/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240703.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, July 3, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 133
Headlines
2U INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set August 12
3M COMPANY: Roundtree Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Rushing Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Schmidt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Steketee Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Tharrington Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Tulk Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Vereb Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Ward Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Wheeler Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Wise Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
ADVANTAGE HCS: Jackson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AMAZON.COM INC: Argerich Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Another Competition Class Action in UK
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Jones Sues Over Disability Discrimination
ARAMARK SERVICES: Burke Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
ARIZONA PROPERTY: Inskeep Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
ARKK FOOD: Settles Wahlburgers Pickles Class Suit for $2 Million
ASCENSION HEALTH: Croft et al. Sue Over Inadequate Data Security
ASR GROUP: Marek Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
ASR GROUP: Moretti's Ristorante Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
AT&T INC: Doss Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
AT&T INC: Morgenstern Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
AT&T INC: Oliver Files Suit in N.D. Texas
AT&T INC: Schaefer Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
BEVERAGE WORKS: Fails to Provide 60 Days' Notice Under WARN Act
BLUE ICE: Court Partially Dismissed Consumers' Class Action
BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS: Alessi Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
BRIDGESTONE CORP: Benton Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
BROCKTON AREA: Faces Anderson Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
BROMACO INC: Montiel Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Bosley Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
CALLCORE MEDIA: Class Settlement in TCPA Suit Gets Final Approval
CANADA: Court Approves $817MM Pension Class Settlement
CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL: Bellantoni Transferred to E.D. Virginia
CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL: Wise Transferred to E.D. Virginia
CASA AZUL CANTINA: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CENCORA INC: Buracker Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
CENCORA INC: Reynolds Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Merry Files Suit in D. Minnesota
CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit in CA
CHRISTIE'S INC: Bruce Sues Over Data Security Failure
CHRISTY SPORTS: Demaio Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Davidov Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Doherty Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Earls Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Edwards Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio
COX AUTOMOTIVE: Fedderson Suit Removed to C.D. California
CREST FURNITURE: Harrell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CVS PHARMACY INC: McLaurin Suit Removed to C.D. California
DALCOX CORP: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Jimenez Says
DIME BEAUTY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Espinal Claims
DIRECT MARKETING: Wahab Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
DOWNEY RESTAURANT: Rosales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DOXIM INC: McKinley Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
DOXO INC: Faces Mundle Class Suit Over Deceptive Online Payments
EDLOE FINCH: Chiechi Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Practices
EF INSTITUTE: Plaintiffs' Bid to Certify Class Tossed
ELI TIMBERLAND: Orozco Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
EPIC LANDSCAPE: Bid to Substitute Class Representative Granted
EXICURE INC: Faces Colwell Shareholder Suit in Illinois Court
EXSCIENTIA PLC: Campanile Alleges Securities Law Violations
FIRST AMERICAN: Glickman Sues Over Unprotected Personal Information
FIRST STUDENT: Purnell Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
FLOYD INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Austin Due March 3, 2025
FOX BUILDING GROUP: Vega Files FLSA Suit in N.D. New York
FREEBIRD STORES: Murray Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
GAT AIRLINE: Gonzalez Suit Removed to N.D. California
GENERAL MOTORS: Behm Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
GENERAL MOTORS: Garcia Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
GENERAL MOTORS: Haiden Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
GOLDCOAST CARRIERS: Ealom and Fernandez Allege Labor Law Breaches
GORSUCH LTD: Pilkington Sues Over Disclosure of Purchase Info
GUNDERSON RAIL: Fails to Pay OT, Mendoza Class Suit Alleges
H.P. HOSPITALITY: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Wages
HCA HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Lane Suit Claims
INSOMNIA COOKIES: Must File Class Cert Response by July 8
INTERNATIONAL UNION: Pinn Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
KEYSTONE ADVISORS: Smith Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
KNIGHT HAWK: Court Conditionally Certifies Dye Collective Action
LAKE MICHIGAN: Fountain Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
LEPRINO FOODS: Class Settlement in Vasquez Gets Final Nod
LINCARE INC: Must Response to Morris Class Cert Bid by Sept. 29
LIVANOVA PLC: Faces Medina Class Suit Over Data Breach
LIVANOVA USA: Fails to Secure Personal Info, J.W. Suit Claims
LUXCLUB INC: Guerrero Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of Bedsheets
MARRIOTT HOTEL: Barnes Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
MAXEON SOLAR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud
MCDONALD'S USA: Martin Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
MDL 3083: Dean and Adewole Sue Over Private Data Breach
MDL 3111: Sim's 360 Savings Account Suit Transferred to E.D. Va.
META PLATFORMS: Court Revives Class Suit Favoring Foreign Workers
MIRI GENERAL: Faces Rosas Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
NATIONAL CABLE: Faces Mortensen Class Suit Over Data Breach
NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Balderas Suit Removed to C.D. California
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: To Pay $4.7BB for Sunday Ticket Class Damages
NEW YORK-PRESBYTERIAN: Faces Nemeth Class Suit Over Data Breach
NOBLE COUNTY, IN: Watkins Balks at Unconstitutional Over-Detentions
NOCO COMPANY: Kawai Suit Removed to C.D. California
OMAHA HOUSING: Faces Class Action Over Tenant's Rights Violations
OREGON: Court Picks Overseer for Foster Care Class Settlement
OVERAA & CO: Walton Suit Removed to N.D. California
PANDA RESTAURANT: Klepper Files Suit in C.D. California
PAUL FREDERICK: Wahab Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
PENNSAUKEN TOWNSHIP: Miree Files Suit in N.J. Super. Ct.
PENNYMAC MORTGAGE: Verthelyi Sues Over Unlawful Business Practices
PILOT CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Faris Suit Alleges
PREMIUM CAPITAL: Brown Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
PROFESSIONAL PARKING: Remy Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Must Oppose Ford Class Cert Bid by Sept. 16
PROLIANCE SURGEONS: Laurant Sues Over Unprotected Medical Info
RADIO SYSTEMS: Hernadez Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal
RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California
REXEL USA: Miranda Suit Removed to S.D. California
ROADMASTER DRIVERS: Settles Invalid Drivers' Licenses Class Suit
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Verran Files WARN Act Class Suit
SAC WIRELESS: Heino Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CA: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to July 19
SCOUT ENERGY: Fails to Secure Private Info, McCraw Suit Says
SCOUT ENERGY: Hawkins Sues Over Private Data Breach
SEA TO SUMMIT: Wahab Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hardnett Extended
SENG COUTURE: Gaspa Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website
SHERATON OPERATING: Ortiz Suit Removed to C.D. California
SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Reese Files Suit in D. Nebraska
SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: Cruz Suit Removed to C.D. California
SPENCER SCOOPS: Gomberg Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SPRAY MORET: Wahab Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
STABLE ROAD: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Final OK
STOCKTON HEALTH CARE: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SUNRISE CREDIT: Day Files FDCPA Suit in D. Arizona
SUPERIOR AIR-GROUND: Macey Files Suit in Ill. DuPage Cty.
TAPESTRY INC: Ayala Suit Removed to S.D. California
TARGET BRANDS: Baker Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
TARGET CORPORATION: Tivin Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 30
TASHKENT SUPERMARKET: Navruzov Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
TENNESSEE: Law Raises Liability Standard For Data Breach Lawsuit
TERADATA CORP: Ostrander Sues Over Misleading Company Statements
TESTMAX INC: Abraham Files Suit in S.D. New York
TICKETMASTER LLC: Faces Leal Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info
UNITED SUGAR: Sam Restaurants Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT: Baker Files Suit in D. Vermont
US LOGISTICS: Employees Balks at Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice
WALT DISNEY: Court Denies Dismissal of Antitrust Class Action Suit
WELLS FARGO: Defrauded Customers Sue Over Loss Reimbursement
WONDERFUL COMPANY: Bocchinfuso Sues Over Contaminated Bottled Water
WOODRIDGE CAPITAL: Cifuentes Suit Removed to C.D. California
*********
2U INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set August 12
------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired 2U, Inc. (NASDAQ: TWOU) securities between
February 9, 2022 and February 12, 2024. 2U is an online platform
company that operates through two segments – the Degree Program
and the Alternative Credentials segment.
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that 2U,
Inc. (TWOU) Misled Investors Regarding it Business Prospects
According to the complaint, on February 12, 2024, 2U disclosed that
due to the Company's debt "there is substantial doubt about its
ability to continue as a going concern." The Company further
disclosed it recognized $88 million of revenue from portfolio
management activities (i.e., fees negotiated for early partnership
contract termination) in the year and it would assume another $10
million from such activities in the first quarter of 2024 and at
least $15 million in full-year 2024. The Company also announced its
full-year revenue of $946 million, significantly missing the
Company's guidance of between $965 and $990 million, and revealed
Degree Program Segment revenue, Alternative Credential Segment
revenue, and total revenue, all decreased two percent year over
year. The Company also issued full year 2024 guidance, estimating
revenue would continue to decline $946 million, to between $805 and
$815 million. On this news, 2U's share price fell $0.55, or almost
60%, to close at $0.37 on February 13, 2024.
Plaintiff alleges that during the class period, defendants failed
to disclose that:
(i) the Company was unable to sustain relationships with key
universities and organizations;
(2) as a result, certain degree programs and partnerships
failed to materialize or were cancelled;
(3) the Company's transition to a platform company would lead
to a decrease in full course equivalent enrollments; and
(4) accordingly, the Company had overstated the stability
and/or longevity of its contractual agreements and/or revenue
sources.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against 2U, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff
for the class must file their motions with the court by August 12,
2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have
to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you
choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member.
For more information, click here.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against 2U, Inc. settles or to
receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing,
sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
3M COMPANY: Roundtree Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Roundtree, 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-03476-RMG
(D.S.C., June 11, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and during his working career as a military and/or
civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a
result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Phone: 216-815-9000
Facsimile: 216-274-9365
3M COMPANY: Rushing Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Rushing, 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-02784-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 and
Prostate Cancer as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
rlee@belllegalgroup.com
gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Schmidt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allen Schmidt, 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-03469-RMG
(D.S.C., June 11, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and during his working career as a military and/or
civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with bladder cancer as a
result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Phone: 216-815-9000
Facsimile: 216-274-9365
3M COMPANY: Steketee Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jennifer Steketee, for herself and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-00519 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina on June 13, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03517-RMG to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land.
3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational
conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian S. Colon, Esq.
SINGLETON SCHREIBER
6501 Americas Parkway NE, Suite 670
Albuquerque, NM 87301
Phone: (505) 270-2154
Email: bcolon@singletonschreiber.com
- and -
Damon J. Hudson, Esq.
SINGLETON SCHREIBER
643 Hwy 314 NW
Los Lunas, NM 87501
Phone: (505) 539-2768
Email: dhudson@singletonschreiber.com
- and -
Amanda E. Heitz, Esq.
Curtis J. Busby, Esq.
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
2929 N. Central Avenue, Ste. 1900
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: (602) 643-2311
Fax: (602) 248-0947
Email: amanda.heitz@bowmanandbrooke.com
curtis.busby@bowmanandbrooke.com
3M COMPANY: Tharrington Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elbert Tharrington, Jr., 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-03467-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 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: Tulk Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Tulk, 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-02793-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 Ulcerative Colitis 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: Vereb Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Vereb, 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-03462-RMG
(D.S.C., June 11, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and during his working career as a military and/or
civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a
result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Phone: 216-815-9000
Facsimile: 216-274-9365
3M COMPANY: Ward Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Ward, 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-02787-RMG (D.S.C., April 30,
2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his
firefighting career and was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
rlee@belllegalgroup.com
gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Wheeler Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bradford Wheeler, 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-02791-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 Liver Cancer as a direct
result of exposure to Defendants' products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
rlee@belllegalgroup.com
gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Wise Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Wise Jr., 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-02786-RMG (D.S.C.,
April 30, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his
firefighting career and was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
rlee@belllegalgroup.com
gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com
ADVANTAGE HCS: Jackson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advantage HCS, LLC.
The case is styled as Champaigne Jackson, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Advantage HCS, LLC, Case
No. 24CV011900 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 17, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Advantage Health Care Staffing -- https://www.advantagehcs.com/ --
specializes in healthcare staffing and travel nursing in Texas and
Louisiana.[BN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Argerich Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMAZON.COM, Inc. The
case is styled as Alejandro Argerich, individually and on behalf of
all Those similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, Inc., Case No.
CACE24008660 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., June 20, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Negligence."
Amazon.com, Inc., doing business as Amazon, is an American
multinational technology company, engaged in e-commerce, cloud
computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial
intelligence.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mariya Weekes, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (786) 879-8200
Email: mweekes@milberg.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Another Competition Class Action in UK
------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Lomas of TechCrunch reports that Amazon is facing another
competition lawsuit in the U.K. The latest claim, is seeking more
than GBP2.7 billion in damages -- or around $3.4 billion at current
exchange rates -- before the U.K.'s Competition Appeals Tribunal.
The case is being brought by Andreas Stephan, a professor of
competition law at the University of East Anglia and head of its
Law School, on behalf of more than 200,000 U.K. third-party sellers
on Amazon.
The lawsuit argues Amazon has abused a dominant position in the
supply of marketplace services to third-party sellers to reach
customers in the U.K. in a variety of ways -- including by
discriminating in favor of its own retail offerings instead of
those of third parties; discriminating in favor of its own
logistics services (Fulfilled by Amazon, or FBA); and unfairly
conditioning access to its membership product Prime on use of FBA.
The claim also argues Amazon distorts inter-platform completion by
making it harder for third-party sellers to sell cheaper on other
platforms.
"As a result of these abuses, third-party sellers have lost sales,
faced increased costs and paid higher fees to Amazon for its
services than they would have under normal conditions of
competition," the complainant writes in a press release.
The accusations should be familiar as regional competition
authorities have spent a number of years investigating complaints
about Amazon's use of third-party data and looking into how it
operates various components of the marketplace, including FBA and
Prime. Amazon has also faced similar antitrust charges in the U.S.
in recent years.
Since the U.K. lawsuit is an opt-out collective action, eligible
sellers are automatically included unless they ask not to be
included. There are no costs for sellers to be included but if the
claim prevails any sellers who have not opted out will be entitled
to a share of any compensation or settlement.
The criteria for eligibility is any U.K.-based individual or
company that used a professional account to sell to U.K. consumers
on Amazon between June 2018 and June 2024. More details about the
legal action -- and a form to register for updates -- can be found
on the claim website.
The lawsuit is being funded by Innsworth Capital Limited, a major
litigation funder that's backing a number of other opt-out
collective action lawsuits against tech giants in the U.K. and
Europe -- including a $3.1 billion competition claim against Meta;
and privacy litigation against Oracle and Salesforce.
Innsworth will pay all the costs of the case and stands to gain a
share of any compensation awarded or settlement payment Amazon may
choose to make.
Amazon was contacted for comment on the U.K. lawsuit. A company
spokesperson emailed this statement: "We are confident that these
claims are baseless and that this will be exposed in the legal
process. Over 100,000 small and medium sized businesses in the UK
sell on Amazon's store, more than half of all physical product
sales on our UK store are from independent selling partners, and
the fact is that we only succeed when the businesses we work with
succeed."
It's not the first class action-style legal action the e-commerce
giant has faced in the U.K. related to competition abuse claims.
Earlier this month, a similar damages suit was filed by the British
Independent Retailers Association on behalf of its thousands of
members. In that case the suit is seeking GBP1.1 billion in
compensation.
Asked whether Stephan sees any prospect of the two collective U.K.
competition abuse claims being combined, he told TechCrunch: "It is
too early at this stage to say whether our claim will be heard as a
standalone claim or whether it could be combined. What we can say
is that we are confident we have set out a compelling case on
behalf of the class we are seeking to represent, we have a
compelling methodology and we will do everything we can to progress
the matter in a timely manner."
As noted above, the wave of competition litigation targeting Amazon
follows years of antitrust scrutiny in the U.K. and Europe over its
use of third-party sellers' data and concerns its marketplace is
not a level playing field.
In recent years, the U.S. e-commerce giant has also been battling
accusations of competition abuse on home turf. Last September the
Federal Trade Commission, joined by attorneys general from 17
states, filed suit against Amazon alleging it has used an array of
monopolistic practices to illegally stifle competition.
Washington, DC's attorney general also lodged an earlier claim,
back in May 2021, accusing Amazon of stifling competition by
exerting control over third-party sellers, including through price
fixing and blocking third-party sellers from selling their products
for less elsewhere.
Amazon settled the EU antitrust probes in December 2022 without
receiving a financial sanction. However, it agreed to make a series
of changes to how it operates its marketplace. It made a similar
settlement with the U.K.'s Competition and Markets Authority last
November -- again without a financial penalty for past conduct.
Even if there had been penalties levied by antitrust regulators,
such fines would only sanction the company itself. This kind of
enforcement does not provide any direct relief for victims of
abusive behavior -- hence there's an opportunity for damages
claims, and litigation funders, to step in. [GN]
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Jones Sues Over Disability Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Othea Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Amazon.com Services LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01565-E (N.D.
Tex., June 22, 2024) is a class action about disability
discrimination and a blatant failure to engage in the interactive
process.
The Plaintiff is a woman with disabilities in the form of
hypertension and elevated blood pressure. Plaintiff suffered a
stroke at work and Defendant still refused to provide her a
reasonable accommodation. The Class Members are putative Plaintiffs
who work for Defendant in various warehouses across the country.
Defendant requires all employees utilize Defendant's human
resources app to process requests for an accommodation.
The complaint alleges that requests for accommodation are routinely
denied and Defendant does not engage in the interactive process as
the app simply is not designed to allow such an interactive
process.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant on October 5, 2023. She was
to stack items on Defendant's delivery trucks, and she worked in
the outbound department.
Amazon.com Services LLC provides e-commerce services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Walker G. Harman, Jr.
HARMAN GREEN PC
824 Exposition Ave., Suite 8
Dallas, TX 75226
Telephone: (646) 248-2288
E-mail: wharman@theharmanfirm.com
erichardson@theharmanfirm.com
ARAMARK SERVICES: Burke Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cherie Burke, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ARAMARK SERVICES, INC., a Foreign
Profit Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2416360
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in
and for Pierce County, to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington on June 20, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 3:24-cv-05488-BHS.
On May 20, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a complaint in Pierce County
Superior Court (the "Complaint") individually and on behalf of the
members of a Class. On behalf of herself and the putative Class,
Plaintiff seeks $5,000 in statutory damages based on the alleged
failure to disclose wage or salary ranges on job postings for
positions in Washington, purportedly in violation of RCW.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Damon C. Elder, Esq.
Claire M. Lesikar, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 274-6400
Email: damon.elder@morganlewis.com
claire.lesikar@morganlewis.com
ARIZONA PROPERTY: Inskeep Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arizona Property
Group LLC. The case is styled as Alex Inskeep, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Arizona Property Group LLC,
Case No. 2:24-cv-01478-SMM (D. Ariz., June 19, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Arizona Property Group LLC -- https://arizonapropertygroup.com/ --
are a locally owned and operated property wholesale company with a
combined 100 years of Real Estate investment experience.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Kruzyk, Esq.
PARDELL KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO PLLC
7500 Rialto Blvd., Ste. 1-250
Austin, TX 78735
Phone: (737) 310-3210
Email: akruzyk@pkglegal.com
ARKK FOOD: Settles Wahlburgers Pickles Class Suit for $2 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that consumers who purchased Wahlburgers
pickles could receive a cash payment from a $2 million settlement
with no proof of purchase required for up to six purchases. Read
more below!
The settlement provides benefits to consumers who purchased
Wahlburgers pickles, including Fresh Dill Spears, Fresh Dill Chips
and Fresh Dill Chips Hot, between April 1, 2021, and March 31,
2023.
According to the class action lawsuit, the statements "fresh", "all
natural", and "no preservatives" on the Wahlburgers Pickles were
misleading because the Products contained sodium benzoate.
Wahlburgers denies any and all wrongdoing of any kind and any
liability to the Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class, but it has
agreed to pay $2 million to resolve the class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Wahlburgers settlement, class members can
receive $2 per purchased product without proof of purchase and can
claim up to six products for a maximum payment of $12. Class
members with proof of purchase can claim as many products as they
have proof of and will receive full reimbursement for these
products.
To receive Wahlburgers settlement benefits, class members must
submit a valid claim form by July 29, 2024.
The deadline for exclusions or objections is Sept. 4, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for
Sept. 25, 2024.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who purchased Wahlburgers pickles, including Fresh Dill
Spears, Fresh Dill Chips and Fresh Dill Chips Hot, between April 1,
2021, and March 31, 2023
Potential Award
$2 to $12 without proof of purchase; more with proof of purchase.
Proof of Purchase
None is required for up to 6 products. Receipts or other proof of
purchase that establishes the date of purchase and the product
purchased are required for additional products.
Claim Form Deadline
07/29/2024
Case Name
Counts, et al. v. Arkk Food Company, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-00236, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.
Final Hearing
09/25/2024
Settlement Website
PickleSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Pickle Settlement c/o Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA19103
Telephone: (844) 340-7864
Class Counsel
Charles D. Moore
REESE LLP
875 6th Ave
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Kevin Laukaitis
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De León
Suite 205, #10518
Telephone: San Juan, PR 00907
Defense Counsel
Michael G. Latiff
Jacob D. Radecki
MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC
600 Superior Avenue, East, Suite 2100
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 348-5400
Jennifer L. Del Medico
Terri L. Chase
Eliot Pedrosa
JONES DAY
325 John H. McConnell Boulevard, Suite 600
Columbus, OH 43215-2673
Telephone: (614) 469-3939 [GN]
ASCENSION HEALTH: Croft et al. Sue Over Inadequate Data Security
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUE CROFT, COURTNEY BROWN, LINDA SUE DUNN, VIKESHA EXFORD, TIFFANY
FARRAND, CHERYL HAYES, DONALD PITCHERS, and MICHELE RUTHERFORD,
individually and on behalf of all OTHERS similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ASCENSION HEALTH, Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-00870-ACL (E.D. Mo., June 21, 2024) seeks to recover
monetary damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief from
Ascension, stemming from its negligence in safeguarding Plaintiffs'
and Class members' private information.
According to the complaint, despite its significant resources,
Ascension failed to invest in adequate cybersecurity, which
resulted in a massive data breach that has harmed millions of
people across the United States in May 2024. Ascension's failure to
employ adequate network segmentation ensured that hackers had
access to not just one hospital's system but the systems of
hundreds of hospitals, outpatient clinics, virtual providers, and
senior living facilities across the country.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs assert claims for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment,
breach of confidentiality of health records, and for violations of
the Missouri Merchandising Practice Act, Arkansas's Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act, Indiana's Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, Kansas’s statute on
the Protection of Consumer Information, Kansas Consumer Protection
Act, the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, Wisconsin's Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, and of Notice of Unauthorized Acquisition of
Personal Information.
Headquartered in St. Louis, MO, Ascension Health is a non-profit,
Catholic health-system which network includes 140 hospitals, 40
senior living centers, 35,000 affiliated providers, and millions of
patients. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
J. Austin Moore, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
moore@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
David M. Berger, Esq.
Linda P. Lam, Esq.
Sarah E. Hillier, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Ste. 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
E-mail: dmb@classlawgroup.com
lpl@classlawgroup.com
seh@classlawgroup.com
ASR GROUP: Marek Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Matt Marek, Debbie Hale, Stephen Reeves, Tammy
Tacito, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. ASR Group International, Inc., American Sugar Refining, Inc.,
United Sugar Producers & Refiners Cooperative formerly known as:
United Sugars Corporation, Michigan Sugar Company, Commodity
Information, Inc., Richard Wistisen, Case No. 1:24-cv-03216 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota on June 20, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02343-JWB-DTS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
ASR Group International, Inc. -- https://www.asr-group.com/ -- is
the world's largest refiner and marketer of cane sugar.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
Megan E. Shannon, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLP
150 South Wacker Drive, 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 741-1019
Fax: (312) 264-0100
Email: beth@feganscott.com
megan@feganscott.com
ASR GROUP: Moretti's Ristorante Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Moretti's Ristorante & Pizzeria (Schaumburg),
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASR
Group International, Inc., American Sugar Refining, Inc., United
Sugar Producers & Refiners Cooperative formerly known as: United
Sugars Corporation, Michigan Sugar Company, Commodity Information,
Inc., Richard Wistisen, Case No. 1:24-cv-03769 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on June 20,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02344-JWB-DTS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
ASR Group International, Inc. -- https://www.asr-group.com/ -- is
the world's largest refiner and marketer of cane sugar.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Cody Douglas McCracken, Esq.
Melissa Morgans, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA
4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Phone: (202) 789-3960
Email: cmccracken@cuneolaw.com
lmorgans@cuneolaw.com
- and -
David Malcolm McMullan, Jr., Esq.
Don Barrett, Esq.
Katherine Riley, Esq.
Sarah Sterling Aldridge, Esq.
BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
404 Court Square North
Lexinton, MS 39095
Phone: (662) 834-2488
Fax: (662) 834-2628
Email: dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com
saldridge@barrettlawgroup.com
- and -
Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
Two CityPlace Drive, Ste. Second Floor
Saint Louis, MO 63141
Phone: (314) 226-1015
Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Shawn M Raiter, Esq.
LARSON KING, LLP
30 E 7th St Ste 2800
St Paul, MN 55101-4922
Phone: (651) 312-6500
Fax: (651) 312-6615
Email: sraiter@larsonking.com
AT&T INC: Doss Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------
The case styled as Stephanie Doss, Bethany Miller, Aimee Jarvis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T
Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-00234 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas on June 17, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01490-E to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Torts/Pers Injury for Other
Personal Injury.
AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- is an American multinational
telecommunications holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC
4006 Central Street
Kansas City, MO 64111
Phone: (816) 888-8010
Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Colby Millard Everett, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1801 California Street, Suite 4400
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 861-0600
Fax: (303) 861-7805
Email: ceverett@bakerlaw.com
AT&T INC: Morgenstern Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARJORIE MORGENSTERN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-01445-N (N.D. Tex., June 13, 2024) is a class action that
seeks to remedy the harms caused by Defendant's failure to
adequately secure and safeguard Plaintiff's personally identifiable
information including, but not limited to, full names, email
addresses, mailing addresses, phone numbers, social security
numbers, dates of birth, AT&T account numbers, and passcodes.
On March 17, 2024, the Defendant experienced a cybersecurity
incident, whereby the PII of Plaintiff and approximately 73 million
Class Members, including 7.6 million current AT&T customers and
65.4 million former AT&T customers, was exfiltrated. The Data
Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement
adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols
necessary to protect consumers' PII from a foreseeable and
preventable cyber-attack, says the suit.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have
been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft, the suit alleges.
AT&T Inc. is one of the largest wireless carriers and Internet
providers in the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Ethan S. Binder, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-4478
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
ebinder@scott-scott.com
- and -
Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
1575 McFarland Road, Suite 305
Pittsburgh, PA 15216
Telephone: (412) 391-5164
Facsimile: (412) 471-1033
E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com
AT&T INC: Oliver Files Suit in N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AT&T, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Anthony J. Oliver, on behalf of himself and
similarly situated v. AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T, Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-01486-E (N.D. Tex., June 17, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- is an American multinational
telecommunications holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lisa Nicole Collins, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP-ATL
1170 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 256-8231
Fax: (404) 459-5734
Email: lncollins@bakerlaw.com
AT&T INC: Schaefer Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brian Schaefer, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated v. AT&T Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-01752 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on June 17, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01490-E to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.
AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- is an American multinational
telecommunications holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Phone: (612) 594-5999
Fax: (612) 584-4470
Email: emdrake@bm.net
BEVERAGE WORKS: Fails to Provide 60 Days' Notice Under WARN Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. THE BEVERAGE WORKS NY, INC., dba THE BEVERAGE WORKS, Case No.
1:24-cv-04424 (E.D.N.Y., June 22, 2024) alleges that the Defendant
failed to give Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of
Defendant at least 60 days' advance notice of their terminations,
as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act, and 90 days' notice as required by the New York State Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff seeks to enforce the WARN Act's statutory remedy of
60 days' back pay and benefits for himself and those similarly
situated, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 2104, for the Defendant's
failure to provide WARN notice prior to their terminations.
The Plaintiff was terminated along with an estimated 190 other
similarly situated employees as part of, or as the foreseeable
result of mass layoffs or plant closings ordered by Defendant at
its Facilities on or about June 3, 2024, and within 90 days of that
date. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an account
representative who worked at, was based out of, or reported to the
facility located at 2 Atlantic Avenue, Pier 8, Brooklyn, New York
(the "Brooklyn Facility").
The Beverage Works is a Red Bull distributor serving the greater
New York and New Jersey territories since 2000.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: (212) 221-1747
Facsimile: (212) 221-1747
E-mail: rsr@raisnerroupinian.com
jar@raisnerroupinian.com
BLUE ICE: Court Partially Dismissed Consumers' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that an Illinois federal court
partially dismissed consumers' class action against the maker of
Blue Ice Vodka, which holds itself as "hand-crafted" and
"fit-friendly" but is allegedly a high-calorie product of low
quality. The consumers' federal breach of warranty claim is not
sufficiently alleged, and their unjust enrichment claims fail to
the extend that they rely on an unsupportive Florida statute. [GN]
BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS: Alessi Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Alessi, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Bridgestone Corporation, Continental
Aktiengesellschaft, Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Michelin
North America, Inc., Nokian Tyres Inc., Nokian Tyres plc, Nokian
Tyres U.S. Operations LLC, Pirelli & C S.p.A., Pirelli Tire LLC,
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Compagnie Generale Des
Etablissements, Does 1-100, Case No. 6:24-cv-01305 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on June
20, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-rt-55013-SL to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
Bridgestone Americas, Inc. --
https://www.bridgestoneamericas.com/en/index -- is a leading a
global revolution in mobility and transforming the way people and
goods move.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gedney M. Howe, IV, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GEDNEY M HOWE III
PO Box 1034
Charleston, SC 29402
Phone: (843) 722-8048
Fax: (843) 722-2140
- and -
James L Ward, Jr., Esq.
MCGOWAN HOOD AND FELDER (MT PL)
10 Shem Drive, Suite 300
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Phone: (843) 388-7202
Fax: (843) 388-3194
The Defendant is represented by:
H. Sam Mabry, III, Esq.
HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD
PO Box 2048
Greenville, SC 29602
Phone: (864) 240-3200
Fax: (864) 240-3300
BRIDGESTONE CORP: Benton Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cheresse Benton, individually and on behalf of
all others similary situated v. Bridgestone Corporation,
Continental Aktiengesellschaft, Continental Tire the Americas, LLC,
Michelin North America, Inc., Nokian Tyres Inc., Nokian Tyres plc,
Nokian Tyres U.S. Operations LLC, Pirelli & C S.p.A., Pirelli Tire
LLC, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Compagnie Generale Des
Etablissements, Does 1-100, Case No. 4:24-cv-02217 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio on June 20, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-rt-55023-SL to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
Bridgestone -- https://www.bridgestoneamericas.com/en/index -- is a
leading a global revolution in mobility and transforming the way
people and goods move.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven Noel Williams, Esq.
Kai'Ree K. Howard
STEVEN WILLIAMS LAW, P.C.
201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: (415) 597-1509
BROCKTON AREA: Faces Anderson Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS ANDERSON as next friend of JOYNER ANDERSON BAKER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BROCKTON AREA MULTI SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-11607 (D. Mass., June 21, 2024), arises out of the
recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated
against Brockton Area Multi Services, Inc. (BAMSI), which held in
its possession certain personally identifiable information and
protected health information of Plaintiff and other current and
former patients of BAMSI, the putative class members.
This data breach occurred on or about April 14, 2023 and around
21,537 or more individuals' sensitive data was compromised.
Moreover, the data breach resulted from Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect individuals' private information
with which it was entrusted for either treatment or employment or
both. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit
on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's
inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that
it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and
adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members.
The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to,
compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and
injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data
security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit
monitoring services funded by Defendant. The Plaintiff also asserts
claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, intrusion upon
seclusion/invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and declaratory
judgment.
BAMSI is a healthcare company based in Easton, MA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP
53 State Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 913-0363
- and -
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: jarett@ellzeyaw.com
leigh@ellseylaw.com
BROMACO INC: Montiel Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bromaco, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Jose Ivan Montiel, Brayan Montiel, Jose
Adolfo Montiel on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. Bromaco, Inc. d/b/a Aurora Williamsburg, Aurora
Soho Inc. d/b/a Aurora Soho, Aurora East, Inc. d/b/a Montesacro,
Aurora Fg, Inc. d/b/a Evelina, Aurora Catering, Inc. d/b/a Emporio,
Baker N Co., Inc. d/b/a Baker N Co, Gaspare Villa, Riccardo
Buitoni, Case No. 712790/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., June 18,
2024).
The case type is stated as "Other."
Bromaco, Inc. doing business as Aurora Williamsburg --
https://www.aurorabk.com/ -- serves rustic Italian dishes with
inspiration drawn from Piedmont.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 west 24th Street, Ste 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: (212) 465-1180
Fax: (212) 465-1181
Email: cklee@leelitigation.com
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Bosley Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Bradford Bosley, Patricia Bosley, on behalf of
all others similarly situated and the general public v. California
Physicians' Service doing business as: Blue Shield of California,
Medical Eye Services, Inc. doing business as: MesVision, Case No.
3:24-cv-00229 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on June 18, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11575-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract.
California Physicians' Service doing business as Blue Shield of CA
-- https://www.blueshieldca.com/ -- offers both employer and
individual & family HMO and PPO health insurance plans for every
budget.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
Ronald Marron, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Phone: (619) 696-9006
Fax: (619) 564-6665
Email: alexis@consumersadvocates.com
kas@consumersadvocates.com
ron@consumersadvocates.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Craig J Mariam, Esq.
Michael J. Dailey, Esq.
GORDON & REES LLP
633 W. Fifth Street, 52nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 576-5000
Fax: (877) 306-0043
Email: cmariam@grsm.com
mdailey@grsm.com
- and -
Kyle T. Cutts, Esq.
127 Public Square, Suite 2000
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 861-7576
Email: kcutts@bakerlaw.com
CALLCORE MEDIA: Class Settlement in TCPA Suit Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, writing for The National Law Review, reports that
a few years ago there was a super bowl commercial by E-trade in
which they had a monkey and a couple of random folks clapping in a
garage to la cucaracha. At the end of the commercial a graphic
reads:
"well we just wasted two million bucks."
I suspect the folks over at CallCore Media may feel the same.
On June 25, a Court in Texas granted final approval to a settlement
whereby CallCore (and its insurer) will pay $2MM to a class of
individuals who allegedly received illegal marketing calls that
violated the TCPA.
Each class member that makes a claim is expected to receive $450.00
-- which is a pretty good recovery in a TCPA class settlement.
The settlement classes are:
TCPA Class: The persons to whom calls were placed by or on behalf
of CallCore, whose information was obtained from PHBC and the calls
were transferred to CallCore.
Texas Class: The persons with Texas addresses and/or Texas area
codes to whom calls were placed by or behalf of CallCore, whose
information was obtained from PHBC and the calls were transferred
to CallCore.
Yes, PHBC -- whatever that is -- was apparently a lead source that
got CallCore into trouble. Another cautionary tale about buying
leads I suppose.
The case is Burnett v. Callcore Media, Inc. 2024 WL 3166453 Civil
Action No.: 4:21-cv-03176 (S.D. Tex. 06/25/2024). [GN]
CANADA: Court Approves $817MM Pension Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
A class-action settlement has been approved for eligible Canadian
veterans who were underpaid disability pension benefits by Veterans
Affairs Canada (VAC).
According to the class action's website, the federal court decision
approving the settlement became effective in March 2024.
The representative plaintiffs alleged that VAC miscalculated the
benefits between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2023, and failed
to index the payments properly based on inflation.
As a result, veterans haven't received the full amount of benefits
they are entitled to or interest on the benefits, noted Koskie
Minsky, one of the law firms involved in the case.
Canada's Veterans Ombudsman noted that VAC estimated that this
error affected about 270,000 veterans who served for the Canadian
Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as well as
"survivors and their estates."
The agreement states that class members will get a one-time payment
of approximately 2 per cent of the affected benefits received
during the aforementioned period.
The estimated value of the agreement, depending on the total
claims, is at least $435 million and up to $817 million.
According to court documents, the average class member will receive
under $5,000, and only 40 eligible payments exceed $35,000
"It is important to ensure that veterans receive their proper
financial consideration," said representative plaintiff David White
in a statement.
"I am pleased that has been achieved through this Agreement and
that the Class of disabled veterans will receive compensation."
Two different settlement groups
Claims administrator KPMG says there are two different groups
involved in this settlement.
The first are class members who either have a current payment
relationship with, currently receive disability pension benefits
from, or are a survivor of a person who received disability pension
benefits from VAC.
These individuals do not need to submit a claims form and will
automatically receive their settlement payment from VAC by direct
deposit or cheque by December 19, 2024.
The second group involves relatives or estate representatives of a
class member or class members who do not have a current payment
relationship with VAC.
These individuals must submit a claim in writing or online by March
9, 2025.
KPMG notes that all claims will be paid out by March 2026, and the
time to opt out of the settlement has passed.
The accounting firm has also established a dedicated call centre to
address general inquiries and help individuals complete the online
claim form. The call centre can be reached at 1-866-545-9920, or
questions can also be emailed to info@vetspensionerror.ca. [GN]
CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL: Bellantoni Transferred to E.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alessandra Bellantoni, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capital One Financial
Corporation, Capital One, N.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-01558 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia on June 20, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01076-DJN-LRV to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Capital One Financial Corporation -- https://www.capitalone.com/ --
is an American bank holding company specializing in credit cards,
auto loans, banking, and savings accounts, headquartered in McLean,
Virginia with operations primarily in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Chris Gold, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW PA
20900 NE 30th Ave., Ste 417
Aventura, FL 33139
Phone: (561) 789-4413
Email: chris@edelsberglaw.com
CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL: Wise Transferred to E.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Diana Wise, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Capital One Financial Corporation,
Capital One, N.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-01558 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on June
20, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01076-DJN-LRV to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Capital One Financial Corporation -- https://www.capitalone.com/ --
is an American bank holding company specializing in credit cards,
auto loans, banking, and savings accounts, headquartered in McLean,
Virginia with operations primarily in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David S. Almeida, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Phone: (312) 576-3024
The Defendants are represented by:
Jade R. Lambert, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP - CHICAGO
110 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3800
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 764-6902
Fax: (312) 995-6330
Email: jlambert@kslaw.com
CASA AZUL CANTINA: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Casa Azul Cantina,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Leonardo Hernandez, an
individual, on behalf of himself, all other aggrieved employees,
and the general public v. Casa Azul Cantina, LLC, Frida Restaurant
Beverly Hills, LLC, Frida Restaurant Del Amo, LLC, Frida Restaurant
Sherman Oaks, LLC, Frida Restaurant Cerritos, LLC, Frimex
Hospitality Group LLC, Frida Restaurant Forum Shops, LLC, Frida
Restaurant Forum Shops, LLC, Does 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No.
24STCV14239 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 18, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Casa Azul Cantina LLC is a vibrant Mexican restaurant nestled in
the heart of Los Angeles, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
BOYAMIAN LAW, INC.
550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
Glendale, CA 91203-1922
Phone: 818.547.5300
Fax: 818.547.5678
Email: michael@boyamianlaw.com
CENCORA INC: Buracker Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cencora, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Barbara Buracker, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Cencora, Inc., The Lash Group,
LLC, Glaxosmithkline LLC, Glaxosmithkline Patient Access Programs
Foundation, Case No. 2:24-cv-02648-CMR (E.D. Pa., June 17, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Cencora, Inc. -- https://www.cencora.com/ -- formerly known as
AmerisourceBergen, is an American drug wholesale company and a
contract research organization that was formed by the merger of
Bergen Brunswig and AmeriSource in 2001.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Dr., Suite 400
West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (610) 477-8380
Email: bjohns@shublawyers.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregory T. Parks, Esq.
Kristin M. Hadgis, Esq.
Terese M. Schireson, Esq.
2222 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 963-5170
Fax: (215) 963-5001
Email: gparks@morganlewis.com
kristin.hadgis@morganlewis.com
terese.schireson@morganlewis.com
- and -
Emily Wheeling, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1701 MARKET STREET
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 963-5876
Fax: (215) 963-5001
Email: emily.wheeling@morganlewis.com
CENCORA INC: Reynolds Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cencora, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Lori Reynolds, Jesse Muenkel, on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated persons v. Cencora,
Inc., The Lash Group, LLC, Glaxosmithkline LLC, Glaxosmithkline
Patient Access Programs Foundation, Case No. 2:24-cv-02648-CMR
(E.D. Pa., June 17, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Cencora, Inc. -- https://www.cencora.com/ -- formerly known as
AmerisourceBergen, is an American drug wholesale company and a
contract research organization that was formed by the merger of
Bergen Brunswig and AmeriSource in 2001.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Dr., Suite 400
West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (610) 477-8380
Email: bjohns@shublawyers.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregory T. Parks, Esq.
Kristin M. Hadgis, Esq.
Terese M. Schireson, Esq.
2222 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 963-5170
Fax: (215) 963-5001
Email: gparks@morganlewis.com
kristin.hadgis@morganlewis.com
terese.schireson@morganlewis.com
- and -
Emily Wheeling, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1701 MARKET STREET
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 963-5876
Fax: (215) 963-5001
Email: emily.wheeling@morganlewis.com
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Merry Files Suit in D. Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Change Healthcare
Inc. The case is styled as Melissa Merry, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Change Healthcare Inc.,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00239 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota on June 18, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02189-DWF-DJF to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
Change Healthcare -- https://www.changehealthcare.com/ -- is a
provider of revenue and payment cycle management that connects
payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare
system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emily E. Schiller, Esq.
James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
Robert Bruce Grayson K Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Email: eschiller@stranchlaw.com
gstranch@stranchlaw.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Kenneth Jay Grunfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
65 Overhill Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Phone: (954) 525-4100
Fax: (954) 525-4300
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
grunfeld@kolawyers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
E. Todd Presnell, Esq.
Miller & Martin
150 4th Ave N Ste 1200
Nashville, TN 37219
Phone: (615) 244-9270
Email: tpresnell@millermartin.com
- and -
Kimberly Michelle Ingram-Hogan
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP (NASHVILLE, TN OFFICE)
1221 Broadway, Suite 2400
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 252-3592
Email: kingram@bradley.com
CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 6, 2024, that a class action lawsuit
alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed on
November 29, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the company and certain of its
former officers.
The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock between June 1, 2023 and November 16, 2023
and alleges that the Class Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding component costs and supply overruns
for DC charging products which resulted in impairment charges and
an adverse impact on profitability. A second class action lawsuit
asserting the same claims and premised on the same underlying
allegations, which purports to be on behalf of purchasers of the
Company’s stock between December 7, 2021 and November 16, 2023,
was filed against the Class Defendants on January 22, 2024.
The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
On May 16, 2024, the Court consolidated the Class Actions into one
action captioned "Khan v. ChargePoint Holdings, Inc., et al.," Case
No. 23-cv-06172-PCP, appointed two lead plaintiffs, and appointed
lead counsel. The parties have stipulated that the lead plaintiffs
shall file an amended complaint by July 19, 2024 and that the class
defendants shall respond to or file a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint by September 17, 2024 with additional briefing to
follow.
ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. is a designer, developer and a marketer
of networked electric vehicle charging system infrastructure based
in California.
CHRISTIE'S INC: Bruce Sues Over Data Security Failure
-----------------------------------------------------
ALICE BRUCE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTIE’S INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04748 (S.D.N.Y., June 21, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive personal
information of its customers and asserts claims for negligence,
breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
On or about June 7, 2024, Defendant began mailing Plaintiff and
other data breach victims a Notice of Data Breach letter informing
them that its systems and stored files were accessed by
unauthorized actor between May 8, 2024 to May 9, 2024. Defendant's
investigation revealed that Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal
identifiable information (PII) was accessed and acquired by data
thieves. As a result of the data breach, Plaintiff and Class
Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of
fraud and identity theft. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this
class action lawsuit on behalf all those similarly situated to
address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' PII
that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely
and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their
information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an
unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information
was accessed, says the suit.
Headquartered in New York, NY, Christie's Inc. is a fine art,
luxury, and antiques auction business that hosts live and online
auctions around the globe. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven Sukert, Esq.
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Boulevard Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 990-2218
E-mail: sukert@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
CHRISTY SPORTS: Demaio Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Christy Sports, LLC.
The case is styled as Desiree Demaio, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Christy Sports, LLC, Case No.
CACE24008693 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., June 20, 2024).
Christy Sports -- https://www.christysports.com/ -- is here for all
of your summer activities: from gearing up for your next hike,
bike, or day on the lake, to leveling up your patio furniture.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Phone: (202) 709-5744
Fax: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Davidov Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Susan Davidov, Robert Furst, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Continental
Aktiengesellschaft, Bridgestone Corporation, Continental Tire the
Americas, LLC, Michelin North America, Inc., Nokian Tyres Inc.,
Nokian Tyres plc, Nokian Tyres U.S. Operations LLC, Pirelli & C
S.p.A., Pirelli Tire LLC, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company,
Compagnie Generale Des Etablissements, Does 1-100, Case No.
1:24-cv-01367 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on June 20, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-rt-55020-SL to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
Continental AG -- https://www.continental.com/en/ -- commonly known
as Continental or colloquially as Conti, is a German multinational
automotive parts manufacturing company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
April Dawn Lambert, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM
475 Wall Street
Princeton, NJ 08540
Phone: (312) 339-7140
- and -
John D. Radice, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (646) 722-8500
Fax: (646) 722-8501
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam C. Hemlock, Esq.
David Lender, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES - NEW YORK
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Phone: (212) 310-8000
Fax: (212) 310-8007
Email: adam.hemlock@weil.com
david.lender@weil.com
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Doherty Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Donald Doherty, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Continental Aktiengesellschaft,
Bridgestone Corporation, Continental Tire the Americas, LLC,
Michelin North America, Inc., Nokian Tyres Inc., Nokian Tyres plc,
Nokian Tyres U.S. Operations LLC, Pirelli & C S.p.A., Pirelli Tire
LLC, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Compagnie Generale Des
Etablissements, Does 1-100, Case No. 6:24-cv-01304 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on June
20, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-rt-55012-SL to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
Continental AG -- https://www.continental.com/en/ -- commonly known
as Continental or colloquially as Conti, is a German multinational
automotive parts manufacturing company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James L. Ward, Jr., Esq.
McGowan Hood and Felder (Mt Pl)
10 Shem Drive, Suite 300
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Phone: (843) 388-7202
Fax: (843) 388-3194
- and -
Jennifer Spragins Burnett
HARBIN AND BURNETT LLP
2124 North Highway 81
Anderson, SC 29621
Phone: (864) 964-0333
Fax: (864) 964-0930
The Defendants are represented by:
H. Sam Mabry, III, Esq.
HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD
PO Box 2048
Greenville, SC 29602
Phone: (864) 240-3200
Fax: (864) 240-3300
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Earls Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Chris Earls, Ryan Fritzinger, Todd Serotte,
Joshua Dutton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Continental Aktiengesellschaft, Bridgestone
Corporation, Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Michelin North
America, Inc., Nokian Tyres Inc., Nokian Tyres plc, Nokian Tyres
U.S. Operations LLC, Pirelli & C S.p.A., Pirelli Tire LLC, The
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Compagnie Generale Des
Etablissements, Does 1-100, Case No. 0:24-cv-01332 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on June
20, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-rt-55011-SL to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
Continental AG -- https://www.continental.com/en/ -- commonly known
as Continental or colloquially as Conti, is a German multinational
automotive parts manufacturing company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James L. Ward, Jr., Esq.
McGowan Hood and Felder (Mt Pl)
10 Shem Drive, Suite 300
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Phone: (843) 388-7202
Fax: (843) 388-3194
- and -
Jennifer Spragins Burnett
HARBIN AND BURNETT LLP
2124 North Highway 81
Anderson, SC 29621
Phone: (864) 964-0333
Fax: (864) 964-0930
The Defendants are represented by:
H. Sam Mabry, III, Esq.
HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD
PO Box 2048
Greenville, SC 29602
Phone: (864) 240-3200
Fax: (864) 240-3300
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Edwards Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michele Edwards, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Continental Aktiengesellschaft,
Bridgestone Corporation, Continental Tire the Americas, LLC,
Michelin North America, Inc., Nokian Tyres Inc., Nokian Tyres plc,
Nokian Tyres U.S. Operations LLC, Pirelli & C S.p.A., Pirelli Tire
LLC, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Compagnie Generale Des
Etablissements, Does 1-100, Case No. 1:24-cv-01092 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on
June 20, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-rt-55016-SL to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
Continental AG -- https://www.continental.com/en/ -- commonly known
as Continental or colloquially as Conti, is a German multinational
automotive parts manufacturing company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michelle C. Clerkin, Esq.
SPIRO HARRISON & NELSON - NEW YORK
40 Exchange Place, Ste. 1404
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (646) 880-8850
Email: mclerkin@spiroharrison.com
The Defendants are represented by:
J. Mark Gidley, Esq.
Department Of Justice
555 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 514-5796
- and -
Robert A. Milne, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP (NY)
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 819-8200
Fax: (212) 354-8113
COX AUTOMOTIVE: Fedderson Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dana Fedderson, an individual, and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated v. COX AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATE
SERVICES, LLC; COX AUTOMOTIVE, INC.; COX ENTERPRISES, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2024-01388502-CU-WT-CJC
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in
and for the County of Orange, to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on June 18, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-01322.
The Complaint purports to assert claims for relief arising out of
Plaintiff's employment with Cox. Specifically, Plaintiff brings
claims for age discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment
and Housing Act ("FEHA"); disability discrimination in violation of
FEHA; retaliation in violation of FEHA; harassment in violation of
FEHA; failure to prevent discrimination and harassment in violation
of FEHA; inference in violation of the California Family Rights Act
("CFRA"); and retaliation in violation of the CFRA.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul Berkowitz, Esq.
Raymond J. Nhan, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055
Phone: 310.228.3700
Facsimile: 310.228.3701
Email: pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com
rnhan@sheppardmullin.com
CREST FURNITURE: Harrell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALFONSO HARRELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Crest Furniture, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-07157 (D.N.J., June 21, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to make its website accessible to legally blind
individuals.
Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's website, blind and
visually-impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need
screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods,
and services Defendant offers to the public on its website.
Moreover, Plaintiff Harrell alleges that Defendant violated the
effective communication and equal access requirements of Title III
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Crest Furniture, Inc. owns and operates the website,
https://www.valuecitynj.com, which offers customers several home
furnishings including bedroom sets, dining room tables, office
desks and chairs, mattresses and home decor items, as well as other
types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing
specials. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
CVS PHARMACY INC: McLaurin Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Eugenia McLaurin, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CVS PHARMACY, INC, Case No.
24STCV05082 was removed from the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on June 19,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-05177 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
CVS Pharmacy, Inc. -- https://www.cvs.com/ -- is an American retail
corporation. A subsidiary of CVS Health, it is headquartered in
Woonsocket, Rhode Island.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Shawn Scott Ledingham, Jr., Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
2029 Century Park East Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3010
Phone: (310) 284-5659
Fax: (310) 557-2193
Email: sledingham@proskauer.com
DALCOX CORP: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Jimenez Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Emigdio Jimenez, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. Dalcox Corp. Daniel A. Soto And Karla S.
Burgos, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-61023 (S.D.
Fla., June 13, 2024) is an action against the Defendants to recover
half-time overtime compensation, retaliatory damages, liquidated
damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, and all
other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff
who worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after
April 2023, without being adequately compensated.
Plaintiff Jimenez was employed as a non-exempt, full-time employee
from approximately April 15, 2023, to May 13, 2024, or 58 weeks. He
had duties as a warehouse employee and delivery driver.
Dalcox Corp. is an importer, wholesaler, and distributor of Latin
American fresh produce.[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
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
DIME BEAUTY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Espinal Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIME BEAUTY CO. LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-04754 (S.D.N.Y., June 21, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
Plaintiff Espinal alleges that the Defendant's violated her rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Based in Dover, DE, Dime Beauty Co. LLC, operates the Dime Beauty
online retail store as well as the Dime Beauty website,
https://dimebeautyco.com, which provides consumers with access to
an array of goods including information about purchasing skincare,
accessories and other products and services available online. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
DIRECT MARKETING: Wahab Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Wahab, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. DIRECT MARKETING VENTURES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04700
(S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2024), is brought against Defendant for the
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's
website, www.gregory.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and
therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore,
Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that the 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.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of
such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
DOWNEY RESTAURANT: Rosales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Downey Restaurant
Group, Inc. C, et al. The case is styled as Diana Mendez Rosales,
an individual, on behalf of herself, all other aggrieved employees,
and the general public v. Downey Restaurant Group, Inc. d/b/a
GAUCHO GRILL, a California corporation, Does 1 through 100
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV153250 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., June 20, 2024).
Downey Restaurant Group, Inc. doing business as Gaucho Grill --
https://www.gaucho-grills.com/ -- is a harmonious blend of Latin
flair and American precision craftsmanship.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
BOYAMIAN LAW, INC.
550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
Glendale, CA 91203-1922
Phone: 818.547.5300
Fax: 818.547.5678
Email: michael@boyamianlaw.com
DOXIM INC: McKinley Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan McKinley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Doxim, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-11550-TGB-CI (E.D. Mich., June 13, 2024) is a data breach
class action against Defendant for its failure to adequately secure
and safeguard confidential and sensitive information held
throughout the typical course of business of Plaintiff and the
Class.
On December 30, 2023, an unauthorized actor gained access to the
Defendant's network and computer systems and obtained unauthorized
access to Defendant's files. The information exposed or otherwise
accessed by an unauthorized third-party in the Data Breach included
Plaintiff and the Class member's names, addresses, financial
account numbers, and social security numbers. The Plaintiff and the
Class are now faced with a present and imminent lifetime risk of
identity theft or fraud. These risks are made more substantial, and
significant because of the inclusion of their SSN and other static
PII, says the suit.
As a result of Defendant's delayed response to the data breach,
Plaintiff and the Class had no idea their PII had been compromised,
and that they were, and continue to be, at significant and imminent
risk of identity theft, fraud, and various other forms of personal,
social and financial harm, the suit alleges.
Doxim, Inc. provides software as a service. The Company offers loan
origination, customer relationship management, business analytics,
enterprise content, and wealth management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Emily E. Hughes, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 West University Drive
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
eeh@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (612)-336-2940
E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
DOXO INC: Faces Mundle Class Suit Over Deceptive Online Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS MUNDLE, individually and on behalf all persons similarly
situated v. DOXO, INC., a corporation, STEVEN SHIVERS, individually
and as an officer of DOXO, INC., and ROGER PARKS, individually and
as an officer of DOXO, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00893 (W.D. Wash.,
June 21, 2024) alleges that Defendants willfully frustrated
consumers' desires for cost-effective, timely and secure online
payments by injecting their Doxo website between consumers and the
legitimate online payment portals of consumers' service providers,
saddling consumers with worthless subscriptions, junk fees,
unnecessary payment delays and the added risk of mailed payments.
The Defendants purposefully deceive consumers into believing they
have reached authentic payment portals and/or that Doxo is an
authorized payment processor for consumers' service providers.
Allegedly, Doxo is a completely unnecessary third-party that uses
deception, dark patterns and look-alike web pages to extract
unearned and unnecessary fees from consumers for the simple act of
paying their bills online.
In or about 2019, the Plaintiff sought to pay a medical bill and
used a search engine to locate his doctor's payment portal. He was
directed to the Doxo website, which he believed was the authorized
online payment site of his doctor. After entering information
through several successive screens, Plaintiff was asked to pay a
service charge for making his online payment.
In or about 2021, the Plaintiff sought to pay a toll charge for the
NY State Thruway. He searched for the payment portal and was
directed to the Doxo website. The website displayed the NY State
Thruway name, so Plaintiff believed that the State had contracted
with Doxo to provide its payment services. At the end of the
payment process, Plaintiff was required to pay a service fee and
because he believed that Doxo was the authorized payment site for
the State, he paid the fee, thinking that it was required. Had
Plaintiff known that the Doxo website was not the thruway's
authorized payment portal, Plaintiff would have attempted to find
the authorized payment portal and would have avoided paying Doxo's
service fee. Online bill payment has been widely adopted across all
sectors of the US economy because it provides a fast,
cost-effective and secure way for consumers to directly pay their
bills without having to write checks, buy stamps or use the post,
says the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Loeser, Esq.
Karin Swope, Esq.
Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
Karin B. Swope, Esq.
COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY L.L.P.
999 N. Northlake Way, Suite 215
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 970-8181
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com
kswope@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Derek Loeser, Esq.
David Ko, Esq.
Andrew Lindsay, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
dko@kellerrohrback.com
alindsay@kellerrohrback.com
EDLOE FINCH: Chiechi Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA CHIECHI, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. EDLOE FINCH LLC d/b/a Albany Park, a
Texas limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-05241
(C.D. Cal., June 21, 2024) seeks to address Defendant's misleading
and unlawful pricing, sales, and discounting practices on its
website.
Allegedly, the Defendant advertised false, misleading, and inflated
comparison reference prices to deceive customers into a belief that
the sale price is a discounted bargain price. Moreover, Defendant
has employed high-pressure sales tactics by offering including
significant price reductions of purported limited duration.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for fraud (intentional
misrepresentation and omission), unjust enrichment/quasi-contract,
negligent misrepresentation, and for violations of California
Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and
the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Headquartered in Texas, Edloe Finch LLC is an online furniture
retailer. Through the website, www.albanypark.com, the company
sells its products to consumers in California and nationwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander E. Wolf, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (872) 365-7060
E-mail: awolf@milberg.com
EF INSTITUTE: Plaintiffs' Bid to Certify Class Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA DOUGLAS, THOMAS
AIKINS, and SARA KAHL, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. EF INSTITUTE FOR CULTURAL EXCHANGE, INC., EF
EDUCATION FIRST INTERNATIONAL, LTD., and EF EXPLORE AMERICA, INC.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-11740-DJC (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Denise Casper
entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the
proposed class:
"All purchasers of travel services from EF for trips that were
initially scheduled to depart between March 12, 2020, and
December
31, 2021, whose trips did not depart as originally scheduled,
and
to whom EF paid a refund that was less than the full amount that
the purchasers initially paid for the trips (a "Partial
Refund").
The Class excludes any employees of EF and its affiliates or
their
immediate family members, and any judge presiding over this case
or
their immediate family members.
Because each class member must show both factual causation and
proximate causation, individual issues as to causation are bound to
predominate. There is ample reason in the record to doubt whether,
but for the Booking Conditions, all class members, including but
not limited to those who canceled their tours before EF Tours
postponed or canceled same, would have acted differently.
In sum, because Plaintiffs propose an expanded class definition and
the proposed modifications would be unfairly prejudicial to EF
Tours, the Court declines to certify Plaintiffs’ proposed class
definition. Even if the Court had accepted Plaintiffs’ class
definition, it fails on the predominance requirement under Rule
23(b)(3) as discussed below. For that reason, the Court addresses
all of the Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) factors below.4
The Plaintiffs allege violations of Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A. The
Plaintiffs now move for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23.
The Plaintiffs enrolled their children in tours operated by EF
Tours scheduled to depart in the spring of 2020. On or after Jan.
30, 2020, more than 283,000 students were scheduled to depart on
tours between March 2020 and December 2021. As Covid-19 spread
across the globe, however, tours were either canceled, rescheduled
or postponed.
EF arranges and operates educational group tours domestically and
abroad, predominantly for students in high school and middle
school.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KWB0oP at no extra
charge.[CC]
ELI TIMBERLAND: Orozco Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
JUAN OROZCO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELI TIMBERLAND TREE SERVICE LLC and ELI
SANIDI, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07045 (D.N.J., June 14, 2024)
is a class action alleging Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law arising
from their various willful and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and/or practices.
According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully and
intentionally maintained a policy and practice of requiring the
Plaintiff and the FLSA collective employees to work more than 40
hours per week without providing them with any additional
compensation, as evidenced by timesheets, employee schedules, and
other relevant documentation.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in the position of a
tree cutter from May 2014 until May 31, 2024.
Eli Timberland Tree Service LLC is a company engaged in the tree
removal and tree trimming services industry.[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
E-mail: LS@StillmanLegalPC.com
EPIC LANDSCAPE: Bid to Substitute Class Representative Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gomez, et al., v. Epic
Landscape Productions, L.C., Case No. 2:22-cv-02198 (D. Kan., Filed
May 30, 2022), the Hon. Judge Julie A. Robinson entered an order
granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to substitute proposed
class representative.
-- In plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification,
appointment
of class representatives, and appointment of class counsel,
Leonel
Quinones Vargas is deemed substituted in place of Jesus
Salvador
Hernandez Devora as the proposed Class Representative for
plaintiffs' proposed H-2B worker class and Missouri Minimum
Wage
and Maximum Hours Laws claims. Signed by Magistrate Judge Angel
D.
Mitchell on June 14, 2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Epic specializes in designing and building creative, functional and
fabulous landscapes.[CC]
EXICURE INC: Faces Colwell Shareholder Suit in Illinois Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Exicure Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 6, 2024, that it is facing a putative securities
class action lawsuit against the company, David A. Giljohann and
Brian C. Bock in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, captioned "Colwell v. Exicure, Inc. et al.,"
Case No. 1:21-cv-0663. Said suit was filed on December 13, 2021 by
Mark Colwell.
On February 4, 2021, the plaintiff filed an amended putative
securities class action complaint. On March 20, 2023, the court
entered an order appointing James Mathew as lead plaintiff and
Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP as lead counsel in the action pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
On May 26, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint against the company, Dr. Giljohann, Mr. Bock, and Grant
Corbett. The second amended complaint alleges that Dr. Giljohann,
Mr. Bock, and Dr. Corbett made materially false and/or misleading
statements related to the company's clinical programs purportedly
causing losses to investors who acquired company securities between
January 7, 2021, and December 10, 2021.
The second amended complaint does not quantify any alleged damages
but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, lead plaintiff seeks
to recover damages on behalf of himself and others who acquired the
company's stock during the putative class period at allegedly
inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a
result.
The parties filed a joint status report noting the mediation
efforts taken by the parties. The report also proposes a litigation
schedule going forward, which the court adopted: plaintiff's third
amended complaint is due on or before June 28, 2024, and any motion
to dismiss is due on or before August 27, 2024, with a response due
on or before October 8, 2024, and any reply due on or before
November 5, 2024. Accordingly, the status hearing set for May 22,
2024 was reset to July 23, 2024.
Exicure, Inc. is an early-stage biotechnology company based in
Illinois.
EXSCIENTIA PLC: Campanile Alleges Securities Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
FRANK CAMPANILE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXSCIENTIA P.L.C., ANDREW HOPKINS, BEN R.
TAYLOR, and DAVID NICHOLSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07181
(D.N.J., June 21, 2024) seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, against the Company and certain of its
top officials.
The Plaintiff brings this federal securities class action on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased Exscientia's common stock or purchased
Exscientia call options or sold put options during the Class
Period, including any Exscientia common stock purchased or
otherwise acquired in connection with the exercise of such options,
between March 23, 2022, and February 12, 2024, both dates
inclusive. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Defendant Hopkins had engaged in improper relationships with
employees that were inconsistent with the Company's standards and
values; (ii) Defendant Nicholson had prior knowledge of Defendant
Hopkins's relationships and had improperly addressed Hopkins's
misconduct without consulting the Board; (iii) the Company's
maintenance and enforcement of its Code of Business Conduct and
Ethics was inadequate to safeguard against the foregoing conduct;
(iv) and that the foregoing failures subjected the Company to a
heightened risk of disruptive leadership transitions and/or
reputational harm, says the suit.
Based in Oxford, UK, Exscientia is an pharmaceutical technology
company that trades its securities on the NASDAQ under the ticker
symbol "EXAI".[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 313-1887
Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
FIRST AMERICAN: Glickman Sues Over Unprotected Personal Information
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM GLICKMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-01369 (C.D. Cal., June 21, 2024) arises
from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive
information of its clients' customers.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf all those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' personally identifiable information that it
collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and
adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members. In its June
10, 2024 data breach notice letter, the Defendant also failed to
specify whether it undertook any efforts to contact the approximate
41,000 Class Members whose data was accessed and acquired in the
data breach to inquire whether any of the Class Members suffered
misuse of their data, whether Class Members should report their
misuse to Defendant, and whether Defendant set up any mechanism for
Class Members to report any misuse of their data. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff asserts claim for negligence, breach of third-party
beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and for violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumer
Privacy Act.
Headquartered in Santa Ana, CA, First American Financial
Corporation is a financial company that provides title insurance
protection and professional settlement services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 S. Beverly Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com
FIRST STUDENT: Purnell Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Latasha Purnell, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. FIRST STUDENT, INC., Case No. 2024
CH 04647 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on June 20, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 1:24-cv-05155.
The Plaintiff's Complaint contains one count, alleging a putative
class action for at least five purportedly separate alleged
violations of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act
("GIPA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Darren M. Mungerson, Esq.
Angela R. Huisingh, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 312.372.5520
Facsimile: 312.372.7880
Email: dmungerson@littler.com
ahuisingh@littler.com
FLOYD INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Austin Due March 3, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON AUSTIN, v. FLOYD
INC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01214-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered a case management scheduling
order as follows:
Event Deadline
Last day to add parties or amend pleadings: Aug. 19, 2024
Plaintiff's motion for class certification March 3, 2025
and class certification expert reports:
Defendant's opposition to motion for class April 2, 2025
certification and opposing class certification
expert reports, Daubert motion(s):
Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for April 23, 2025
class certification and rebuttal class
certification expert reports, Daubert motions,
and opposition(s) to Defendant's Daubert
motion(s):
Defendant's reply in support of Daubert May 5, 2025
motion, opposition to Plaintiff's Daubert
motion(s):
Plaintiff's reply in support of Daubert May 12, 2025
motion:
Close of fact discovery July 11, 2025
Hearing on motion for class certification To be noticed
by
and Daubert motions: the parties
based
on the Court's
availability at
the
time of filing.
Floyd operates as an online furniture company.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0fHzx3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
FOX BUILDING GROUP: Vega Files FLSA Suit in N.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fox Building Group,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Darwin Jimenez Vega, Wilmer
Orellana, David Aguilera Alvarez, Robinson Aguilera Rivas, Olvan
Cruz Mejia, Edwin Garcia Molina, Jecson Gonzalez Machado, German
Hernandez Castro, Claudia Orellana Gomez, Jonathan Castillo Lopez,
Franklin Lainez Ordonez, The Estate of Melvin Orellana, Jose
Lainez, Junior Gonzalez, Luis Orellana Martinez, Jorge Amaya,
Jeremias Cardona, Jose Pineda, Ada Elsy Membreno Portillo, Eliu
Cardona Alvarado, Jose Luis Juarez, Fernando Pineda, individually,
and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Fox Building Group, Inc., Fenix Finishing, LLC, Vega's Drywall
Contracting, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00852 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on June
18, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:24-cv-00785-AMN-MJK to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Fox Building Group -- https://www.foxbuildinggroup.com/ -- is a
family-owned and operated residential and commercial building
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emily E. Schiller, Esq.
James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
Robert Bruce Grayson K Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Email: eschiller@stranchlaw.com
gstranch@stranchlaw.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Kenneth Jay Grunfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
65 Overhill Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Phone: (954) 525-4100
Fax: (954) 525-4300
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
grunfeld@kolawyers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
E. Todd Presnell, Esq.
Miller & Martin
150 4th Ave N Ste 1200
Nashville, TN 37219
Phone: (615) 244-9270
Email: tpresnell@millermartin.com
- and -
Kimberly Michelle Ingram-Hogan
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP (NASHVILLE, TN OFFICE)
1221 Broadway, Suite 2400
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 252-3592
Email: kingram@bradley.com
FREEBIRD STORES: Murray Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Murray, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Freebird Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04634
(S.D.N.Y., June 18, 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.freebirdstores.com (hereinafter
"Freebirdstores.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, Freebirdstores.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.
Freebirdstores.com provides to the public a wide array of the
goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by
Freebird Stores.[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
GAT AIRLINE: Gonzalez Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jesus Herrera Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated, and the general public v. GAT AIRLINE
GROUND SUPPORT, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
CGC-24-614549 was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on June 17, 2024, and assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-03652.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts eight causes of action against
Defendant: failure to pay all wages earned; vacation pay
forfeiture; rest period violations; meal period violations; failure
to indemnify; wage statement violations; waiting time penalties;
and unfair competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert Mussig, Esq.
Devin S. Lindsay, Esq.
Emma Husseman, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership
Including Professional Corporations
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
Phone: 213.620.1780
Facsimile: 213.620.1398
Email: rmussig@sheppardmullin.com
dlindsay@sheppardmullin.com
ehusseman@sheppardmullin.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Behm Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Behm, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, Onstar LLC,
LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-01517 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on June 20, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-02681-TWT to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
General Motors Company -- https://www.gm.com/ -- is an American
multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in
Detroit, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC-MN
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 333-8844
Fax: (612) 339-6622
Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Garcia Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as David Garcia, III, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. General Motors LLC, Onstar LLC,
LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-03515 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia on June 20, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-02673-TWT to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
General Motors Company -- https://www.gm.com/ -- is an American
multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in
Detroit, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roland Tellis, Esq.
BARON & BUDD PC -CA
15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
Encino, CA 91436
Phone: (818) 839-2333
Email: rtellis@baronbudd.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO
5 Becker Farm Road, Ste 2nd Floor
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 994-1700
Fax: (973) 994-1744
Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Troy McMahan, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 318-1200
- and -
William E. Steimle, Esq.
KING & SPALDING, LLP- SF CA
101 Second Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 318-1200
Fax: (415) 381-1300
GENERAL MOTORS: Haiden Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Nathaniel Haiden, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, Onstar LLC,
LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-04030 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia on June 20, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-02671-TWT to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
General Motors Company -- https://www.gm.com/ -- is an American
multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in
Detroit, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Jennifer M. French, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1234 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Phone: (619) 762-1903
Fax: (858) 313-1850
Email: Gary@lcllp.com
jennf@lcllp.com
GOLDCOAST CARRIERS: Ealom and Fernandez Allege Labor Law Breaches
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY EALOM and MIGUEL FERNANDEZ, for themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOLDCOAST CARRIERS INC., and DMG
CONSULTING & DEVELOPMENT INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05217
(N.D. Ill., June 21, 2024) asserts claims for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants misclassified them and a
substantial number of the truck drivers in their service as
independent contractors when they should have been classified as
employees. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have
taken unlawful deductions from their drivers' compensation.
Moreover, the Defendants did not receive proper written
authorization from the drivers in order to take these deductions.
As a result, the Plaintiffs and other drivers received less than
the FLSA minimum wage for all hours worked.
Based in Park Ridge, IL, GoldCoast is a commercial trucking company
that provides over-the-road freight transportation services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Martin Stainthorp, Esq.
John Kunze, Esq,
Martin Stainthorp, Esq.
WORKPLACE LAW PARTNERS, P.C.
111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2300
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 861-1800
E-mail: jkunze@fishlawfirm.com
mstainthorp@fishlawfirm.com
- and -
Brant Casavant, Esq.
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 607-3260
Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
brant@fairworklaw.com
GORSUCH LTD: Pilkington Sues Over Disclosure of Purchase Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTIN PILKINGTON individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GORSUCH, LTD., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-00434 (D. Utah, June 14, 2024) is a class action complaint
against Gorsuch for its intentional, systematic, and unlawful
conduct in violation of Utah's Notice of Intent to Sell Nonpublic
Personal Information Act.
According to the complaint, Defendant Gorsuch rented, sold, and/or
otherwise disclosed for compensation detailed information about
Plaintiff's purchases of Gorsuch products -- including her full
name, home address, the fact that she is a Gorsuch customers, and
the dollar amount of the products she purchased (collectively
"Private Purchase Information") -- to data aggregators, data
appenders, data cooperatives, list brokers, aggressive advertisers,
direct-marketing companies, political organizations, non-profit
companies, and various other third parties. As a result, Plaintiff
received a barrage of unwanted junk mail. By renting, selling,
and/or otherwise disclosing for compensation Plaintiff's Private
Purchase Information, without providing Plaintiff prior notice of
these disclosures, Gorsuch violated the NISNPIA, says the suit.
Gorsuch, Ltd. is a specialty retailer that sells winter sportswear,
resort wear, and home accessories to consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
Arun G. Ravindran, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131-3302
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com
aravindran@hedinllp.com
- and -
David W. Scofield, Esq.
PETERS ❘ SCOFIELD
A Professional Corporation
7430 Creek Road, Suite 303
Sandy, UT 84093-6160
Telephone: (801) 322-2002
Facsimile: (801) 912-0320
E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com
GUNDERSON RAIL: Fails to Pay OT, Mendoza Class Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GUNDERSON RAIL SERVICES, LLC, an Oregon limited
liability company, Case No. 4:24-cv-05067-ACE (E.D. Wash., June 22,
2024) is a class and collective action complaint for damages and
statutory penalties for wage and hour violations of behalf of
current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendant, pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Washington Minimum Wage Act,
and the Wage Rebate Act.
The Plaintiff and Class members are current and former non-exempt
employees who have been employed by Defendant and who have been
victimized by Defendant's unlawful compensation practices.
The Defendant allegedly failed to pay overtime at the regular rate
of pay despite Plaintiff and Class and collective members earning
shift differentials.
Plaintiff Jose Mendoza is an individual over 18 years of age who
worked for Defendant in Washington as a non-exempt employee from
approximately February 2023 to September 6, 2023. The Plaintiff
worked as a Railcar Repairman.
The Plaintiff and members of the class and collective currently
work for or formerly have worked for Defendant.
Gunderson is an Oregon limited liability company that maintains
operations and conducts business throughout the State of
Washington, including in Benton County, and the United States of
America.
The Plaintiff seeks this relief on behalf of the "FLSA
Collective":
a. All current and former non-exempt hourly employees of the
Defendant who worked for Defendant at any time during the
three years preceding the filing of this action through the
present date in the United States of America."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erika Lane, Esq.
Hardeep S. Rekhi, Esq.
Gregory A Wolk, Esq.
REKHI & WOLK, P.S.
529 Warren Ave N., Suite 201
Seattle, WA 98109
Telephone: (206) 388-5887
Facsimile: (206) 577-3924
E-Mail: hardeep@rekhiwolk.com
greg@rekhiwolk.com
elane@rekhiwolk.com
H.P. HOSPITALITY: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Adriana Gonzalez, Dayana Gonzalez, Leonardo Sampedro, Macarena Paz,
and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. H.P.
Hospitality, LLC Ferdinand P. Schmid and John Shields,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00561 (M.D. Fla., June
13, 2024) is an action seeking to recover monetary damages for
Defendants' unpaid regular and overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed as non-exempted, full-time restaurant
employees approximately between May 2022 and March 1, 2024, or
three weeks plus four days.
H.P. Hospitality, LLC is a retail business operating as a
restaurant and specializes in Asian Food.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
HCA HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Lane Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER LANE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00121-AW-MJF (N.D. Fla., June 13, 2024)
is a civil action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Portal-to-Portal Act seeking damages for Defendant's failure to
pay Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek.
According to the complaint, as the result of a common wage payment
policy and/or practice equally applicable to Plaintiff and the
Collective Action Members, the Defendant failed to pay all due and
owing overtime wages to Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members
because it deducted meal breaks of approximately 30 minutes for
each shift.
The Plaintiff is a nurse who works for Defendant from approximately
January 2024 to the present.
HCA Health Services of Florida, Inc. provides general medical and
surgical hospital services in the state of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew E. Romanik, Esq.
MATTHEW E. ROMANIK, P.A.
128 Orange Ave.
Daytona Beach, FL 32114
Telephone: (386) 388-6260
Facsimile: (386) 267-2963
E-mail: Matt@workingforworkers.law
INSOMNIA COOKIES: Must File Class Cert Response by July 8
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Williams, et al., v.
Insomnia Cookies, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-00669 (E.D. Mo.,
Filed May 19, 2023), the Hon. Judge Henry Edward Autrey entered an
order granting extension of time to file response as to motion to
certify class motion for conditional collective certification to
July 8, 2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Insomnia Cookies is a chain of bakeries primarily in the United
States that specializes in delivering warm cookies, baked goods,
and ice cream.[CC]
INTERNATIONAL UNION: Pinn Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against International Union
of Police Associations AFL-CIO. The case is styled as Kelly Pinn,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
International Union of Police Associations AFL-CIO doing business
as: National Police and Troopers Association, Case No.
8:24-cv-01084-TPB-CPT (M.D. Fla., May 7, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
The International Union of Police Associations (IUPA) --
https://iupa.org/ -- is a North American police union, and is
chartered as a national union that represents law enforcement and
support personnel with the AFL–CIO.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
KEYSTONE ADVISORS: Smith Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH SMITH, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
KEYSTONE ADVISORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-02263 (S.D.
Tex., June 14, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
seeking to recover all federal overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The complaint alleges that Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff and
all other similarly situated employees one and one-half times the
applicable regular hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 in one
or more weeks of their employment. As a direct and proximate result
of Defendant's deliberate underpayment of wages, Plaintiff and the
Collective have been damaged in the loss of federal overtime wages
for one or more weeks of work during their employment with
Defendant.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an insurance sales agent
from July 2023 through March 2024.
Keystone Advisors, LLC operates an insurance sales company that
provides customers with several insurance plan options.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: Jordan@JordanRichardsPLLC.com
- and -
Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
EGGNATZ PASCUCCI, P.A.
7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Telephone: (954) 889-3359
E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
KNIGHT HAWK: Court Conditionally Certifies Dye Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOBY DYE, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. KNIGHT HAWK HOLDINGS,
LLC, Et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01329-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
David W. Dugan entered an order conditionally certifying the case
as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and authorizing the Plaintiff to send notice, via United States
mail and email,8 under section 216(b) of the FLSA to:
"All current and former hourly employees of Defendants engaged
in
underground mining in Illinois at any time from April 24, 2020,
to
the present, and worked more than 40 hours in at least one
workweek."
1. The Proposed Notice, including the 60-day opt-in period, is
approved.
2. Within 14 days of entry of this Order, Defendants shall
provide
Plaintiff with an electronic spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel
or
comma-delimited format a roster of all individuals that fit
the
class definition that includes each individual's full name,
date
of employment, last known address, and personal email
address.
3. Within 14 days of entry of this Order, Defendants shall
provide
a declaration that the produced roster fully complies with
the
Court's Order.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint against the Defendants,
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"). The Amended Complaint seeks
to bring the FLSA claim as a collective action under 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b), and the Illinois-law claims as a class action under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HOJHg3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
LAKE MICHIGAN: Fountain Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------
DAVID FOUNTAIN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LAKE MICHIGAN CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case
No. 24-002778-CI (Fla. Cir., 6th Judicial, Pinellas Cty., June 21,
2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act.
On or about February 14, 2024, the Defendant unlawfully sent a text
message communication to Plaintiff in connection with the
collection of the consumer debt. The text message was sent by
Defendant to Plaintiff at 12:03 AM in Plaintiff's time zone, in
violation of the FCCPA, says the suit.
Headquartered in Caledonia, MI, Lake Michigan Credit Union offers
personal and business banking, loans, mortgages, investments, and
insurance. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
LEPRINO FOODS: Class Settlement in Vasquez Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISAIAS VASQUEZ and LINDA
HEFKE on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v.
LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY
PRODUCTS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00796-JLT-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara
McAuliffe entered an order:
-- overruling objections to final approval of class action
settlement and denying request for intervention; and
-- granting final approval of settlement.
1. Objector Bowles's objections to the settlement are overruled
and
his request for intervention is denied.
2. The Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action
settlement is granted.
3. The Court finally approves the settlement of this class
action
in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and
finds that the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement described
therein, and the Maximum Settlement Amount of up to
$3,500,000.00 are fair, reasonable, and adequate in all
respects
pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
4. Certification of the Settlement Class is granted, and the
Court
hereby certifies the following Settlement Class for
settlement
purposes only:
"All individuals who currently or formerly worked at
Leprino's
Lemoore West, Lemoore East, or Tracy facilities in the State
of
California as hourly, nonexempt employees at any time between
November 15, 2009 and July 31, 2023."
5. The Court finds and determines that Leprino's notice of
Settlement to the Attorney General of the United States and
the
appropriate state official of each state in which a Class
Member
resides was timely, adequate, and compliant with the
statutory
requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act.
6. The PAGA award of $10,000.00 from the Gross Settlement Fund,
which includes payment of $7,500.00 to California’s Labor
and
Workforce Development Agency and the remainder distributed to
aggrieved employees, is approved.
The Settlement Administrator shall issue the Labor &
Workforce
Development Agency Payment directly to the California Labor &
Workforce Development Agency no later than five calendar days
after receipt of the Maximum Settlement Amount.
7. The request for Plaintiff Enhancement Awards in the total
amount of $45,000.00 is granted, allocated as follows: Jerrod
Finder ($5,000.00), Jonathan Talavera ($5,000.00), Isaias
Vasquez ($10,000.00), Linda Hefke ($10,000.00), John Perez
($5,000.00), Andrew Howell ($5,000.00), and Fred Walter
($5,000.00). The Settlement Administrator shall issue the
Plaintiff Enhancement Payments directly to Plaintiffs no
later
than five (5) calendar days after receipt of the Maximum
Settlement Amount.
Leprino is a mozzarella cheese maker and producer of whey protein
and dairy ingredients.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yNQchL at no extra
charge.[CC]
LINCARE INC: Must Response to Morris Class Cert Bid by Sept. 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morris v. Lincare, Inc.,
Case No. 8:22-cv-02048 (M.D. Fla., Filed Sept. 6, 2022), the Hon.
Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywel entered an order granting in part
and denying in part the Defendant's motion for extension of time to
file response to plaintiff's motion for class certification.
-- Defendant may have an additional 30 days from the due date in
which to file its response, making Defendant's response to the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification due by Sept. 29,
2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
involving restrictions of use of telephone equipment.
Lincare is a supplier of respiratory-therapy products and services
for patients in the home.[CC]
LIVANOVA PLC: Faces Medina Class Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LIVANOVA PLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-02357 (S.D. Tex., June
22, 2024) arises out of the recent data security incident and data
breach that was perpetrated against Defendant (the "Data Breach"),
which held in its possession certain personally identifiable
information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other
current and former patients of Defendant, the putative class
members.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included
certain personal or protected health information of individuals,
including Plaintiff. This Private Information included but is not
limited to "name, contact information (e.g., phone number, email
and postal address), Social Security number, date of birth, medical
information (e.g., treatment, condition, diagnosis, prescription,
physician, medical record number and device serial number), and
health insurance information."
The Data Breach allegedly resulted from the Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information
with which they were entrusted for either treatment or employment
the or both.
LivaNova, plc is an Italian-American medical device manufacturer
based in the UK.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
E-mail: jarett@ellzeyaw.com
leigh@ellseylaw.com
alex@ellzeylaw.com
LIVANOVA USA: Fails to Secure Personal Info, J.W. Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
J.W. a minor, by and through her guardian, ANGELA JOHNSON, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. LIVANOVA USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-02250 (S.D.
Tex., June 13, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information
of its patients, including Plaintiff.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff's and Class Members'
sensitive personal information -- which they entrusted to Defendant
on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against
disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due
to the data breach. The Data Breach was a direct result of
Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect its
patients' private information from a foreseeable and preventable
cyber-attack, says the suit.
As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft, the suit asserts.
LivaNova USA, Inc. is a global medical technology company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Mariya Weekes, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (786) 879-8200
Facsimile: (786) 879-7520
E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com
LUXCLUB INC: Guerrero Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of Bedsheets
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA GUERRERO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LUXCLUB, INC., a New York corporation; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00721-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal., June 21, 2024) arises from
LuxClub's alleged false and misleading marketing of its bamboo
bedsheets.
The said products were advertised online and in-store as "Bamboo"
bed sheets and "Eco-Friendly." Despite LuxClub's unqualified claims
that these products were "bamboo" sheets, these products are made
of viscose, fabric derived from highly processed bamboo, but which
does not contain bamboo in the final fabric, and microfiber, a
synthetic fiber made from polyester.
While Plaintiff has notified LuxClub of its conduct, LuxClub has
failed to remedy its conduct and has failed to reimburse Plaintiff
or putative class members. Rather, after receiving Plaintiff's
notice under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, LuxClub removed the
word "Bamboo" from some of the products' marketing and advertising
on Amazon.com and its website. However, LuxClub continues to market
and advertise the products as "Eco Friendly," even though the
manufacturing process to make viscose/rayon from bamboo and
microfiber is environmentally harmful, says the suit.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks relief in this action
individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals who purchased the falsely and deceptively marketed
bedsheets during the statute of limitations period, for violations
of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's False
Advertising Law, California's Unfair Competition Law, breach of
express and implied warranty, and intentional misrepresentation
(i.e., common law fraud).
Headquartered in Brooklyn, NY, LuxClub is a bedding company that
sells bedding and sheets directly to consumers, and through
third-party retailers, such as Amazon and Walmart. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aubry Wand, Esq.
THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (310) 590-4503
E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com
- and -
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
Joshua Nassir, Esq.
TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2580
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 751-5948
E-mail: bheikali@treehouselaw.com
rglezakos@treehouselaw.com
jnassir@treehouselaw.com
MARRIOTT HOTEL: Barnes Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Marlon Barnes, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES LLC, Case No.
2024-CH-04426 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, County Department, to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on June 18, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-05069.
The Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint based on alleged
violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (the
"BIPA"). The Plaintiff alleges MHS violated the BIPA by: failing to
make publicly available a written retention schedule regarding the
purported storage of Plaintiff's biometric data, in violation of
the BIPA; failing to inform Plaintiff and putative class members in
writing that MHS was collecting their biometric data, in violation
of the BIPA; and "disclosing" Plaintiff's biometric data without
consent, in violation of the BIPA.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
Ryan T. Garippo, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
190 South La Salle Street, Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60603-3433
Phone: (312) 499-6700
Facsimile: (312) 499-6701
Email: gmaatman@duanemorris.com
jariley@duanemorris.com
rgarippo@duanemorris.com
MAXEON SOLAR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, captioned Wayne v. Maxeon Solar
Technologies, Ltd., et al., (Case No. 3:24-cv-03869) on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Maxeon
Solar Technologies, Ltd. ("Maxeon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MAXN)
securities between November 15, 2023 and May 29, 2024, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from
this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
On May 30, 2024, before the market opened, Maxeon announced
financial results for first quarter 2024 in a press release,
reporting a 41% year-over-year decline in revenue to $187.5
million. The Company disclosed that it was "facing a serious cash
flow challenge" as the result of, in part, the termination of the
SunPower supply agreement. The Company revealed that, as a result,
it was forced to "negotiate[] commitments for significant liquidity
support" which will result in "substantial dilution to existing
public shareholders, with TZE [TCL Zhonghuan Renewable Energy
Technology Co. Ltd.] ultimately becoming a controlling
shareholder."
On this news, the Company's share price fell 34.7%, or $1.08, to
close at $2.03 per share on May 30, 2024, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors:
(1) that Maxeon relied on the exclusive sales of certain
products to SunPower;
(2) that, following the termination of the Master Supply
Agreement, the Company was unable to "aggressively ramp sales";
(3) that, as a result, revenue substantially declined;
(4) that, as a result, the Company suffered a "serious cash
flow" crisis; and
(5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased Maxeon securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased Maxeon securities, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
MCDONALD'S USA: Martin Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McDonald's USA, LLCC.
The case is styled as Stephanie Martin, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. McDonald's USA, LLC, Case No.
CACE24008489 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., June 18, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Negligence."
McDonald's Corporation -- http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us.html--
is more than the leading global food service retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 533-4092
Email: meisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
MDL 3083: Dean and Adewole Sue Over Private Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE DEAN and LISA ADEWOLE, Plaintiffs v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE
CORPORATION and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-md-03083-ADB-PGL (D. Mass., June 21, 2024) seeks redress for
Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs'
and other similarly situated patients' personally identifiable
information and protected health information.
In connection with the data breach that occurred on approximately
May 27, 2023, through May 31, 2023, the Plaintiffs assert claims
for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party
beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, declaratory and injunctive
relief, invasion of privacy, and breach of confidence.
The complaint asserts that data breach exposed and harmed the
private information of more than 450,000 individuals that Philips
shared with third-party vendors such as Progressive Software
Corporation through Philips' use of MOVEit.
The Dean and Adewole case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3083, IN
RE: MOVEIT CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION.
Progress Software Corporation is a Massachusetts-based software
company that offers a wide range of software products and services
to corporate and governmental entities throughout the United States
and the world, including cloud hosting and secure file transfer
services such as MOVEit.[BN]
The 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
E-mail: kristenj@hbsslaw.com
- and -
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
1229 Tyler St., NE, Ste. 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5933
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Ave., 5th Fl.
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: Gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, 5th Fl.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Ave. S., Ste. 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 612-339-0981
E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: cshaffer@lfsblaw.com
MDL 3111: Sim's 360 Savings Account Suit Transferred to E.D. Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAY SIM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
and CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01222, was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Central
District of California to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on June 13, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Virginia assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-01031-DJN-LRV to the proceeding.
The Defendants moved to centralize this litigation in the Eastern
District of Virginia under MDL No. 3111, along with other six
actions pending in five districts. The case was assigned to
Honorable David J. Novak.
The suit is a proposed class action on behalf of California
consumers seeking monetary damages, restitution, and equitable
relief from Defendant Capital One's promises, misrepresentations,
and omissions concerning the interest rate paid on its online "360
Savings" account, and its deceptive and bad faith conduct with
respect to setting that rate.
Capital One Financial Corporation provides commercial banking
services with its headquarters and principal place of business in
McLean, Virginia.[BN]
META PLATFORMS: Court Revives Class Suit Favoring Foreign Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hille Aron, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday, June 27, revived a
putative class action filed by an information technology worker who
claims that Meta, parent company of Facebook and Instagram, didn't
hire him because it prefers to hire foreign workers for less
money.
"An employer that discriminates against United States citizens
gives one class of people -- noncitizens, or perhaps some subset of
noncitizens -- a greater right to make contracts than 'white
citizens,'" wrote Judge Eric Miller, a Donald Trump appointee, in
the majority opinion -- with the phrase 'white citizens' taken from
the legal code which prohibits discrimination.
The ruling continued: "If some noncitizens have a greater right to
make contracts than 'white citizens,' then it is not true that
'[a]ll persons' have the 'same right' to make contracts as 'white
citizens.' That is precisely what the literal text of the statute
prohibits."
Purushothaman Rajaram is an Indian-born, naturalized U.S. citizen
and an IT worker. Between 2020 and 2022, he applied to work at
Facebook a number of times, but was never hired. In his 2022
federal complaint, he said Facebook didn't hire him because of its
"systematic preference for visa holders" for certain positions in
the U.S.
"Facebook’s preference for hiring and employing visa workers is
no secret," Rajaram said in his complaint. The company in 2021
agreed to pay $4.75 million to the U.S. government and another $9.5
million into a settlement fund for discrimination victims after the
Justice Department filed a complaint the year before.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler dismissed Rajaram's suit,
however, agreeing with Meta that under federal law U.S. citizens
are not a protected class. She wrote that the law "protects
primarily against racial discrimination and that 'race' is
interpreted broadly and extends to alien status (that is, non-U.S.
citizen status)."
In other words, immigrants can sue for discrimination, but citizens
can't.
The Ninth Circuit's three-judge panel disagreed.
"Discrimination based on alienage is indeed different from racial
discrimination, but it is not different in any way that is relevant
to the text of section 1981," Judge Miller wrote in his opinion
June 27. "Rajaram alleges that Meta has violated that guarantee by
giving noncitizens a greater right than citizens to contract for
employment. He therefore stated a claim under section 1981."
Miller acknowledged that the panel majority's conclusion
contradicted that of the Fifth Circuit, which in 1986 rejected a
claim by a man who claimed his British-owned company failed to
promote him because he was an American.
U.S. Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon, a Bill Clinton appointee, agreed
with Miller's ruling. But U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence Van Dyke,
another Trump appointee, dissented, saying the law is unclear about
whether it applies to everyone or just certain protected classes.
"Applying what I think is the better reading of an admittedly
ambiguous text," Van Dyke wrote, "I conclude that
the statute does not protect citizens from discrimination on the
basis of citizenship. In concluding otherwise, the majority
unnecessarily creates a circuit split with the Fifth Circuit."
Van Dyke went on to write, "This is not an easy interpretive case,
and I personally like the majority’s conclusion better than mine.
It’s only natural to think that this sort of discrimination
protection should be reciprocal -- if noncitizens can’t be
discriminated against in favor of citizens, then surely citizens
shouldn’t be disadvantaged in favor of noncitizens."
The judge pointed to rates of illegal immigration in recent years.
"Given that it is easier to pay such noncitizens lower wages,
it’s easy enough to see how this creates growing economic
pressure to favor noncitizens over citizens," Van Dyke wrote. "A
statute that protects against this sort of discrimination may be
what this country needs, but it isn’t what Congress gave us in
Section 1981. And it’s not my role to transform this statute into
what I wish it was."
Rajaram's case now goes back to the Northern District of
California, where it can proceed toward discovery and trial.
Attorneys for Rajaram and Meta didn't immediately respond to an
email requesting a comment on the ruling.[GN]
MIRI GENERAL: Faces Rosas Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
VICENTE ROSAS, NOLBERT GARCIA-REYES, NILSON ALEXANDER GUZMAN
BARRIOS, and DIEGO JAVIER LANDI QUIZHPILEMA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MIRI GENERAL
CONTRACTING INC. and ADMIR DEMIRI and EDUARD DEMIRI, as
individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04243 (E.D.N.Y., June 14,
2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The complaint asserts the Defendants' failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to pay
wages owed on a weekly basis, failure to provide with a written
notice, and failure to furnish wage statements.
The Plaintiffs were previously employed by the Defendants as
construction workers.
Miri General Contracting Inc. provides construction services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
NATIONAL CABLE: Faces Mortensen Class Suit Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
KATHRYN M. MORTENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NATIONAL CABLE COMMUNICATIONS LLC D/B/A
AMPERSAND, Case No. 1:24-cv-04749 (SDNY, June 21, 2024) seeks to
hold the Defendant responsible for the injuries the Defendant
inflicted on Plaintiff and hundreds of thousands of similarly
situated persons ("Class Members") due to the Defendant's
impermissibly inadequate and unlawful data security, which caused
the personal information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated
to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access by cybercriminals (the
"Data Breach") on or around September 18, 2023.
The data which the Defendant collected from the Plaintiff and Class
Members, and which was exfiltrated by cybercriminals from the
Defendant, were highly sensitive. The exfiltrated data included
personal identifying information ("PII" or "Personal Information")
such as: name and Social Security number.
Prior to and through the date of the Data Breach, the Defendant
obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Personal Information and
then maintained that sensitive data in a negligent and/or reckless
manner.
Then, after the Data Breach, Defendant failed to provide timely
notice to the affected Plaintiff and Class Members, thereby
exacerbating their injuries. Ultimately, the Defendant deprived
Plaintiff and Class Members of the chance to take speedy measures
to protect themselves and mitigate harm. Simply put, Defendant
impermissibly left Plaintiff and Class Members in the dark --
thereby causing their injuries to fester and the damage to spread.
Even when Defendant finally notified Plaintiff and Class Members of
their Personal Information exfiltration, Defendant failed to
adequately describe the Data Breach and its effects, as well as the
measures it took to prevent data breaches from occurring in the
future, the suit asserts.
Plaintiff Mortensen is a natural person and resident and citizen of
Fairfield County, Connecticut. She is a former employee of
Ampersand. On or about March 15, 2024, Mortensen received a letter
informing her of the Data Breach.
Ampersand describes itself as a "a data-driven TV advertising sales
and technology company." It claims to "reach 117 million
multiscreen households, providing viewership insights and planning
on 64 million households, in 200+ DMAs [designated market areas],
across more than 165+ networks and in all dayparts."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian Murray, Esq.
GLANCY, PRONGAY & MURRAY
230 Park Avenue, Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Sedgh, Esq.
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ronald Podolny, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6705
New York, NY 10118
E-mail: JSedgh@forthepeople.com
ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com
JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
- and -
Paul C. Whelan, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN P.C.
768 Plandome Road
Manhasset, NY 11030
Direct: (631) 612-3905
In US: (516) 426-6870
E-mail: pcwhalen@pm.me
NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Balderas Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Armando Jesus Balderas, Jr., individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION
CENTERS, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2416360 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino,
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on June 20, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01294.
The Complaint asserts the following eight causes of action: Failure
to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure
to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest
Breaks; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure
to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide
Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair and Unlawful Business
Practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Allison S. Wallin, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
Phone: 310.553.0308
Fax: 800.715.1330
Email: awallin@littler.com
- and -
Alvin Arceo, Esq.
Valentina Wilson, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415.433.1940
Fax: 415.399.8490
Email: aarceo@littler.com
vwilson@littler.com
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: To Pay $4.7BB for Sunday Ticket Class Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Breech & Jordan Dajani of CBS Sports report that the NFL took
a massive hit in the courts on Thursday, June 27, and it's one that
could affect you if you've purchased the NFL's "Sunday Ticket"
package. A federal judge has ordered the league to pay $4.7 billion
in residential class damages, and $96 million in commercial class
damages at the conclusion of what has become known as the "Sunday
Ticket" case, per MMQB.
Following the loss in court, the NFL announced that it would appeal
the decision. Per ESPN, there will be a hearing on July 31 for
post-trial motions, including one to set aside the verdict. The NFL
will appeal to the 9th Circuit.
Here's the statement from the league:
"We are disappointed with the jury's verdict in the NFL Sunday
Ticket class action lawsuit. We continue to believe that our media
distribution strategy, which features all NFL games broadcast on
free over-the-air television in the markets of the participating
teams and national distribution of our most popular games,
supplemented by many additional choices including RedZone, Sunday
Ticket and NFL+, is by far the most fan friendly distribution model
in all of sports and entertainment. We will certainly contest this
decision as we believe that the class action claims in this case
are baseless and without merit. We thank the jury for their time
and service and for the guidance and oversight from Judge Gutierrez
throughout the trial."
This class-action lawsuit has been making its way through the court
system for nearly 10 years, and the plaintiffs sought $7 billion.
The case, originally filed in 2015, revolves around "Sunday Ticket"
and whether the NFL violated any antitrust laws by offering that
package to consumers. Starting in 1994, the NFL began offering
"Sunday Ticket" as an option for out-of-market fans who wanted to
watch their home team. For instance, a Steelers fan living in
Seattle wouldn't have had many options to watch Pittsburgh play
prior to 1994, but with the inception of "Sunday Ticket," that fan
had a way to watch every Steelers game.
The argument from the plaintiffs is pretty simple: They think the
NFL worked together with its network partners to inflate the price
of "Sunday Ticket." The attorney for the plaintiffs, Amanda Bonn,
said that the price for "Sunday Ticket" is unaffordable for most
people.
"NFL, Fox, CBS and DirecTV agreed to make an expensive toll road
that very few people would be able to afford," Bonn said in her
opening statement, via the Associated Press. "Every single
competitor in this scheme benefited."
As for the NFL, the league's attorney, Beth Wilkinson, made the
argument that "Sunday Ticket" is expensive because it's a premium
offering.
"The case is about choice. This is a valuable, premium product.
Think about all the choices available to fans. We want as many
people as possible to watch the free broadcasts," Wilkinson said,
via the AP.
The NFL designed "Sunday Ticket" so that it wouldn't take a huge
chunk of TV ratings away from its network partners, according to
former NFL executive Steve Bornstein, who testified in the case.
"The NFL always wanted 'Sunday Ticket' to be an additional package.
That is how it is was designed since its inception," Bornstein
said.
This case covers every residential and commercial customer who
subscribed to "Sunday Ticket" between 2012 and 2022, which puts the
class-action number at nearly 2.5 million people, according to the
AP.
DirecTV had the "Sunday Ticket" Package from 1994 through 2022
before YouTube TV took over last season.
When it comes to the court system, the NFL doesn't usually let
things get this far. However, the league did pay out $790 million
to the city of St. Louis and several other entities after settling
a case in 2021 that revolved around the relocation of the Rams.
[GN]
NEW YORK-PRESBYTERIAN: Faces Nemeth Class Suit Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARGARET NEMETH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NEW YORK-PRESBYTERIAN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IRVING
MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 1:24-cv-04762 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2024)
seeks actual damages, punitive damages, restitution, statutory
damages, injunctive relief, and a declaratory judgment, as well as
any other relief this Court may deem just and proper, for CUIMC's
negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract,
violations of New York General Business Law 349, and unjust
enrichment.
In the course of serving New Yorkers, CUIMC collects a significant
amount of data -- including patients' personal identifiable
information ("PII") first name and last name, date of birth, as
well as protected health information including medical record
numbers, provider name, and laboratory test results (the "PHI" or,
collectively, the "PII"). This is the PII that was exposed for
Plaintiff and the Class members. When patients initially disclosed
this PII to Defendant, they did so under the impression that it
would be protected in a manner consistent with how valuable this
subset of PII is.
However, in May of 2024, Defendant disclosed that the PII of over
29,629 current or former patients, including the PII of Plaintiff
and the putative Class, had been compromised in connection with a
cyberattack that occurred between September 11, 2023 and March 7,
2024 (the "Data Breach"). This means that cybercriminals
potentially had unfettered access to PII for nearly six months
before CUIMC even detected any issues. This means that CUIMC's
systems were insufficiently monitored for data breaches for almost
half a year, says the suit.
Due to this conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have been
exposed to actual harm consistent with the litany of injuries that
data breaches cause, including (a) loss of value of PII, (b) loss
of time spent dealing with the Data Breach, (c) imminent threat of
and actual theft of PII by cybercriminals, and (d) any other types
of quantifiable harm that stem from the breach, including
out-of-pocket losses and money spent on identity theft monitoring,
the suit added.
Plaintiff Margaret Nemeth is a resident and citizen of the State of
New Jersey and intends to remain domiciled in and a citizen of the
State of New Jersey.
The Plaintiff received the Notice dated May 7, 2024. Plaintiff was
informed that her sensitive PII was compromised in the Data Breach.
Columbia University Irving Medical Center is a clinical, research
and educational enterprise located [primarily] on a campus in
northern Manhattan, New York City, New York as well as hospitals in
Connecticut and New Jersey.
CUIMC provides comprehensive patient care and offers a range of
general and specialized medical, dental and nursing services. With
over 1,800 doctors and nurses in locations throughout the tri-state
area, CUIMC is a sophisticated medical research and hospital center
that aims to provide the "highest standard of care."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
Jennifer Czeisler, Esq.
STERLINGTON PLLC
One World Trade Center, 85th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 739-0622
Facsimile: (212) 739-0628
E-mail: blake.yagman@sterlingtonlaw.com
jen.czeisler@sterlingtonlaw.com
NOBLE COUNTY, IN: Watkins Balks at Unconstitutional Over-Detentions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JENICA WATKINS, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NOBLE COUNTY SHERIFF MAX C.
WEBER, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00245 (N.D. Ind., June 14, 2024)
arises from the Defendant's unconstitutional over-detentions of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated arrestees/pre-trial detainees, in
violation of their right to be free from unreasonable seizure under
the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42
U.S.C. Section 1983.
According to the complaint, Defendant Noble County Sheriff Max
Weber was responsible for the unconstitutional and/or
constitutionally defective policies, practices, procedures, and
customs in effect at the Noble County Jail pertaining to the
detention of Plaintiff Watkins and similarly situated arrestees and
pre-trial detainees who were detained without a warrant and held
for more than 48 hours without receiving a timely judicial probable
cause determination as to their detention and arrest.
Defendant Weber is sued in his official capacity as Sheriff of the
Noble County Jail in Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher C. Myers, Esq.
MYERS & WALLACE, LLP
809 South Calhoun Street, Suite 400
Fort Wayne, IN 46802
Telephone: (260) 424-0600
Facsimile: (260) 424-0712
E-mail: cmyers@myers-law.com
NOCO COMPANY: Kawai Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Darren Kawai, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated v. The NOCO Company, Case No. CVRI2402042 was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside,
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on June 20, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01295.
The Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of a putative class of
California consumers for Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for
a Particular Purpose; Breach of Implied Warranty of
Merchantability; Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a
Particular Purpose Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; Breach of
Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
Act; Violation of the California Business & Professions Code for
False and Misleading Advertising; Common Law Fraudulent
Misrepresentation, (7) Negligent Misrepresentation; and Violation
of the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jon J. Pinney, Esq.
Robert E. Zulandt, Esq.
Kyle D. Stroup, Esq.
KOHRMAN JACKSON & KRANTZ LLP
1375 East Ninth Street, 29th Floor
Cleveland, OH 414114
Phone: 216.696.8700
Facsimile: 216.621.6536
Email: jjp@kjk.com
rez@kjk.com
kds@kjk.com
- and -
Eric A. Plourde, Esq.
PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP
525 B Street, Suite 2200
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619.238.1900
Facsimile: 619.235.039
Email: eric.plourde@procopio.com
OMAHA HOUSING: Faces Class Action Over Tenant's Rights Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Turley, writing for Flatwater Free Press, reports that a
federal class-action lawsuit June 27 alleges the Omaha Housing
Authority continuously violated the legal rights of low-income
tenants over the last seven years.
Current and former tenants suing OHA claim the public housing
provider illegally overcharged them for rent, denied them the right
to contest rent hikes and sought to boot them when they could not
pay.
In some cases, the federally funded agency tried to evict extremely
poor tenants instead of offering rent exemptions entitled to them
by federal law, the 54-page complaint alleges.
The contents of the lawsuit mirror the findings of a Flatwater Free
Press investigation published in December.
OHA CEO Joanie Poore declined to comment on the lawsuit citing
pending litigation.
The agency should pay back tenants it harmed and reform its
policies to ensure residents know their rights in the future, said
Diane Uchimiya, director of Creighton University's Abrahams Legal
Clinic, which filed the lawsuit along with local firm Car &
Reinbrecht and the San Francisco-based National Housing Law
Project.
"People have suffered with these violations of law . . . and they
have basically paid rent and paid late fees or been subject to
eviction cases and they shouldn't have been," Uchimiya told the
Flatwater Free Press.
OHA's "predatory and unlawful actions" threatened some of the
city's most vulnerable renters with homelessness, National Housing
Law Project lawyer Kate Walz said in a press release.
'I just feel I got robbed'
The seed for the lawsuit came from former Creighton clinic director
Kate Mahern, a veteran attorney who previously sued OHA in federal
court four times.
While voluntarily representing OHA tenants in eviction court last
year, Mahern noticed that a letter informing her client of a $400
rent increase made no mention of the tenant's right to challenge
the decision as required by federal law.
That client, Rhonda Moses, is now one of the four named plaintiffs
in the case.
After Mahern pointed out the missing grievance clause, OHA
dismissed the eviction case against Moses and added the clause to
its template for rent-change letters, Flatwater previously
reported.
Moses moved out anyway, fearing it was only a matter of time before
the agency would try to oust her again. The certified nursing
assistant believes OHA now owes her thousands of dollars — money
she needs to keep a roof over her head.
"My rent should have stayed the same for the whole six years (I
lived there) because they never let me dispute it," Moses said. "I
just feel I got robbed."
The lawsuit alleges OHA failed to adequately inform tenants of
their "grievance rights" from as far back as October 2016 through
September 2023.
Two other plaintiffs, Shernena Bush and Samantha Hansen, represent
a separate class that alleges OHA failed to inform them of
exemptions to paying rent.
The housing authority charges a "minimum rent" of $50 a month to
tenants with no or very low incomes, but federal law and OHA's own
policies say the agency must grant a "hardship exemption" to
families unable to pay the minimum rent.
Last year, OHA filed to evict Bush and Hansen for nonpayment of
rent two times each, but the cases were settled or dismissed and
both still live in public housing.
The lawsuit alleges that OHA employees never told the two
minimum-rent tenants of their ability to apply for a hardship
exemption even after they repeatedly asked how they could pay $50 a
month without any income.
Bush sold her plasma to stay up with her rent bill but had to stop
after her blood's iron level fell below acceptable levels, the
lawsuit says.
Six current and former minimum-rent tenants told Flatwater last
year that OHA never offered them an opportunity to apply for a
hardship exemption before they received eviction notices.
In Illinois, minimum-rent tenants won a settlement last year that
required the Chicago Housing Authority to give qualifying tenants
rent credits and to erase unpaid minimum rent charges going back
years.
It's unclear how many current and former OHA tenants could qualify
to be part of the class-action lawsuit but they may number in the
thousands, the complaint says.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to require OHA to properly
inform tenants of their rights to grievance hearings and hardship
exemptions. They're also asking that OHA pay back tenants like
Moses, Bush and Hansen who were allegedly overcharged.
The plaintiffs' attorneys hope to settle the case with OHA, but
they're prepared to go to trial, Uchimiya said. [GN]
OREGON: Court Picks Overseer for Foster Care Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Frost of OPB reports that Oregon's foster care class action
lawsuit against the state's Department of Human Services was
settled in May after five years. But the improvements to the foster
care system agreed upon in the settlement couldn't move forward
until a "neutral expert" was chosen to oversee the system. This
week, the court picked outside expert Kevin Ryan to oversee the
changes. He previously played a similar role in child welfare cases
in Texas, Michigan, and Oklahoma, and he also served as New
Jersey's first state child advocate.
We talk with Fariborz Pakseresht, director of the Oregon Department
of Human Services and Aprille Flint-Gerner, director of Child
Welfare. They discuss the settlement and what they think this will
mean for foster children and youth in Oregon. [GN]
OVERAA & CO: Walton Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jason Walton, an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. C. OVERAA & CO., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 24-CV067494 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California and for
the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on June 18, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 4:24-cv-03658.
On May 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint in the
State Court Action.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Barbara A. Cotter, Esq.
Terry A. Wills, Esq.
COOK BROWN, LLP
2407 J STREET, SECOND FLOOR
Sacramento, CA 95816
Phone: 916-442-3100
Fax: 916-442-4227
Email: bcotter@cookbrown.com
twills@cookbrown.com
PANDA RESTAURANT: Klepper Files Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Panda Restaurant
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Matthew Klepper, individually and
on behalf of all others Similarly Situated v. Panda Restaurant
Group, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-03907-SVW-BFM (C.D. Cal., May 9,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. -- https://www.pandarg.com/ -- is the
parent company of Panda Inn, Panda Express and Hibachi-San.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bassma Zebib, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BASSMA ZEBIB
8616 La Tijera Boulevard Suite 303
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Phone: (323) 406-0666
Fax: (323) 285-5566
Email: bassma@zebiblaw.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, No. 10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Phone: (215) 789-4462
Email: klaukaitis@ecf.courtdrive.com
PAUL FREDERICK: Wahab Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Angela Wahab, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. PAUL FREDERICK MENSYTLE, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04694
(S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2024), is brought against Defendant for the
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's
website, www.paulfrederick.com (the "Website"), to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and
therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore,
Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that the 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.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of
such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
PENNSAUKEN TOWNSHIP: Miree Files Suit in N.J. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pennsauken Township.
The case is styled as Duane D. Miree, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Pennsauken Township, New Jersey,
Camden County, New Jersey, Case No. L-001877-24 (N.J. Super. Ct.,
Camden Cty., June 17, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Tort - Other."
Pennsauken Township -- https://www.twp.pennsauken.nj.us/ -- is a
township in Camden County, in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area in
the U.S. state of New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is = represented by:
Stephen P. DeNittis, Esquire
DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
Marlton, NJ 08053
Phone: (856) 797-9951
PENNYMAC MORTGAGE: Verthelyi Sues Over Unlawful Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO VERTHELYI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust and PNMAC
Capital Management, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05028 (C.D.
Cal., June 14, 2024) brings claims for Defendants' violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law and California Business and
Professions Code due to unlawful business practices.
Beginning on August 25, 2023, the Defendants allegedly committed
and have been committing unlawful and unfair acts by engaging in a
pattern of unlawful business practices within the meaning of the
law by replacing its floating three-month London Interbank Offered
Rate (LIBOR) dividend rate for Series A and Series B Preferred
Shares with a fixed rate, in violation of the LIBOR Act and the
LIBOR Rule.
When Defendants announced their intention to replace the floating
rate dividend in Series A and Series B Preferred Shares in
violation of the LIBOR Act and the provisions set forth under the
LIBOR Rule, the price of Series A and Series B Preferred Shares
dropped precipitously in the secondary market, translating to a
loss of value of $40 million in collective market capitalization
and causing Plaintiff's and the putative Class' investments to lose
substantial value, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brought this suit on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities who own or owned shares of PennyMac's
fixed-to-floating rate Series A Preferred Shares and/or Series B
Preferred Shares at any time between August 25, 2023 and the
conclusion of this action.
PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust is a mortgage real estate
investment trust that invests primarily in residential mortgage
loans and mortgage-related assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicole Lavallee, Esq.
Daniel E. Barenbaum, Esq.
Jeffrey Rocha, Esq.
Pierce Stanley, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
425 California Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-3200
Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
E-mail: nlavallee@bermantabacco.com
dbarenbaum@bermantabacco.com
jrocha@bermantabacco.com
pstanley@bermantabacco.com
- and -
Catherine Pratsinakis, Esq.
DILWORTH PAXSON LLP
1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 575-7013
E-mail: cpratsinakis@dilworthlaw.com
PILOT CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Faris Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
ROY FARIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PILOT, CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00274 (E.D.
Tenn., June 21, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant employed Plaintiff
between February 2019 and April 2023 as a maintenance employee in
the Vandaga, Ohio store. Allegedly, the Defendant knowingly and
willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees for the time they spent working during unpaid meal breaks
and while traveling between stores. Among other things, the
Defendant failed to make, keep, and preserve records of the unpaid
work performed by Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees,
says the suit.
Headquartered in Knoxville, TN, Pilot, Corp. owns and operates
numerous gasoline stations and retail stores throughout the United
States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Burkhalter II, Esq.
D. Alexander Burkhalter, III, Esq.
Zachary J. Burkhalter, Esq.
THE BURKHALTER LAW FIRM, P.C.
P.O. Box 2777
Knoxville, TN 37901
Telephone: (865) 524-4974
Facsimile: (865) 524-0172
- and -
Robert B. Kapitan, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: robert@lazzarolawfirm.com
PREMIUM CAPITAL: Brown Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premium Capital Fund
LLC. The case is styled as Stephanie Brown, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Premium Capital Fund LLC,
Case No. 8:24-cv-01469 (M.D. Fla., June 17, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Premium Capital Funding LLC -- https://premiumcapitalfund.com/ --
was founded in 1996. The Company's line of business includes
originating mortgage loans, selling mortgage loans to permanent
investors, and servicing loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
PROFESSIONAL PARKING: Remy Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Parking
Management Corporation. The case is styled as Frances Remy,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Professional Parking Management Corporation, Case No.
1:24-cv-02662-MLB (N.D. Ga., June 19, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for the Driver Privacy
Protection Act.
Professional Parking Management --
https://professionalparkingmgt.com/ -- is a parking-enforcement
solution that offers powerful and user-friendly tools to simplify
your parking operations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bret Lusskin, Esq.
LUSSKIN LAW
1025 E. Hallandale Beach Blvd., Ste 1532
Hallandale Beach, FL 33009
Phone: (954) 454-5841
- and -
Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
Kris Kelly Skaar
SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP -WOODSTOCK
133 Mirramont Lake Drive
Woodstock, GA 30189
Phone: (770) 427-5600
Fax: (404) 601-1855
Email: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com
- and -
Pamela Levinson, Esq.
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Christopher Brochu
Janet R. Varnell
Jeffrey L. Newsome
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
400 N Ashley Dr., Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (352) 753-8600
Email: bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
Email: cbrochu@vandwlaw.com
jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
- and -
Clifton R. Dorsen, Esq.
James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
SKAAR AND FEAGLE LLP
2374 Main Street, Suite B
Tucker, GA 30084
Phone: (404) 373-1978
Email: cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com
jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
- and -
Scott D. Owens, Esq.
2750 N. 29th Avenue, Suite 209a
Hollywood, FL 33020
Phone: (954) 589-0588
Fax: (954) 337-0666
Email: scott@scottdowens.com
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Must Oppose Ford Class Cert Bid by Sept. 16
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL J. FORD,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED
PERSONS, v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:21-cv-04147-JHS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joel Slomsky entered
an order granting the Defendant's unopposed motion to extend class
certification deadlines:
-- Defendant's Opposition to Class Certification shall be filed on
or
by Sept. 16, 2024;
-- Defendant's Challenges to Plaintiff's Class Certification
Experts,
Defendant's Expert Disclosures and Expert Depositions shall be
completed by Sept. 16, 2024;
-- Plaintiff's Reply in support of certification shall be filed on
or
by Oct. 14, 2024; and
-- Plaintiff's Challenges to Defendant's Class Certification
Experts
due by Oct. 14, 2024.
Progressive offers property, casualty, life, and health insurance
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eMCeBE at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROLIANCE SURGEONS: Laurant Sues Over Unprotected Medical Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL LAURANT, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROLIANCE SURGEONS, INC. P.S., Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-05010 (C.D. Cal., June 13, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant failed to protect and preserve confidentiality of
Plaintiff and other patients' identifiable medical information,
including confidential protected health information and personally
identifiable information, that was contained in or was made
accessible by Defendant's computer systems and accessed, viewed,
and/or acquired by an unauthorized individual in violation of the
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, California Civil Code.
According to the complaint, there was an unauthorized release of
Plaintiff's and the Class members' confidential medical information
on February 11, 2023, due to Defendant's mishandling of individual
identifiable medical information recorded onto the Defendant's
computer systems, allowing unauthorized access to and disclosure of
Plaintiff's and the Class members' medical information.
Proliance Surgeons, Inc. is a health care provider with over 100
locations in the State of Washington.[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
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
mona@kazlg.com
RADIO SYSTEMS: Hernadez Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN HERNANDEZ
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
RADIO SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Case No. 5:22-cv-01861-JGB-DTB (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting him
leave to file portions of motion for class certification and
declarations and exhibits under seal.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5.2.2.2(b), Plaintiff Steven
Hernandez respectfully submits this application for leave to file
portions of the following documents under seal: (a) the Memorandum
of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Class
Certification; (b) the Declaration of Daniel Pulgram in Support of
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (and associated
exhibits); and (c) the Declaration of Gregory T. Stuart in Support
of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (and associated
exhibits).
These documents contain references to confidential and/or
proprietary business information produced in discovery by the
Defendant and non-party Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. pursuant
to the stipulated protective order (ECF 50).
The Plaintiff only seeks leave to file under seal those portions of
the memorandum, Pulgram declaration, and Stuart declaration that
reference documents that RSC or Petco designated as
“CONFIDENTIAL.” Plaintiff takes no position on whether these
documents ultimately satisfy the applicable standards to be
permanently sealed in this case.
Radio manufactures and retails pet supplies and accessories.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VyeStH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
Daniel L.M. Pulgram, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
2001 Union Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
Facsimile: (4150 788-0161
E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law
aschubert@sjk.law
dpulgram@sjk.law
RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lazaro Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 30-2024-01383624-CU-OE-CXC
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in
and for the County of Orange, to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on June 18, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-05144.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following nine causes of
action: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime
wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to permit rest
breaks; failure to reimburse business expenses; failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay all wages due
upon separation of employment; and violation of Business &
Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Tanja L. Darrow, Esq.
Melanie Rollins, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213.443.4300
Fax: 800.715.133
Email: tdarrow@littler.com
mrollins@littler.com
- and -
Devon S. Mills, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
Phone: 310.553.0308
Fax: 800.715.1330
Email: dsmills@littler.com
REXEL USA: Miranda Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Raoul Miranda, as an individual and on behalf of
all other similarly situated class members v. REXEL USA, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
37-2024-00022544-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. 3:24-cv-01044-JO-MSB.
The Complaint asserts class action claims for: Recovery of Unpaid
Minimum Wages and Liquidated Damages; Recovery of Unpaid Overtime
Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Compensation in Lieu
Thereof; Failure to Provide Rest Periods or Compensation in Lieu
Thereof; Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements;
Failure to Timely Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment;
Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses and Unfair Competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Linda Claxton, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-239-9800
Facsimile: 213-239-9045
Email: linda.claxton@ogletree.com
ROADMASTER DRIVERS: Settles Invalid Drivers' Licenses Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that consumers can receive payments from
a $400,000 Roadmaster Drivers School settlement if they paid
tuition to the school but did not receive a valid license.
The settlement benefits Roadmaster Drivers School students who paid
tuition or fees in connection with commercial driver's licenses
that were later declared invalid due to improperly conducted skills
testing between Oct. 26, 2016, and May 10, 2024.
According to the class action lawsuit, Roadmaster Drivers School
promised to provide drivers with education and testing that would
result in a commercial driver's license. Despite these claims, the
driving school allegedly administered testing and licenses
Pennsylvania's Department of Transportation later invalidated.
Roadmaster Drivers School is a commercial driver's license school
with locations around the country.
Roadmaster Drivers School hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed
to pay $400,000 to resolve the class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Roadmaster Drivers School settlement, class
members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund.
Exact payments will vary depending on the number of valid
participating class members, but each student is estimated to
receive around $800.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 3, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for
Sept. 18, 2024.
No claim form is required to benefit from the Roadmaster Drivers
School settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will
automatically receive a payment.
Who's Eligible
Roadmaster Drivers School students who paid tuition or fees in
connection with commercial driver's licenses that were later
declared invalid due to improperly conducted skills testing between
Oct. 26, 2016, and May 10, 2024
Potential Award
N/A
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Update Address Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Update Address Deadline
08/03/2024
Case Name
Meehan, et al. v. Roadmaster Drivers School Inc., et al., Case No.
5:22-CV-02499-JMG, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania
Final Hearing
09/18/2024
Settlement Website
RoadmasterCDLSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Meehan v. Roadmaster Drivers School of Pennsylvania Inc. –
Class Counsel
c/o Francis Mailman Soumilas PC
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Class Counsel
James A Francis
Lauren KW Brennan
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS PC
1600 Market St # 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Michael A Tompkins
LEEDS BROWN LAW PC
101 Greenwich Street, 22nd Floor
New York NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 661-4370
Defense Counsel
Josh J T Byrne
Vlada Tasich
MARSHALL DENNEHEY PC
Wall Street Plaza
88 Pine Street, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 376-6400 [GN]
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Martinez and Pedro Ramblas, individuals, on behalf of
themselves, and on behalf of all persons Similarly situated v.
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2416229 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Bernardino Cty., May 8, 2024), is brought for UNFAIR COMPETITION In
VIOLATION of the California Labor Code as a result of the
Defendants failure to pay proper compensation.
The Defendant failed to pay minimum wages in violation of Cal. Lab.
Code; failed to pay overtime wages in violation of Cal. Lab. Code;
failed to provide required meal periods in violation of Cal. Lab.
Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order; failed to provide required
rest periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code and the applicable IWC
wage order; failed to provide accurate itemized statements in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code 226; failed to reimburse employees for
required expenses in violation of Cal. Lab. Code; and, failed to
provide wages when due in violation of Cal. Lab. Code, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Truck Driver from
June of 2017 to September of 2023.
The Defendant is a freight transportation arrangement company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG AND BHOWMIK
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
Phone: (858) 551-1223
Fax: (858) 551-1232
Email: deblouw@bamlawca.com
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Verran Files WARN Act Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM VERRAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 24-50077-CTG (D. Del., June 14, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act and the California Labor Code, and seeking to
recover damages in the amount of 60 days' back pay and benefits for
Plaintiff and other similarly situated former employees of
Defendant.
On June 5, 2024, less than 60 days prior to termination of their
employment, Plaintiff and the WARN Act Class learned that they were
to be terminated immediately without cause, as part of, or as the
foreseeable result of, a mass layoff or facility closing ordered by
Defendant. The mass termination on June 5 violated the notice
requirements of the WARN Act because it failed to give Plaintiff
and WARN Act Class members at least 60 days' advance written notice
of termination, says the suit.
The suit is a class action adversary proceeding filed against
Defendants in In Re: MRRC HOLD CO., et al., Debtor, Chapter 11
Bankr. Case No. 24-11164 (CTG).
Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. engaged in the business of operating
seafood restaurants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
DELEEUW LAW LLC
1301 Walnut Green Road
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 274-2180
E-mail: brad@deleeuwlaw.com
- and -
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H St NE, Suite 302
Washington D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
SAC WIRELESS: Heino Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jacob Heino, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. SAC Wireless, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02009 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on June 18, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-05045 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
SAC Wireless -- https://sacw.com/ -- a Nokia company, supports the
biggest brands in telecommunications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Phone: (215) 884-2491
Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Susan M. Valinis, Esq.
REILLY MCDEVITT& HENRICH P.C.
Widener Building, Suite 410
One South Penn Square
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 972-5200
Fax: (215) 972-0405
Email: svalinis@rmh-law.com
- and -
Leah A. Lewis, Esq.
REILLY JANICZEK & MCDEVITT
One S Penn Square
Widener Bldg., Suite 410
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 972-5200
Email: llewis@rmh-law.com
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CA: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of San
Joaquin, et al. The case is styled as Bertha Gomez Perez, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated v. County of San
Joaquin, San Joaquin Health Centers, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2024-0007209 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June
18, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
San Joaquin County -- http://www.sjgov.org/-- officially the
County of San Joaquin, is a county located in the U.S. state of
California.[BN]
SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to July 19
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHIE ABLAZA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-01942-JST
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order continuing
class certification briefing deadlines as follows:
Event Current New
Deadline Deadline
Class certification motion due June 21, 2024 July 19,
2024
Plaintiffs' class certification June 21, 2024 July 19,
2024
expert disclosures due
Class certification opposition Sept. 23, 2024 Oct. 21,
2024
due
Defendant's class certification Sept. 23, 2024 Oct. 21,
2024
expert disclosures due
Defendant's class certification Sept. 23, 2024 Oct. 21,
2024
Daubert motions due
Class certification expert Oct. 18, 2024 Nov. 15,
2024
discovery cut-off
Class certification reply due Oct. 28, 2024 Nov. 25,
2024
Defendant's oppositions to Nov. 25, 2024 Dec. 23,
2024
Plaintiffs' Daubert motions
Due
Sanofi-Aventis LLC develops, manufactures, and markets
pharmaceutical products.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oiy3Pv at no extra
charge.[CC]
SCOUT ENERGY: Fails to Secure Private Info, McCraw Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
DOYLE MCGRAW, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a SCOUT ENERGY
PARTNERS, Case No. 3:24-cv-01546-B (N.D. Tex., June 22, 2024) is a
class action against SEP for its alleged failure to properly secure
and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated SEP
customers' names and Social Security numbers (the "Private
Information") from hackers.
SEP, based in Dallas, Texas, is a private energy investment manager
that serves more than 60 assets of residential customers in eight
states.
On June 14, 2024, SEP filed official notice of a hacking incident
with the California Attorney General's office. On the same date,
SEP also sent out data breach letters to individuals whose
information was compromised as a result of the hacking incident.
Based on the Notice filed by the company, SEP detected unusual
activity on some of its computer systems. In response, the company
initiated an investigation. The SEP investigation revealed that an
unauthorized party had access to certain company files between
January 10, 2024, and April 2, 2024 (the "Data Breach").
The Plaintiff and "Class Members" were, and continue to be, at
significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of
personal, social, and financial harm. The Private Information
compromised in the Data Breach included highly sensitive data that
represents a gold mine for data thieves, including but not limited
to, Social Security numbers that SEP collected and maintained.
Armed with the Private Information accessed in the Data Breach,
data thieves can commit a variety of crimes including, e.g.,
opening new financial accounts in Class Members' names, taking out
loans in Class Members' names, using Class Members' information to
obtain government benefits, filing fraudulent tax returns using
Class Members' information, obtaining driver's licenses in Class
Members' names but with another person’s photograph, and giving
false information to police during an arrest, says the suit.
SEP is a private energy investment manager.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, New York 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com
SCOUT ENERGY: Hawkins Sues Over Private Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
RONNYE HAWKINS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:24-cv-01545-N (N.D. Tex., June 21, 2024) arises out of
the recent targeted cyberattack and data breach on Defendant's
network that resulted in unauthorized access to the highly
sensitive data of Plaintiff and at least 15,000 other Class
Members.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address Defendant's failure to safeguard
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information that Defendant
collected and maintained, and for Defendant's failure to (1)
provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class
Members that their Private Information had been subject to the
unauthorized access of an unknown third party, (2) identify
precisely what specific type of information was accessed; and (3)
identify the threat actor. The Plaintiff seeks redress for
Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust
enrichment.
Headquartered in Dallas, TX, Scout Energy Management, LLC is a
private energy investment company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone:(214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Jonathan T. Deters, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
jdeters@msdlegal.com
SEA TO SUMMIT: Wahab Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Angela Wahab, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. SEA TO SUMMIT NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-04698 (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2024), is brought against
Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate Defendant's website, www.seatosummit.com (the "Website"),
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and
therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore,
Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that the 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.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of
such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hardnett Extended
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARDNETT v. SELECT
PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01534 (D.D.C., Filed
May 24, 2024), the Hon. Judge Randolph D. Moss entered an order
granting the Plaintiff's consent motion to extend deadline to file
motion for class certification.
-- The deadline to file a motion for class certification is stayed
pending further order by the Court.
The nature of suit states consumer credit.
Select is a loan servicing company.[CC]
SENG COUTURE: Gaspa Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website
-------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA GASPA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SENG COUTURE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-07150 (D.N.J., June 21, 2024) accuses the Defendant of
violating the effective communication and equal access requirements
of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Plaintiff Gaspa alleges that the Defendant violated the ADA by
failing to make its website accessible to legally blind
individuals. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's website has
access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired
users to enjoy and learn about the services at
https://sengcouture.com prior to entering Defendant's physical
location.
Seng Couture is a New Jersey limited liability company that owns
and operates the Sengcouture.com online retail store, which
provides consumers with access to an array of bridal and formal
dresses. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
SHERATON OPERATING: Ortiz Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Iris Ortiz, an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SHERATON OPERATING LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; MARIBEL SANDOVAL, an individual; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV09666 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the
County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on June 17, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 2:24-cv-05104.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts 10 causes of action: failure to
pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to
provide meal period; failure to provide rest breaks; failure to pay
final wages timely; failure to provide accurate and itemized wage
statements; failure to pay wages timely during employment; failure
to reimburse necessary business expenses; violation of labor code
section 227.3; and unfair business practices, in violation of
California Business and Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Greg S. Labate, Esq.
Eric T. Angel, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership
Including Professional Corporations
650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993
Phone: 714.513.5100
Facsimile: 714.513.5130
Email: glabate@sheppardmullin.com
eangel@sheppardmullin.com
SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Reese Files Suit in D. Nebraska
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Signature
Performance, Inc. The case is styled as Rachael Reese, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Signature
Performance, Inc., Case No. 8:24-cv-00233-BCB-MDN (D. Neb., June
18, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Signature Performance -- https://www.signatureperformance.com/ --
is dedicated to transforming healthcare administration by lowering
healthcare administrative costs and burdens.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason M. Wucetich, Esq.
WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP
222 North Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 2000
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: (310) 335-2001
- and -
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
ARNOLD LAW FIRM
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Phone: (916) 777-7777
Email: aberry@justice4you.com
SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: Cruz Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christopher Cruz, an individual, and on behalf
of other persons similarly situated v. SOUTHERN GLAZER'S WINE AND
SPIRITS, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV12045 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
June 18, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-05162.
The Complaint asserts eleven causes of action, alleging: Disability
Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; Failure to Provide Reasonable
Accommodations; Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process;
Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; Failure to Prevent Discrimination
and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; Wrongful Termination in
Violation of Public Policy; Failure to Pay Wages; Failure to Make
Payment within the Required Time; Failure to Provide Accurate
Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Provide Personnel Records; and
Failure to Provide Payroll Records.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Karimah J. Lamar, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, California 92101
Phone: 619.232.0441
Fax: 619.232.4302
Email: klamar@littler.com
- and -
Andrea Oguntula, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
2049 Century Park East, 5th Fl.
Los Angeles, CA 90062
Phone: 310.553.0308
Fax: 310.553.5583
Email: aoguntula@littler.com
SPENCER SCOOPS: Gomberg Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW GOMBERG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Spencer Scoops, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-02626 (E.D. Pa., June 14, 2024) arises from the Defendant's
failure to make its digital properties accessible to legally blind
individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal
access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Upon visiting Defendant's website,
https://www.scoopdevilleicecream.com, Plaintiff quickly became
aware of Defendant's failure to maintain and operate its website in
a way to make it fully accessible for himself and for other blind
or visually-impaired people. The access barriers make it impossible
for blind and visually-impaired users to enjoy and learn about the
services at the website prior to entering Defendant's physical
location, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Spencer Scoops, LLC provides consumers with ice cream and frozen
desserts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Glanzberg, Esq.
Robert Tobia, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA LAW, P.C.
123 South Broad Street, Suite 1640
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Telephone: (215) 981-5400
E-mail: DGlanzberg@aol.com
robert.tobia@gtlawpc.com
SPRAY MORET: Wahab Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------
Angela Wahab, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. SPRAY MORET, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04703 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 20, 2024), is brought against Defendant for the failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website,
www.sprayground.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and
therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore,
Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that the 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.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of
such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
STABLE ROAD: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------
Momentus Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 6, 2024, that on April 23, 2024, the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
entered an order and judgment finally approving the settlement of a
Securities Class Action filed on July 15, 2021 by purported
stockholder of its pre-merger subsidiary, Stable Road Acquisition
Corp. (SRAC).
The putative class action complaint against SRAC, Brian Kabot (SRAC
CEO), James Norris (SRAC CFO), Momentus, and the company's
co-founder and former CEO, Mikhail Kokorich, was captioned "Jensen
v. Stable Road Acquisition Corp., et al.," No. 2:21-cv-05744.
The complaint alleges that the defendants omitted certain material
information in their public statements and disclosures regarding
the Business Combination, in violation of the securities laws, and
seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who
purchased SRAC stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021.
Subsequent complaints captioned "Hall v. Stable Road Acquisition
Corp., et al.," No. 2:21-cv-05943 and "Depoy v. Stable Road
Acquisition Corp., et al.," No. 2:21-cv-06287 were consolidated in
the first filed matter. An amended complaint was filed on November
12, 2021.
On February 10, 2023, the lead plaintiff in the Securities Class
Actions and the company reached an agreement in principle to settle
the Securities Class Actions. Under the terms of the agreement in
principle, the lead plaintiff, on behalf of a class of all persons
that purchased or otherwise acquired company stock between October
7, 2020 and July 13, 2021, inclusive, would release the company
from all claims asserted or that could have been asserted in the
Securities Class Actions and dismiss such claims with prejudice, in
exchange for payment of $8.5 million by the company (at least $4.0
million of which was funded by insurance proceeds).
On April 10, 2023, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement with
the Court, and on August 18, 2023, the parties executed a
Settlement Agreement. On August 30, 2023 the lead plaintiff filed a
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, and the
Court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and
Providing for Notice on September 21, 2023. Pursuant to that Order,
on October 5, 2023, the company paid $1.0 million into the
settlement escrow account.
Momentus is a. commercial space company based in California. On
August 12, 2021, the company consummated a merger by and among
Stable Road Acquisition Corp., Project Marvel First Merger Sub,
Inc. and Project Marvel Second Merger Sub, LLC, pursuant to which
First Merger Sub merged with and into Momentus Inc.
STOCKTON HEALTH CARE: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stockton Health Care
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Jessica Rodriguez,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. Stockton Health Care Services, Inc. dba
Lincoln Square Post-Acute Care, a Nevada, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2024-0007145 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June
17, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Stockton Health Care Services, Inc. doing business as Lincoln
Square -- https://www.lincolnsquarerehab.com/ -- is a skilled
nursing facility in place.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Phone: (818) 230-7502
Fax: (818) 230-7259
Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
SUNRISE CREDIT: Day Files FDCPA Suit in D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunrise Credit
Services Incorporated. The case is styled as Edward Day,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Sunrise Credit Services Incorporated, Case No. 2:24-cv-01465-DMF
(D. Ariz., June 18, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Sunrise Credit Services -- https://www.sunrisecreditservices.com/
-- offers consumers a variety of convenient payment options to help
ensure that we receive your payment in a timely manner.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David James McGlothlin, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
301 East Bethany Home Road, Suite C-195
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: david@kazlg.com
- and -
Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
SUPERIOR AIR-GROUND: Macey Files Suit in Ill. DuPage Cty.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Superior Air-Ground
Ambulance Serv., Inc. The case is styled as Elle Macey,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Superior Air-Ground Ambulance Serv., Inc., Case No. 2024LA000771
(Ill. DuPage Cty., June 19, 2024).
Superior Ambulance Service -- https://www.superiorambulance.com/ --
has been an industry leader in the emergency medical transport
field.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L Fradin, Esq.
8 N. Court St., Suite 403
Athens, OH 45701
Phone: (847) 986-5889
Fax: (847) 673-1228
Email: mike@fradinlaw.com
TAPESTRY INC: Ayala Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Carlos Ayala, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TAPESTRY, INC.; KATE SPADE LLC dba
KATE SPADE NEW YORK; STUART WEITZMAN LLC; and DOES 1 through 20,
Inclusive, Case No. 37-2024-00021725-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. 3:24-cv-01052-BAS-DEB.
The Plaintiff asserts claims under the California Labor Code for
failure to: pay minimum wages, pay overtime wages, provide meal and
rest periods, timely pay all earned wages, pay all wages due upon
termination, reimburse business expenses, and provide accurate
itemized wage statements. The Plaintiff also asserts claims for
unfair competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregory W. Knopp, Esq.
Laura L. Vaughn, Esq.
David R. Gobel, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-557-2900
Facsimile: 310-557-2193
Email: gknopp@proskauer.com
lvaughn@proskauer.com
dgobel@proskauer.com
TARGET BRANDS: Baker Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Target Brands, Inc.
The case is styled as Ermeise Baker, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Target Brands, Inc., Case No.
CACE24008560 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., June 19, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Negligence."
Target Corporation -- https://www.target.com/ -- is an American
retail corporation that operates a chain of discount department
stores and hypermarkets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 533-4092
Email: meisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
TARGET CORPORATION: Tivin Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tivin v. Target
Corporation, Case No. 0:23-cv-62245 (S.D. Fla., Filed Nov. 27,
2023), Hon. Judge Rodney Smith entered an order granting unopposed
motion for extension of time to file motion for class
certification.
-- The Plaintiff shall file its Motion for Class Certification on
or
before Sept. 30, 2024.
-- No further extensions shall be granted.
The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other
fraud.[CC]
TASHKENT SUPERMARKET: Navruzov Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAVKAT NAVRUZOV, SOBIR KHODJIEV, SUKHROB KARIMOV, JAMOLKHON
AYKHOJAEV v. TASHKENT SUPERMARKET LLC and KARZINA US INC. d/b/a
TASHKENT SUPERMARKET and ODILJON TURSUNOV, individually, Case No.
1:24-cv-04428 (E.D.N.Y., June 21, 2024) is a civil action brought
by the Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated non-exempt food
processers to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs and their similarly situated coworkers work or have
worked at the several supermarkets owned and operated by Tursunov.
They bring this action on behalf of themselves, and all similarly
situated current and former non-exempt workers who elect to opt-in
to this action pursuant to the FLSA and specifically, the
collective action provision of 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), to remedy
violations of overtime provisions of the FLSA by Defendants.
The Plaintiffs also bring this action under the Wage Theft
Prevention Act for Defendants' failure to provide wage notices and
wage statements in violation of NYLL sections 195 (1) and (3). They
seek injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants' unlawful
actions, compensation for their failure to pay overtime wages and
liquidated damages, compensation for their failure to pay at a
proper frequency, compensatory damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to
the FLSA and NYLL.
Tashkent Supermarket is a New York entity operating in the
restaurant industry, having its principal place of business located
at 713 Brighton Beach Ave, Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 323-6980
E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.coms
- and -
Ilya Fishkin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ILYA FISHKIN, P.C.
3059 Brighton 7th Street, Fl. 1
Brooklyn, NY 11235
E-mail: ifishkin@fishkinfirm.com
TENNESSEE: Law Raises Liability Standard For Data Breach Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Holland & Knight reports that Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee recently
signed into law Public Chapter 991, which raises the liability
standard for class action lawsuits arising from cybersecurity
events.
-- The law does not mention or explicitly amend the requirement
that companies take "reasonable care" to prevent data from being
compromised, nor does it speak to individual actions that are not
class action litigations.
-- Instead, the law creates a heightened liability requirement for
class action data breach lawsuits that may effectively serve as an
enhanced pleadings standard.
As courts have recognized, "[t]he fact that a company has suffered
a security breach does not demonstrate that the company did not
place significant emphasis on maintaining a high level of
security."1 Nevertheless, companies that experience cybersecurity
events frequently are faced with numerous class action lawsuits. In
most cases, these complaints contain generic allegations that the
company failed to maintain reasonable cybersecurity standards.
For instance, cybercriminals in 2023 exploited a zero-day
vulnerability in Progress Software MOVEit secure file transfer
software that resulted in more than 100 class action litigations
against various companies that used the software program. As this
incident involved a zero-day vulnerability in third-party software,
it is challenging to see how these companies were negligent and how
such negligence was responsible for this incident.
Tennessee Takes Action
Prompted by the escalating cost of these class action data breach
litigations and the numerous headline-grabbing cyberattacks,
particularly those in the healthcare industry, the Tennessee
legislature recently passed, and Gov. Bill Lee signed into law,
Public Chapter 991, which raises the liability standard for class
action lawsuits arising from cybersecurity events.
For suits to which the higher standard will be applied, class
action plaintiffs must establish that the cybersecurity event "was
caused by willful and wanton misconduct or gross negligence on the
part of the private entity." This law does not mention or
explicitly amend the requirement that companies take "reasonable
care" to prevent data from being compromised. Nor does the law
speak to individual actions that are not class action litigations.
Rather, the law creates a heightened liability requirement for
class action data breach lawsuits that may effectively serve as an
enhanced pleadings standard.
Specifically, the statute broadly covers private entities, both
for-profit and not-for-profit – an important consideration in a
state with multiple religious and nonprofit healthcare systems. The
statute defines "cybersecurity event" to include any "event
resulting in unauthorized access to, or disruption or misuse of, an
information system or nonpublic information stored on an
information system." As a result, it can reasonably be anticipated
to apply to a wide swath of "events," including claims arising from
the loss or theft of electronic devices, malware, ransomware,
phishing, business email compromises and other types of attacks.
The statute defines "nonpublic information" as "information that is
not publicly available and concerns a person that, because of a
name, number, personal mark, or other identifier, can be used to
identify that person, in combination with the following":
-- Social Security number
-- driver's license number or nondriver identification card
number
-- financial account number or credit or debit card number
-- security code, access code or password that would permit
access to the person's financial accounts or
-- biometric records
This list is not consistent with Tennessee's data breach
notification statute (Tenn. Code Annot. Section 47-18-2107) or with
other federal and state breach notification statutes. For instance,
the bill does not specifically mention health data as nonpublic
information. Whether those additions or subtractions make a
difference likely will be argued in future cases.
The bill also does not require the private entity to adhere to any
particular cybersecurity or data protection standard in order to
receive the protection afforded by the new liability standard. That
omission almost certainly will lead to future disputes.
Sponsors of the legislation contend that the new liability standard
will help protect businesses that are trying to recover from the
aftermath of an "event" from almost immediately being served with
numerous class action lawsuits. Critics argue that it lessens
protections for patients and other citizens and is inconsistent
with calls from the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency
(CISA) that critical infrastructure systems (such as healthcare)
harden cyber protections.
Conclusion
Tennessee, living up to its slogan that the state is "open for
business," joins a small number of states (such as Florida and West
Virginia) that have considered measures to protect businesses from
class action lawsuits following cybersecurity events. Time will
tell whether national business organizations, working hand in glove
with entities that have suffered an "event," are able to promote
the passage of similar statutes in other states. [GN]
TERADATA CORP: Ostrander Sues Over Misleading Company Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT OSTRANDER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TERADATA CORPORATION, STEPHEN
MCMILLAN, and CLAIRE BRAMLEY, Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-01034-BAS-MSB (S.D. Cal., June 14, 2024) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Teradata securities between
February 13, 2023 and February 12, 2024, both dates inclusive,
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and compliance policies, asserts the complaint.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) under Teradata's expanded
business model, which involved engagement with additional customer
business units and decisionmakers, transactions with the Company's
customers took longer to finalize; (ii) Teradata thus overstated
its ability to close customer transactions within their intended
timeframes under its expanded business model; (iii) Terada failed
to timely close several customer transactions that it had factored
into its outlook for 2023 Total Annual Recurring Revenue growth;
(iv) as a result, the Company was unlikely to meet its full year
2023 Total and Public Cloud ARR expectations; and (v) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times, says the suit.
On this news, Teradata's stock price fell $10.57 per share, or
21.66%, to close at $38.22 per share on February 13, 2024.
As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the suit added.
Teradata Corporation is an American software company that provides
cloud database and analytics-related software, products, and
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood, II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
TESTMAX INC: Abraham Files Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Testmax, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Boaz Abraham, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Testmax, Inc., Testmax Prep, Inc.,
Mehran Ebadolahi, Case No. 712796/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty.,
June 18, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other."
TestMax -- https://testmaxprep.com/ -- is the leader in
comprehensive test prep courses on mobile platforms, such as iOS
and Android.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hashim Rahman, Esq.
RAHMAN LEGAL
43 W. 43rd Street, Suite 204
New York, NY 10036
Phone: 212-970-9801
TICKETMASTER LLC: Faces Leal Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSIE LEAL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TICKETMASTER, LLC, SNOWFLAKE, INC., and LIVE
NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00046-BMM
(D. Mont., June 13, 2024) is a class action against Defendants for
their failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and
other similar situated individuals' personal identifiable
information, including but not limited to full names, addresses,
email addresses, phone numbers, ticket sales and event details,
order information, and partial payment card data.
This class action arises from the recent targeted cyberattack
against Defendant Ticketmaster's Data Cloud virtual warehouse,
managed by Defendant Snowflake, that enabled a third party to
access Defendants' computer systems and data, resulting in the
compromise of highly sensitive private information. Due to the data
breach, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses
in the form of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses
and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or
mitigate the effects of the attack, emotional distress, and the
imminent risk of future harm caused by the compromise of their
private information, says the suit.
Plaintiff Leal has been Defendants' customer and Ticketmaster
account holder since at least 2020.
Ticketmaster, LLC operates as a ticket distribution company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William A. Rossbach, Esq.
ROSSBACH LAW, P.C.
401 North Washington Street
P.O. Box 8988
Missoula, MT 59807-8988
Telephone: (406) 543-5156
Facsimile: (406) 728-8878
E-mail: bill@rossbachlaw.com
- and -
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Yana Hart, Esq.
Tiara Avaness, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
tavaness@clarksonlawfirm.com
UNITED SUGAR: Sam Restaurants Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sam Restaurants, Inc. doing business as:
Carolina's Diner, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. United Sugar Producers & Refiners Cooperative formerly
known as: United Sugars Corporation, American Sugar Refining, Inc.,
ASR Group International, Inc., Domino Foods, Inc., Michigan Sugar
Company, Commodity Information, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00326 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota on June 20, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02349-JWB-DTS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
United Sugar Producers & Refiners Cooperative --
https://unitedsugarpr.com/ -- is the industry's leading sugar
provider, We're big on customer service and ready to bring you the
right sugar at the right price.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Nathan Duggins, III, Esq.
TUGGLE DUGGINS P.A.
POB 2888
Greensboro, NC 27402
Phone: (336) 378-1431
Email: nduggins@tuggleduggins.com
- and -
Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, P.C.
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Neward, NJ 07102
Phone: (973) 623-3000
Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT: Baker Files Suit in D. Vermont
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against University of Vermont
Health Inc. The case is styled as Tyler Baker, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. University of Vermont
Health Inc., University of Vermont Medical Center Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-00673-cr (D. Vt., June 20, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Wiretapping.
The University of Vermont Medical Center --
https://www.uvmhealth.org/ -- is a five-campus academic medical
facility under the corporate umbrella of the University of Vermont
Health Network that is anchored by a 562-bed hospital in
Burlington, Vermont.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wendy E. Radcliff, Esq.
LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL
111 South Pleasant Street
Middlebury, VT 05753
Phone: (802) 388-6356
Email: wradcliff@langrock.com
US LOGISTICS: Employees Balks at Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Load Star reports that as anticipated, bankrupt US Logistics
Solutions is facing a class action lawsuit from former employees
after it unexpectedly shuttered its doors last week.
The company, owned by private equity firm Ten Oaks Group, filed for
liquidation, or Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings, last week and
fired all staff without warning.
However, under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act (WARN Act), employers of more than 100 people must give 60
days' notice in the event of mass layoffs. The company failed to do
so, which has left it open to a class action filed this week by
staff claiming wages and benefits for those 60 days.
The filing, led by former worker Robert Munro, noted: "Defendant
failed to pay the Plaintiff and the Other Similarly Situated Former
Employees their respective wages, salary, commissions, bonuses,
accrued holiday pay and accrued vacation for sixty (60) calendar
days following their respective terminations and failed to make the
401(k) contributions and provide health insurance coverage and
other employee benefits under ERISA in respect to them for 60
calendar days from and after the dates of their respective
terminations."
While media and the lawsuit have pointed to some 2,000 staff, Ten
Oaks told The Loadstar that in fact, US Logistics Solutions had 870
direct employees, 62 independent contract drivers and 322 labourers
contracted through third-party agencies.
US Logistics Solution has estimated liabilities of between $100m
and $500m, and estimated assets of between $50m and $100m.
Ten Oaks told The Loadstar that its third-party lender had "refused
to move forward with financial support for US Logistics Solutions,
leaving no choice but a Chapter 7 bankruptcy plan". It also said
the company was "in turmoil" prior to 2021, when it was part of
Forward Air -- which is among hundreds of names listed as
creditors.
Ryder Truck Rental, meanwhile, is attempting to get its vehicles
back after the bankruptcy proceedings led to an automatic stay,
whereby creditors cannot get debts paid until the court proceedings
are completed. But Ryder, which is owed some $615,000, argued that
it has trucks spread out across the southern and eastern US in US
Logistics Solutions' truck yards, which may not now be monitored or
secured.
"The leased vehicles are worth millions of dollars. Accordingly,
Ryder's property, the leased vehicles, is not adequately protected.
Emergency relief is necessary so that Ryder can retrieve and secure
the leased vehicles," it said. [GN]
WALT DISNEY: Court Denies Dismissal of Antitrust Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ella Fincken, writing for ICLG.com, reports that while claimants
have been refused damages on federal antitrust claims, the pressure
is still on for Disney. In 2022, YouTube TV subscribers against
Disney, to "remediate and recover for" the American multinational
mass media and entertainment company's , which have led to price
increases across the streaming live pay television (SLPTV) market.
The lawsuit was filed in the California Federal Court under section
1 of the Sherman Act, with compensation sought amounting to the
recovery of nearly double the claimants' subscription prices. On
June 26, US District Judge Edward Davila denied the motion to
dismiss, but also ruled that YouTube TV subscribers will be
restricted to solely seeking a court order to block any further
antitrust law violations, and will not be permitted to claim
damages on federal antitrust claims.
THE COMPLAINT
The crux of the claim derives from its complete operational control
over US subscription streaming media and content hub Hulu and
American international basic cable sports channel ESPN, which the
claimants argue has caused a steep price increase across the SLPTV
market. Its use of carriage agreement mandates, as well as the
inclusion of Most Favoured Nation Clauses to pressure price rises
across the SLPTV market, have enabled Disney to capitalise on its
control of Hulu and ESPN to establish and maintain a "price floor"
within the market. Disney has effectively forced competitors to
carry ESPN as part of its lowest price bundles through its
negotiation of horizontal, anticompetitive carriage agreements.
Since the company acquired Hulu in May 2019, it has been noted that
prices across the market have doubled in line with Disney's
inflation of their own prices for Hulu + TV and its negotiations of
carriage agreements with all leading competitors in the SLPTV
market.
"SINGLE ECONOMIC UNIT"
Disney acquired ESPN in 1996 as part of its USD 19 billion purchase
of Capital Cities/ABC, which gave Disney 80% controlling interest
in ESPN. The other 20% of shares are owned by Hearst
Communications. Disney acquired the remaining 33% stake in Hulu
that it did not already own from multinational telecoms and media
conglomerate Comcast in December last year for USD 8.6 billion. The
complaint maintains that Disney manages itself, Hulu and ESPN as a
single operational entity, enabling its negotiation of
anticompetitive agreements that have caused this substantial hike
in prices across the SLPTV market. Noting that "ESPN, Hulu and
Disney operate as a single economic unit, with a unity of purpose",
the complaint argues that the profits and losses of both ESPN and
Hulu are reported and shared "as part of Disney's balance sheet",
and Disney has full negotiating control of the two entities,
permitting anticompetitive action. WHERE IS THE "ESPN-LESS BASE
PLAN"? Amid market prices doubling in the wake of Disney's
acquisition of Hulu, the complaint also draws attention to a
"near-100% price increase of YouTube TV's base package, from USD 35
to USD 65." By including clauses in contracts that require its
rivals to include ESPN within their cheapest bundle offers, Disney
has denied its competitors the opportunity to omit the sports
channel, the priciest cable channel it owns, and sell alternative
skinny bundles. These skinny bundles, cheaper packages with a lower
channel offering, would remove the price floors established by
Disney and introduce lower prices across the market. Consumers have
no option but to purchase an ESPN-inclusive package, even if they
are in favour of opting out for a cheaper price. This inflation has
brought prices back to "pre-cord cutting, cable-TV levels",
aggravating consumers who ditched satellite and cable TV in favour
of SLPTV services that promised flexibility and price cuts they now
cannot provide. YouTube TV publicly stated, during carriage
agreement renegotiations in 2021, that were it to be free from its
binding agreements with Disney, it would provide customers with "an
ESPN-less base plan" which would be charged at USD 15 lower than it
was currently obliged. Back in 2015, Disney sued American
multinational telecoms conglomerate Verizon after it introduced an
ESPN-less skinny bundle following contract ambiguity regarding the
distribution of ESPN over the internet. Disney claimed the
alteration of ESPN as an add-on tier on the service was a violation
of their carriage contract agreement, with Verizon ultimately
conceding.
A CRACKDOWN?
Competition enforcers, individuals and governments alike are
becoming increasingly hostile to mergers in the media sector. In
2023, the Writers Guild of America called for close attention to
Disney, Netflix and Amazon, which it claimed are likely to become
the "new gatekeepers" of the industry. The Guild criticised
Disney's recent mergers with companies such as Lucas Films and
Pixar for hiking up prices and reducing "output and innovation". In
November 2022, US District Judge Florence Pan blocked a proposed
merger between Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster, writing
that the government predicted "substantial harm to competition as a
result of the proposed merger". In May 2024, the US Department of
Justice filed a lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment and its
subsidiary Ticketmaster, with executive director of the American
Economic Liberties Project, Sarah Miller, arguing that
"Ticketmaster's market power over live events is ripping off" fans,
in a comment to The Hollywood Reporter in October. In Biddle v Walt
Disney Company, the claimants were represented by Brian Dunne,
Edward Grauman, Yavar Bathaee and Andrew Wolinsky of Bathaee Dunne.
[GN]
WELLS FARGO: Defrauded Customers Sue Over Loss Reimbursement
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Wells
Fargo is being sued by two of its customers.
Why: The plaintiffs say the bank routinely holds its customers
liable when they are defrauded.
Where: The Wells Fargo fraud class action lawsuit was filed in a
Pennsylvania federal court.
A new class action lawsuit alleges that Wells Fargo does not
reimburse its customers when they are defrauded and suffer
unauthorized electronic fund transfers from their accounts.
Plaintiffs Jennifer Rice and Erik Westervelt filed the complaint
against Wells Fargo Bank National Association on June 17 in
Pennsylvania federal court.
The two Wells Fargo customers say that when thousands of dollars
were illegally stolen from their joint accounts with the bank,
Wells Fargo repeatedly refused to reimburse them -- even though
they should not have been liable for the losses under the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act.
More than $24K taken from plaintiffs' accounts
The plaintiffs say they have checking and savings accounts with
Wells Fargo.
They claim that in December 2023, Westervelt received a call from a
person purporting to be from Wells Fargo, who told him they had
identified potential fraud on his account. According to Westervelt,
the individual described the transaction as a wire transfer for "a
large amount of money" having come out of his account.
The person posing as a bank representative informed Westervelt they
could stop the wire transfer if he could confirm the six-digit
number she was sending him via text message, which he did,
Westervelt says.
However, immediately thereafter, a wire transfer in the amount of
$24,557.89 was made from Rice and Westervelt's account to an
unknown account with Discover Bank, the lawsuit states.
Realizing that the caller was likely a scammer, Westervelt says he
immediately called Wells Fargo, and the representative he spoke
with instructed him to go to his local Wells Fargo branch for
assistance, he says. He says he went to the bank that day, and an
employee from the fraud department confirmed that it had received
his dispute and it would respond within ten business days.
Seven days later, he received a letter from Wells Fargo indicating
that it would not reimburse any of the funds that were taken from
the account because the transaction had been authorized by
Westervelt.
Rice and Westervelt appealed the decision. The bank then went back
and forth several times, promising to reimburse the funds then
telling the plaintiff it had decided not to, before ultimately
advising that it would not reimburse the funds.
Bank must reimburse under law, plaintiffs say
Rice and Westervelt say this is illegal because, under the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act, "a consumer is not liable for any
unauthorized electronic fund transfer unless such transfer was made
using an accepted card for the account and the issuing institution
has provided a means to identify the person using said accepted
card."
As a result, the plaintiffs are looking to represent anyone in the
United States who had funds electronically transferred from a Wells
Fargo deposit account in the past year who did not authorize such
transfer, and who notified the bank of the unauthorized transfer
within sixty days, but were not reimbursed.
The plaintiffs are seeking certification of the class action,
statutory damages of $1,000 per class member, fees, costs and a
jury trial.
Meanwhile, another recently-filed Wells Fargo class action lawsuit
alleges the bank aided and abetted a Ponzi scheme resulting in
investor losses of more than $300 million.
What do you think of the claims in this Wells Fargo class action
lawsuit? Let us know in the comments.
The Wells Fargo fraud class action lawsuit is Jennifer Rice et al.,
v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Case No. 2:24-cv-02647
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. [GN]
WONDERFUL COMPANY: Bocchinfuso Sues Over Contaminated Bottled Water
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GWEN BOCCHINFUSO individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE WONDERFUL COMPANY LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:24-cv-04975 (C.D. Cal., June 13, 2024) is an action for
damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in selling
Fiji bottled water.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sold the products that
contained manganese and several strains of bacteria, rendering them
adulterated. The levels of Manganese and bacteria found the
Defendant's products were determined to be at a level potentially
injurious to health, leading to the process of being recalled.
As a result of Defendant's sale of adulterated products, the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers have not received the
benefit of the bargain they paid money for, namely that the
products would not be adulterated and could be consumed safely, the
suit alleges.
The Wonderful Company LLC is an agricultural company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-022
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
WOODRIDGE CAPITAL: Cifuentes Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Edgar Cifuentes, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated and similarly aggrieved employees
v. WOODRIDGE CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, an active California Limited
Liability Company; ARYA STAFFING SERVICES, INC., an active
California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, Case No.
30-2023-01320561-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on June 17, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-01312.
On August 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
("FAC"). The Plaintiff asserts 9 causes of action in his Amended
FAC (the operative Complaint) against Defendant: Failure to Provide
Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Paid Rest Periods; Failure to Pay
Wages; Failure to Timely Pay Wages at Termination/Separation;
Failure to Timely Pay Vacation Wages at Termination; Failure to
Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Reimburse
Business Expenses Violation of Unfair Business Practices Act –
Bus. & Prof. Code; and Penalties Pursuant to Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian P. Long, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, California 90017-5793
Phone: (213) 270-9600
Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
Email: bplong@seyfarth.com
- and -
Michael Afar, Esq.
Ashley D. Stein, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Phone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
Email: mafar@seyfarth.com
astein@seyfarth.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***