privacy has been violated and they were annoyed and harassed. Plaintiff and the Class Members were also harmed by use of their telephone power and network bandwidth and the intrusion on their telephone that occupied it from receiving legitimate communications, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received a pre-recorded call from the Defendant. POSC PAC d/b/a National Police Officers Alliance PAC is a Virginia based Political Action Committee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (617) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Sued Over Unlawful Collection of Information ------------------------------------------------------------------ Emily Cherkin, on behalf of herself and as parent and guardian of her minor child, S.G., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, David Concepcion, on behalf of himself and as parent and guardian of his minor children, L.M.C. and M.M.C., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., (), is brought addresses the unlawful practices of PowerSchool which systematically violates the fundamental rights of children and their families by collecting and monetizing their personal information without effective consent. PowerSchool, without effective consent, collects, stores, analyzes, and shares students' sensitive data, which it acquires through its educational technology products that it sells to schools and school districts. The information PowerSchool takes from students is virtually unlimited. It includes everything from educational records and behavioral history to health data and information about a child's family circumstances. PowerSchool collects this highly sensitive information under the guise of educational support, but in fact collects it for its own commercial gain. In addition to the nonconsensual collection of users' personal information, PowerSchool violates the rights of its users by using that information to build its own products and by selling it to third parties. PowerSchool uses this information to build dossiers on children that PowerSchool and its customers use to manipulate and make decisions about them in areas such as college and career planning. PowerSchool also feeds that information into its proprietary artificial intelligence systems. Putting profits over people, PowerSchool ignores families' fundamental rights, including their right to privacy and right to be free from nonconsensual exploitation, thus inflicting irreparable harm on students and their families. The wrongdoing in this case outstrips that of other cases involving tech companies that exceed the consent they obtain from adult users in non-compulsory settings. By contrast, PowerSchool has built a billion-dollar corporation by collecting and exploiting the information of children in compulsory education environments. PowerSchool's pervasive surveillance and commercial exploitation without consent transforms schools from safe havens of learning into conduits for unchecked corporate data mining. By sending their children to school as the law requires, parents do not forfeit their right to decide what personal information may be extracted from their children and themselves and how that information may be used. PowerSchool must be held to account for violating these fundamental rights, says the complaint. The Minor Plaintiffs attend school in the Seattle Public School District. PowerSchool is a technology company deeply entrenched in schools and school districts across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: (510) 725-3000 Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com - and - Julie Liddell, Esq. EDTECH LAW CENTER PLLC P.O. Box 300488 Austin, TX 78705 Phone: (737) 351-5855 Email: julie.liddell@edtech.law - and - Robert B. Carey, Esq. Leonard W. Aragon, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Phone: (602) 840-5900 Email: rob@hbsslaw.com leonard@hbsslaw.com PRAIRIE DU CHIEN: Doe Suit Remanded to Crawford County Cir. Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin issued an Opinion and Order remanding the lawsuit captioned JANE DOE and JANE ROE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRAIRIE DU CHIEN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC. D/B/A CROSSING RIVERS HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00067-wmc (W.D. Wis.), to the Circuit Court for Crawford County. Crossing Rivers is a comprehensive community health center in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin. Crossing Rivers maintains an online platform that allows its patients to receive healthcare services. Doe and Roe, who both reside in Prairie du Chien, are Crossing Rivers patients and use its website to communicate confidential information related to their treatment. In this putative class action, Plaintiffs Jane Doe and Jane Roe claim that Defendant Prairie du Chien Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., doing business as Crossing Rivers Health, allowed the use of tracking technologies on Crossing Rivers' websites to transmit personally identifying information and protected health information to third parties without patients' consent in violation of their Wisconsin statutory and common law medical privacy rights. Plaintiffs Doe and Roe originally filed this action in Crawford County Circuit Court on Dec. 19, 2023, but Crossing Rivers removed it to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1), commonly referred to as the "federal officer removal statute." Doe and Roe then moved to remand this case and receive attorney's fees for challenging a "frivolous" removal. Crossing Rivers later moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' initial complaint and their amended complaint. The Court concludes that removal was improper because Crossing Rivers was not a "federal officer" when it built its patient portal and website. Accordingly, the Court will grant the Plaintiffs' motion in part, deny Crossing Rivers' motions to dismiss as moot, and remand this case to the Crawford County Circuit Court, following its recent precedent in two, nearly identical cases, Doe v. Gundersen Lutheran Health Sys., Inc., No. 23-cv-694-wmc, 2024 WL 489327 (W.D. Wis. Feb. 8, 2024), and Doe v. Prairie Ridge Health, Inc., No. 23-cv-426-jdp, 2024 WL 1191108 (W.D. Wis. March 20, 2024), as well as the other district courts in the Seventh Circuit, the Courts of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Doe v. BJC Health Sys., 89 F.4th 1037 (8th Cir. 2023), the Third Circuit, Mohr v. Trustees of Univ. of Pennsylvania, 93 F.4th 100 (3d Cir. 2024), and the Fifth Circuit, Martin v. LCMC Health Holdings, 101 F.4th 410 (5th Cir. May 13, 2024), in addition to the vast majority of district courts across the country. Although it presents an increasingly close question, the Court will also deny the Plaintiffs' request for an award of attorney fees at this point. While the Plaintiffs appear to concede in their reply that Crossing Rivers is a "person" under the statute, they argue Crossing Rivers has not shown that it is acting under a federal officer's or agency's authority by creating and maintaining its patient portal. The Court agrees. As the Court explained in its opinion in Gundersen Health, multiple district courts, including several in this circuit, have similarly considered whether a private health care provider's facilitation and voluntary maintenance of an online patient portal to access health records is sufficient to support removal of a state lawsuit to federal court under Section 1442(a)(1). Indeed, aside from a few, early outliers, nearly all courts have concluded that merely participating in the Meaningful Use Program is not enough to form a basis for federal officer removal. To the extent Crossing Rivers' participation in the Meaningful Use Program may support the government's broad goal for patients to have online access to their medical records, Judge Conley says this is decidedly not a basic governmental function being fulfilled. Nor is Crossing Rivers' patient portal a product that the government necessarily needs. Finally, Judge Conley explains, the fact that the Meaningful Use Program prescribes guidelines for participants wishing to receive certain government payments and requires reports to assess their compliance does not go beyond simple compliance because the program is also a voluntary one. Thus, there is no indication that the government intentionally outsourced or delegated the creation of a patient portal to Crossing Rivers, nor that it compelled or intended for Crossing Rivers to do so, much less that in authorizing a voluntary program, the government intended Crossing Rivers to harness its patients' personal medical portal as a money-making machine by marketing goods or services for itself or other private actors. Accordingly, the Court finds Crossing Rivers has not shown that the federal government exercised the type of tight control that would bring its conduct within the statute's scope. Put simply, Crossing Rivers is not producing or operating any patient portal for the government; absent private action, the government itself would not provide this service. Accordingly, the Court will grant the Plaintiffs' motion in part and remand this case to state court. Finally, the Plaintiffs also ask the Court to award attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c) because the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. Despite the overwhelming number of courts to reject positions identical to those of Crossing Rivers elsewhere in the country, Judge Conley opines it is not yet clearly established within this circuit that the hospital's arguments are foreclosed, although that pronouncement appears close. Accordingly, the Court will not award attorney's fees against the Defendant in this case. For reasons set forth in the Court's Opinion and Order, Judge Conley rules as follows: 1) The Plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court is granted in part and denied in part; 2) The Defendant's motions to dismiss are denied as moot without prejudice; 3) The Clerk of Court is directed to remand this case to the Circuit Court for Crawford County; and 4) The Plaintiffs are entitled to their ordinary costs as awarded by the Clerk of Court, but not to an award of attorney's fees on the facts of this case. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated June 12, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/s26hbuu3 from PacerMonitor.com. PRESSLER FELT: Wilson Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed PRESSLER, FELT & WARSHAW, LLP. The case is styled as Toni V. Wilson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PRESSLER, FELT & WARSHAW, LLP, ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05766-CPO-AMD (D.N.J., May 1, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Pressler, Felt, & Warshaw LLP -- https://pfwattorneys.com/ -- is a New Jersey based debt collection law firm that operates in multiple states, including New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq. Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Phone: (973) 227-5900 Fax: (973) 244-0019 Email: bwolf@legaljones.com jkj@legaljones.com SHOPS ON OLD: Disabled Can't Access Property, Pardo Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHOPS ON OLD CUTLER, LLC and ALAGUS LLC d/b/a ALANIE'S OSTERIA, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-22301 (S.D. Fla., June 13, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiff, and other similarly situated mobility impaired persons, by denying access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of its property, as prohibited by the ADA. The Defendants' property has architectural barriers in parking and entrance access and path of travel. As a result of the aforementioned discrimination through repeated exposure to architectural barriers, the Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, discrimination, injury and damage. Shops On Old Cutler, LLC is a commercial property owner and operator at 7290 SW 168th Street, Palmetto Bay, Florida. Alagus LLC, doing business as Alanie's Osteria, is a commercial restaurant owner and operator located in Palmetto Bay, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com amejias@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com SIRIUS XM: Kirkpatrick Sues Over Music Plan Price's Deceptive Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- KARA KIRKPATRICK, GILLIAN MAXFIELD, ANNA DEMARCO, and CODY MICHAEL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00955-SB (D. Ore., June 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Unlawful Trade Practices Act and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive pricing scheme of falsely advertising its music plans at lower prices than it actually charges. The Defendant fails to include in its advertised prices the amount of its invented "U.S. Music Royalty Fee," which increases the true plan price by 21.4 percent above the advertised price for the plans. The Defendant's sign-up process, automatic renewal process, and policy of not sending monthly or ongoing billing notices or invoices are deliberately designed to prevent subscribers from learning of the U.S. Music Royalty Fee. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated Oregon subscribers suffered damages. Sirius XM Radio Inc. is a provider of satellite radio and internet-only streaming plans, with its principal place of business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Che Corrington, Esq. Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. HATTIS & LUKACS 11711 SE 8th St., Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone: (425) 233-8650 Email: che@hattislaw.com dan@hattislaw.com - and - Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 5 Greentree Centre, Suite 410 525 Route 73 N. Marlton, NJ 08057 Telephone: (856) 797-9951 Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com STEVE CORSI: Must Respond to Filyaw Class Cert Bid by July 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Filyaw v. Corsi, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-03108 (D. Neb., Filed June 11, 2024) the Court entered an order granting unopposed motion to extend. -- The Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff's motion to certify class on or before July 1, 2024. -- Any reply shall be filed in accordance with the local rules. The nature of suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights.[CC] TAMPA FAMILY: Vazquez Seeks Unpaid OT for Maintenance Technicians ----------------------------------------------------------------- SERGUEY R. VAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAMPA FAMILY HEALTH CENTERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-01434 (M.D. Fla., June 13, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a ground maintenance technician from October 15, 2018, to April 29, 2024. Tampa Family Health Centers, Inc. is a provider of integrated health care services in Tampa, 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 TEGRIA HOLDINGS: Chery Suit Parties Must Resolve Issues by July 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled RICARDO CHERY, et al., Plaintiffs v. TEGRIA HOLDINGS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00612-MLP (W.D. Wash.), Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, directs the parties to provide a joint status report by July 12, 2024, addressing certain issues in their currently proposed settlement. Plaintiffs Ricardo Chery, Marcus McFarland, and Jasmine Siggers have filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. They seek preliminary approval of a settlement disposing of their claims that Defendant Tegria Holdings LLC violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and state labor laws. They seek to certify a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for settlement purposes, as well as an FLSA collective action. Having reviewed the proposed settlement, the Court has determined that certain issues must be addressed before preliminary approval may be considered. Judge Peterson finds that the proposed settlement fails to allocate proceeds between the FLSA claims and the state law claims. A hybrid settlement such as this one must create separate funds for payment of the Rule 23 claims and the FLSA claims. Judge Peterson also finds that the proposed settlement provides a deficient procedure for FLSA opt-in, and that the Plaintiffs have not explained why it is impossible or impracticable to determine each class or collective action member's actual losses rather than rely on a proxy based on the number of weeks each employee worked. The Plaintiffs must explain why a damages model is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to provide a joint status report addressing the identified issues, either showing cause why the Court should not deny approval of the currently proposed settlement or providing a revised settlement agreement, by July 12, 2024. The Clerk is directed to re-note the Plaintiffs' Motion to July 12, 2024. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 12, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5sz86xhe from PacerMonitor.com. TOMMY BAHAMA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Wilkins Due Nov. 15 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW WILKINS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TOMMY BAHAMA R&R HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-05084-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joshua Wolson entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. On or before July 5, 2024, the Parties shall meet and confer to set aside dates to hold open for depositions before the close of discovery. 2. All motions to amend the Complaint and to join or add additional parties shall be filed on or before June 28, 2024. 3. Each Party shall serve any affirmative expert reports (meaning an expert report that the Party will use in its case-in-chief), if any, on or before September 20, 2024; 4. Each Party shall serve any rebuttal expert reports (meaning an expert report that the Party will use to rebut an expert opinion from its opponent), if any, on or before October 11, 2024; 5. A party intending to offer lay witness opinion testimony must disclose the name of any witness who will offer such an opinion and a brief summary of each such opinion at the same time the expert reports are exchanged; 6. The Parties shall complete all discovery by October 25, 2024; 7. Motions for class certification, if any, shall be filed on or before November 15, 2024; and 8. Responses in opposition to class certification shall be filed on or before December 13, 2024. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SmZvcg at no extra charge.[CC] TORRID HOLDINGS: Faces Waswick Shareholder Suit in California Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- Torrid Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended May 4, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2024, that in November 2022, a class action complaint was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California captioned "Sandra Waswick v. Torrid Holdings Inc., et al." An amended complaint was filed in May 2023. The amended complaint alleges that certain statements in the company's registration statement on Form S-1 related to its IPO and in subsequent SEC filings and earnings calls were allegedly false and misleading. Plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint on December 22, 2023, and defendants again moved to dismiss. Defendants again moved to dismiss on January 26, 2024. Torrid Holdings Inc. owns a direct-to-consumer brand of apparel, intimates and accessories in North America aimed at fashionable women who are curvy and wear sizes 10 to 30. It generates revenues primarily through its e-Commerce platform www.torrid.com and stores in the United States of America, Puerto Rico and Canada. TRANS UNION: Saucedo Seeks to Certify Class of California Consumers ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 will move the Court on Sept. 26, 2024, for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The proposed class action arises from Trans Union's (TU's) ongoing violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). TU refuses to reasonably investigate complaints of identity theft by California consumers. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for California consumers who report identity thefts to TU, only to have TU parrot the computer statement of the furnisher that the disputed charge belongs to the consumer, without reasonably investigating as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff now moves the Court to certify the following class for purposes of injunctive relief: "California consumers who disputed to Trans Union that their credit-report information was inaccurate because it was the result of identity theft or fraud, and where Trans Union sent an ACDV form to the furnisher, and then accepted the furnisher’s computer-generated response and told the disputing consumers that the disputed information was "accurate."" In 2021, the Plaintiff Saucedo was the victim of a data breach by Flagstar Bank, with which he had refinanced his home. He received notice of this data breach from Flagstar in June 2022. 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=UxTkpu 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 TWITTER INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FABIEN HO CHING MA, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC., AND X CORP., Case No. 4:23-cv-03301-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Petitioners will move the Court on Aug. 22, 2024, for an order to certify their claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and to appoint Petitioners as Class Representatives and Petitioners' counsel as Class Counsel. This motion is brought pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and seeks to certify the following class of Petitioners in these proceedings against Respondents Twitter, Inc. and X Corp.: Class: "All former Twitter employees throughout the United States who signed arbitration agreements with Twitter and who have filed demands for arbitration with JAMS or AAA against Twitter, but for whom Twitter has refused to proceed with arbitrating their claims." The Petitioners further request that the following sub-classes be certified: Arbitration Fees Sub-Class: "Members of the Class for whom Twitter has refused to proceed with arbitrating their claims by way of refusing to pay fees as required by Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS) and American Arbitration Association (AAA)." Signed Arbitration Agreements Sub-Class: "Members of the Class for whom Twitter has refused to produce signed copies of their arbitration agreements." JAMS Office Sub-Class: "Members of the Class for whom Twitter has refused to proceed with arbitrating their claims because JAMS does not have an office and/or arbitrators who are licensed to practice in their state." Additionally, Petitioners seek to appoint Petitioners as Class and Subclass Representatives and to appoint Petitioners’ counsel as Class Counsel. Twitter was an American social media company based in San Francisco, California. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DBbvj4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Bradley Manewith, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com bmanewith@llrlaw.com UNITED NETWORK: Manipulates Black Patients' eGFR Scores, Rowe Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ GREGORY ROWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED NETWORK FOR ORGAN SHARING; UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05022 (C.D. Cal., June 13, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged practice of a racially discriminatory coefficient to estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) scores for Black kidney patients. United Network For Organ Sharing (UNOS) policy encouraged and allowed for use of the race-based coefficient, and UNOS knowingly used modified eGFR scores and manipulated wait times when ranking patients for kidney transplants. Specifically, UNOS is and has at all times been aware that its approved transplant hospitals were using the race-based coefficient to adjust Black kidney disease patients' eGFR scores and making waitlist referral decisions relying upon the adjusted scores. This modification was made to Black patients' eGFR scores entirely and was not applied to other racial groups. As a result, many Black patients never qualified to accrue wait time because of their eGFR score, and only began to accrue wait time when they began dialysis. Some Black patients are never even added to the waitlist at all, says the suit. United Network for Organ Sharing is a non-profit scientific and educational organization that administers the only Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network in the United States. University of Southern California is a private research university in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Venezia, Esq. George B. A. Laiolo, Esq. Andrew R. Iglesias, Esq. ELLIS GEORGE LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, 30th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 274-7100 Facsimile: (310) 275-5697 Email: mvenezia@ellisgeorge.com glaiolo@ellisgeorge.com aiglesias@ellisgeorge.com UNITED STATES: Can Withdraw Pending Bid for Various Reliefs ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MALIK HENDERSON, KHALIL HAMMOND, DAVID THOMPSON, ANTOINE WALKER, MUWSA GREEN, TYRONE LEONARD, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LAUREL HARRY, Secretary of Corrections, Case No. 2:24-cv-02290-TJS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Timothy Savage entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to withdraw the pending motion for various forms of relief without prejudice to refiling The Court further ordered that the Commonwealth Defendants' motion to transfer; or, in the alternative, strike class certification; or, in the alternative, partially dismiss shall be marked withdrawn without prejudice. The Defendants include GEORGE M. LITTLE, former Secretary of Corrections, MICHAEL WENEROWICZ, Executive Deputy Secretary for Institutional Operations, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, LUCAS MALISHCHAK, Deputy Secretary For Office of Reentry, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and BRIAN SCHNEIDER, Director of Psychology, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4fntEQ at no extra charge.[CC] UPSTART HOLDINGS: Class Certification Hearing Set for July 11 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN CRAIN, et al., v. UPSTART HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02935-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon Marbley entered an order setting Class Certification Hearing on Thursday, July 11, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Court Room 1, Room 331 of the U. S. Courthouse located at 85 Marconi Boulevard, Columbus, Ohio. -- Any request for a continuance should be made promptly after the reason for seeking the continuance becomes known. -- Counsel should prepare for this hearing with the knowledge that this Court has already studied the memoranda related to class certification. Upstart is an AI lending platform that partners with banks and credit unions to provide consumer loans. A copy of the Court's order dated June 14, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WWb77e at no extra charge.[CC] US CITIZENSHIP: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Patel Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patel v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01156-JES-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. U.S. Citizenship administers the country's naturalization and immigration system. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jXcgTB at no extra charge.[CC] VENUS CONCEPT: Status Conference in Keller Suit Set for Sept. 17 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Keller, et al., v. Venus Concept USA, Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-60657 (S.D. Fla., Filed April 22, 2024), the Hon. Judge Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch entered an order resetting status conference: -- A Status Conference is set in this matter on September 17, 2024. -- The Court acknowledges that this means a settlement conference will not be held within 30 days of Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' statement of claims. -- However, the Court finds that a settlement conference will be more productive and appropriate for the parties after a resolution of the class certification issues in this litigation. -- All counsel must appear by both audio and video and have available to them their own schedules and the schedules of their clients and/or client representatives to attend a Settlement Conference. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] VIVENDI TICKETING: Class Settlement in Peterson Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mandi Peterson v. Vivendi Ticketing US LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-07498-MWF-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael Fitzgerald entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement: -- Insofar as the proposed settlement agreement is preliminarily approved; -- the class is provisionally certified for purposes of settlement only; and -- the notice and plan of dissemination are approved. The proposed settlement is procedurally and substantively fair and is not contingent upon approval of the requested award. The proposed class also meets the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). Finally, the proposed notice and dissemination procedures appear effective and meet the requirements of Rule 23(c). On Dec. 1, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint against the Defendant. The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of all similarly situated individuals whose personal identifying information ("PII"), including names, addresses, and payment card information, was compromised by an alleged data breach that Defendant discovered in May 2023. The Settlement Agreement contains the following key class definition, monetary relief, notice, and release provisions: "Settlement Class" or "Class Members" collectively includes the Settlement Class and the California Settlement Sub-Class. The "Settlement Class" represented by Plaintiffs is defined as "all individuals in the United States whose information was accessed in the Data Security Incident and who received notice of the Data Security Incident from [Defendant]." The "California Settlement Sub-Class" represented by the Plaintiff Christopher Aragon is defined as "all individuals residing in California as of the Notice Date whose information was assessed in the Data Security Incident and who received notice of the Data Security Incident from the [Defendant]." "Settlement Fund" is the $3,250,000 settlement amount to be paid by Defendant from which Class Members' settlement awards, Class Counsel attorney's fees, cost and expenses, Named Plaintiff service payments, and administrative costs will be paid. The Defendant is in the global ticketing business. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=djgfXU at no extra charge.[CC] VNGR BEVERAGE: Faces Lesh Suit Over Poppi Sodas' Healthy Gut Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- CAROL LESH and SARAH COLEMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VNGR BEVERAGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-03612 (N.D. Fla., June 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; false advertising; fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation; unfair business practices; and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its soft drink, Poppi. The Defendant labels its product with claims "FOR A HEALTHY GUT," "BE GUT HAPPY. BE GUT HEALTHY," "Prebiotics For A Healthy Gut," and "Prebiotic Soda." These healthy gut representations lead consumers, who are increasingly interested in getting health benefits from their food and beverages, to believe that consuming the Poppi soda with improve their gut health. In truth, the Defendant's soft drink is not beneficial to gut health. The Defendant's gut health claims are based on its inclusion of prebiotic fiber in the sodas. However, Poppi sodas are not a good source of prebiotic fiber under U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations as they contain only 2 grams of fiber per 12 oz. serving. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations and/or omissions, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers suffered damages, says the suit. VNGR Beverage, LLC is a beverage manufacturer with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Anthony Patek, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 Email: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com anthony@gutridesafier.com WALGREEN CO: Court Dismisses Bargetto Suit ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISA BARGETTO, v. WALGREEN CO., Case No. 3:22-cv-02639-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered an order denying motion for class certification and dismissing action for lack of standing. The Court denies Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Even absent Bargetto, the class cannot be certified because common questions do not predominate over individual questions as to each of the claims. The Court further dismisses the action because Plaintiff has not shown by a preponderance of evidence that she has standing. And, the putative class member, Benjamin Roodman, could not confidently indicate when the bags were purchased, so he would not be a sufficient class representative since the class is limited to those who purchased bags during the Class Period. Moreover, the court finds that amendment in this Court would be futile, and therefore will not permit further amendment. The claims she brings are as follows: (1) Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") based on allegedly unlawful acts; (2) Violation of the UCL based on allegedly fraudulent acts; (3) Violation of the UCL based on allegedly unfair acts; (4) Violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (5) Breach of Express Warranty; and (6) Unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff claims that Defendant's sale of the bags is in violation of the law because the plastic bags are not recyclable despite the labeling showing otherwise. These claims are brought on behalf of a class defined as: "All persons who purchased plastic bags for personal, family, or household purposes in California, either directly or through an agent, during the applicable statute of limitations period." The Plaintiff is an environmentally concerned resident of San Francisco, California who wishes to have each of the plastic shopping bags that she and the putative class receive from Defendant actually be recycled. Walgreen sells prescription refills, health info, contact lenses, and other products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 14, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5aqrMz at no extra charge.[CC] WELLS FARGO: Parties Seek to Reschedule July 11 Hearings -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Wells Fargo Mortgage Discrimination Litigation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00990-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint stipulation to reschedule July 11, 2024, hearings on motions: -- The Parties understand it is this Court's practice to hold hearings on civil matters on Thursdays, the Parties respectfully request that the hearing be held on July 16, 2024, to accommodate all counsels' schedule, if the Court is available and willing to hold the hearing on all five of these matters on a date other than Thursday. -- Alternatively, if the Court is unable to accommodate that request, we would request that the Court continue the hearing from July 11, 2024, to July 18, 2024. Wells Fargo does not oppose Plaintiffs' request for a continuance of the July 11, 2024, hearing date. On June 13, 2024, the Court continued the originally scheduled hearing date from June 27, 2024, to July 11, 2024, along with related motion to disqualify Plaintiffs' expert, and Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions. Also scheduled for hearing that day are refiled motions to exclude certain Plaintiffs' experts. Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G8yYAR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dennis S. Ellis, Esq. ELLIS GEORGE LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, 30th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 274-7100 Facsimile: (310) 275-5697 E-mail: dellis@ellisgeorge.com The Defendant is represented by: Ava E. Lias-Booker, Esq. Alicia A. Baiardo, Esq. Jasmine K. Gardner, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111-3821 Telephone: (415) 844-9944 - and - Amanda L. Groves, Esq. Kobi K. Brinson, Esq. Stacie C. Knight, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 615-1700 WISCONSIN: Faces Huber Suit Over Confiscation of Prisoners' Tablets ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT HUBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JARED HOY, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections and GARY BOUGHTON, in his official capacity as Warden of the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00404 (W.D. Wis., June 15, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for conversion and violations of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. According to the complaint, Wisconsin's Department of Corrections (DOC) implemented a statewide policy forcing prisoners to surrender their tablets, rescinding access to all of their digital music and books, and requiring them to re-purchase their digital media files from DOC's new contractor. This policy has resulted in the confiscation of the lawfully purchased property of thousands of prisoners, for which the DOC has not paid just compensation, in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Plaintiff and similarly situated prisoners seek to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathaniel Cade, Jr., Esq. Antonique C. Williams, Esq. Annalisa Pusick, Esq. Madison Bedder, Esq. CADE LAW GROUP LLC P.O. Box 170887 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Telephone: (414) 255-3802 Facsimile: (414) 255-3804 Email: nate@cade-law.com antonique@cade-law.com annalisa@cade-law.com madison@cade-law.com XACTUS LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Cinner Amended to Nov. 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YAAKOV CINNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. XACTUS, LLC and CREDIT PLUS, LLC, individually and as successor in interest to CREDIT PLUS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-04531-JMY (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John Milton Younge entered an order granting the parties' consent motion to amend scheduling order. Event Deadline Plaintiff's motion for class certification Nov. 1, 2024 Defendants' opposition to motion for class Nov. 29, 2024 certification Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for Dec. 20, 2024 class certification Close of fact discovery Dec. 13, 2024 All other deadlines in the Court's Scheduling Order remain in effect. Xactus is a verification innovator for the mortgage industry. A copy of the Court's order dated June 14, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fVU15H at no extra charge.[CC] XOOM ENERGY: Bid to Decertify Class in Mirkin Suit Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSANNA MIRKIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. XOOM ENERGY, LLC, and XOOM ENERGY NEW YORK, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-02949-ARR-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Allyne R. Ross entered an order denying XOOM's motion to decertify the class. The Plaintiff, Susanna Mirkin, a former residential electricity customer of the Defendants, alleges that she and other similarly situated customers were charged exorbitant energy rates in breach of the pricing terms contained in a contract for variable-rate energy service. In August 2023, I denied XOOM’s motion for summary judgment on her breach of contract claim1 and granted her motion to certify the case as a class action. After an unsuccessful Rule 23(f) petition to the Second Circuit, XOOM filed the instant motion to decertify the class. For the following reasons, the motion is denied Judge Ross concluded again that the Plaintiff's theory of liability raises issues of breach and damages common to the class that can be proven with common evidence and which predominate over individualized issues, and that the Plaintiff's proposed damages model is consistent with her theory of liability. As at the class certification stage, "XOOM does not dispute that the algorithm itself is faulty" but rather challenges "the accuracy of the inputs, namely the supply cost and margin," the Judge added. In the spring of 2023, plaintiff moved to certify a proposed class and XOOM moved for summary judgment. Mot. Certify Class, ECF No. 131; Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 145. On August 14, 2023, I denied summary judgment on Ms. Mirkin's breach of contract claim XOOM is an independent energy service company that purchases energy from producers on the wholesale market and sells it to consumers as an alternative to local utilities. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=saekJO at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 ***