/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240704.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 4, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 134 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Barrett Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Brunswick & Topsham Sues Over Contaminated Water 3M COMPANY: Cheney Sues Over Contaminated Water Supplies 3M COMPANY: Drangstveit Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Highberg Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Hughes Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Jones Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Linehan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Reed Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: SBWD Sues Over Contaminated Water Supplies ADVANCE AUTO: Dragone Sues Over Data Security Failures AEROVIRONMENT INC: Oral and Written Discovery in Labor Suit Ongoing AGC CHEMICALS: New Castle Sues Over Contaminated Water AIRIST CO: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AMERICAN FAMILY: McCluskey Bid for Case Management Conference Nixed AMERICAN HONDA: Court Tosses Cadena Bid to Certify Class ANGIE'S LIST: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Aguilar Suit Claims ASCENSION HEALTH: Negron Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI AT&T INC: Berendt Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas AT&T INC: Walker Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas ATLAS CREST INVESTMENT: Wortman Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. BAYER AG: Brunson Investigates Xarelto Side Effects Class Action BELL COUNTY FISCAL: Hale Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky BERRY DUNN: Encarnacion Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach BEYOND BOUNDARIES: Robinson Seeks Proper Overtime Wages BLACKBERRY LTD: Discovery in Parker Employment Class Suit Ongoing BLACKBERRY LTD: Trial Date in Swisscanto Class Suit Not Yet Set BLACKSTONE VALLEY: Perez Sues Over Failure to Secure Information BOHEMIAN CLUB: Roussell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BRIDGE PROPERTY: Burton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Yard Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois BYRAM HEALTHCARE: Dudley Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. CALIFORNIA: Renewed Brief in Support of Class Cert Due August 23 CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Class Cert Deadlines Vacated in Roland Suit CARE PRO SERVICES: Turner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CARNIVAL CORP: Continues to Defend COVID Handling-Related Suit CHANNEL ISLANDS: Aceves Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Islami Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Spadafino Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Reyes Suit in California Court DIRECT EXPRESS: Settles Debit Card Class Action for $1.2 Mil. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid DOCUSIGN INC: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Weston Suit to 9th Cir DUCKHORN PORTFOLIO: Faces Labor Suit in California Court FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Knopp Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Muto Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info GENERAL MOTORS: Parton Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia GENERAL MOTORS: Valencia Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia GNL CORP: Lester Wage and Hour Suit Removed to D. Nevada GRITSTONE BIO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set August 6 HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Burnes Files Suit in D. Hawaii HEARTLAND EXPRESS: Partridge Suit Removed to W.D. Washington HERTZ GLOBAL: Faces Edward Securities Suit Over SEC Filing HOMESITE INSURANCE: Underpays Property Damage Claim, Fletcher Says HOSPITAL SISTERS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Brahm Due Sept. 27 HSS CALIFORNIA: Velasco Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. INFOSYS LIMITED: Sued Over Data Breach Incident IOWA: Smith Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit J & P POOL: Navarette Sues Over Pool Laborers' Unpaid Overtime KEYBANK NATIONAL: McDaniels Suit Removed to N.D. California MARYLAND: Justice Appeals Social Security Payments Suit Dismissal MIAMI PRODUCTS: Telephone Status Conference Set for July 19 MISSION PRODUCE: Settlement Deal Reached in Securities Suit NATIONAL EXPRESS: Newcomb Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NEW YORK, NY: Court Extends Stay of Discovery in Aboubakar NEW YORK, NY: Court Extends Stay of Discovery in Brennan NEW YORK: Ansbro Appeals Ruling in Suit v. FDNY NEWCOURSE COMMUNICATIONS: Settles 2022 Data Breach Class Action ORACLE AMERICA: Moves to Dismiss NetSuite ERP Class Action Suit PANDA RESTAURANT: Halliday Data Breach Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. PANERA BREAD: Employees Sue Over Company Security Breach PANORAMA EYE CARE: Otero Sues Over Private Info Exposure PEORIA CITY, IL: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in James Suit RAY MARKS: Goetz Sues Over Deceptive Product Marketing RENEO PHARMACEUTICALS: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Onkure SANTANDER BANK: Elbardissi Seeks Class Certification SECOND NATURE: Removes Best Suit to District of Colombia SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Mclean Says SIRIUS XM: Balmores Sues Over Music Royalty Fee Scheme SLASHSUPPORT INC: Yarbrough Appeals Judgment to 5th Circuit SMITH & WESSON: Faces Class Suit Over Shootings in Canada STATE FARM: Bid to Stay Class Notice in Clippinger Partly Granted STS AVIATION: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Anderson Alleges TELLURIDE RESORT: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Reply Extended to July 8 TENNESSEE: Parents Sue Over Abuse of Disabled Children TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Vehicle Filter Defect TRUIST BANK: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Boyd Suit Alleges U-HAUL CO: Willis Sues Over Unlawful Employment Practices UNITED STATES: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Feb. 3, 2025 VAAGEN BROS: Loomer Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages VICTORIA GOLD: Kalloghlian Probes Potential Investor Class Action VOLUSIA COUNTY, FL: Powell Seeks to Certify Class Action WALMART INC: Wertymer Files 7th Circuit Appeal WASHINGTON FINE: Burke Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. WELLS FARGO: Faces Rice Suit Over Unauthorized Fund Transfers WELLS FARGO: Parties Must File Joint Statement by July 5 [*]Text Messages Considered Key Evidence in Securities Fraud Suits ********* 3M COMPANY: Barrett Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence Barrett, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:24-cv-02799-RMG (D.S.C., May 1, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Decedent was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Decedent to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein including death. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Brunswick & Topsham Sues Over Contaminated Water ------------------------------------------------------------ Brunswick & Topsham Water District, and other similarly situated v. AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:24-cv-02841-RMG (D.S.C., May 3, 2024), is brought to recover by this action the substantial costs necessary to protect the public and restore its water supplies, which are contaminated with the synthetic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including but not limited to perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid ("PFHxS"), perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA), perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS), perfluorobutane sulfonate ("PFBS"), as well as all of their salts and ionic states, the acid forms of the molecules and their chemical precursors, and any other compounds the State regulates in the future. The Plaintiff brings this action to address widespread contamination of groundwater that provides drinking water to Plaintiff with PFAS, to recover costs associated with the contamination of drinking water and groundwater with PFAS, and further seek abatement of the ongoing nuisance these chemicals constitute in the environment, and for such other action as is necessary to ensure that the PFAS that contaminate the stormwater, surface water and aquifers supplying drinking water for Plaintiff do not present a risk to the public. PFAS are persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative compounds when released into the environment. PFAS have impacted stormwater, surface water and groundwater, and now contaminate the water supplies used by Plaintiff. The Defendants are companies that designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold PFAS, the chemical precursors of PFAS, and/or products containing PFAS, and/or their chemical precursors. Defendants made products with PFAS including but are not limited to, Teflon, Scotchgard, waterproofing compounds, stain-proofing compounds, waxes, paper and cloth coatings, aqueous film-forming foam ("AFFF"), a firefighting agent used to control and extinguish Class B fuel fires, and fluorosurfactants used in the manufacture of AFFF as well as telomer building blocks used to make fluorosurfactants that were then used to manufacture other PFAS-containing products, including AFFF. Collectively, Defendants' PFOA, PFOS, precursors, products containing PFAS, AFFF, and other products and intermediates containing PFAS are referred to herein as "Fluorochemical Products." The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, stored and/or sold Fluorochemical Products with the knowledge that these toxic compounds would be released into the environment during fire protection, fire training, and response activities, even when used as directed and intended by defendants. The Defendants were also aware that their Fluorochemical Products would be and have been used, released, stored, and/or disposed of at, near, or within the vicinity of Plaintiff's water supplies such that PFAS, and their chemical precursors would enter the environment, migrate through the soil, sediment, stormwater, surface water, and groundwater, thereby contaminating the water that supplies Plaintiff. As a result of the use of Defendants' Fluorochemical Products for their intended purpose, PFAS, and/or their chemical precursors have been detected in Plaintiff's water supplies at levels exceeding or approaching the Maine interim standards and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") national drinking water standards and lifetime health advisory levels. The Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that their PFAS compounds would enter the environment, contaminate soil, reach groundwater, pollute drinking water supplies, render drinking water unusable and unsafe, and threaten public health and welfare, says the complaint. The Plaintiff owns and operates a water system that provides drinking water to residents and commercial customers in the towns of Brunswick and Topsham, Maine. The Defendants' Fluorochemical Products, including, but not limited to, PFAS containing fluorochemicals/intermediates and AFFF, were used at fire training facilities, and/or fire departments such that those compounds traveled by stormwater, surface water, groundwater, and infiltrated Plaintiff's Water System.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth A. Sansone, Esq. SL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP PC 4 Park Street, Suite 300 Concord, NH 03301 Phone: (603) 227-6298 Facsimile: (415) 366-3047 Email: ksansone@slenvironment.com - and - Robert A. Bilott, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, OH 45202-3957 Phone: (513) 381-2838 Facsimile: (513) 381-0205 Email: bilott@taftlaw.com - and - David J. Butler, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 65 East State Street, Suite 1000 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 221-2838 Facsimile: (614) 221-2007 Email: dbutler@taftlaw.com - and - Kevin J. Madonna, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN MADONNA, PLLC 48 Dewitt Mills Road Hurley, NY 12443 Phone: (845) 481-2622 Facsimile (845) 230-3111 Email: km@kmadonnalaw.com - and - Gary J. Douglas, Esq. Michael A. London, Esq. Rebecca G. Newman, Esq. Tate J. Kunkle, Esq. DOUGLAS & LONDON, P.C. 59 Maiden Ln, 6th Fl, New York, NY 10038 Phone: (212) 566-7500 Email: gdouglas@douglasandlondon.com mlondon@douglasandlondon.com rnewman@douglasandlondon.com tkunkle@douglasandlondon.com - and - Ned McWilliams, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, RAFFERTY, PROCTOR, BUCHANAN, O'BRIEN & MOUGEY, P.A. 316 S. Baylen St. Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 435-7138 Email: nmcwilliams@levinlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Cheney Sues Over Contaminated Water Supplies -------------------------------------------------------- City Of Cheney, Washington, and other similarly situated v. AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:24-cv-02834-RMG (D.S.C., May 3, 2024), is brought to recover by this action the substantial costs necessary to protect the public and restore its water supplies, which are contaminated with the synthetic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including but not limited to perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid ("PFHxS"), perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA), perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS), perfluorobutane sulfonate ("PFBS"), as well as all of their salts and ionic states, the acid forms of the molecules and their chemical precursors, and any other compounds the State regulates in the future. The Plaintiff brings this action to address widespread contamination of groundwater that provides drinking water to Plaintiff with PFAS, to recover costs associated with the contamination of drinking water and groundwater with PFAS, and further seek abatement of the ongoing nuisance these chemicals constitute in the environment, and for such other action as is necessary to ensure that the PFAS that contaminate the stormwater, surface water and aquifers supplying drinking water for Plaintiff do not present a risk to the public. PFAS are persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative compounds when released into the environment. PFAS have impacted stormwater, surface water and groundwater, and now contaminate the water supplies used by Plaintiff. The Defendants are companies that designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold PFAS, the chemical precursors of PFAS, and/or products containing PFAS, and/or their chemical precursors. Defendants made products with PFAS including but are not limited to, Teflon, Scotchgard, waterproofing compounds, stain-proofing compounds, waxes, paper and cloth coatings, aqueous film-forming foam ("AFFF"), a firefighting agent used to control and extinguish Class B fuel fires, and fluorosurfactants used in the manufacture of AFFF as well as telomer building blocks used to make fluorosurfactants that were then used to manufacture other PFAS-containing products, including AFFF. Collectively, Defendants' PFOA, PFOS, precursors, products containing PFAS, AFFF, and other products and intermediates containing PFAS are referred to herein as "Fluorochemical Products." The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, stored and/or sold Fluorochemical Products with the knowledge that these toxic compounds would be released into the environment during fire protection, fire training, and response activities, even when used as directed and intended by defendants. The Defendants were also aware that their Fluorochemical Products would be and have been used, released, stored, and/or disposed of at, near, or within the vicinity of Plaintiff's water supplies such that PFAS, and their chemical precursors would enter the environment, migrate through the soil, sediment, stormwater, surface water, and groundwater, thereby contaminating the water that supplies Plaintiff. As a result of the use of Defendants' Fluorochemical Products for their intended purpose, PFAS, and/or their chemical precursors have been detected in Plaintiff's water supplies at levels exceeding or approaching the Maine interim standards and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") national drinking water standards and lifetime health advisory levels. The Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that their PFAS compounds would enter the environment, contaminate soil, reach groundwater, pollute drinking water supplies, render drinking water unusable and unsafe, and threaten public health and welfare, says the complaint. The Plaintiff owns and operates a public water system that provides drinking water to residents and commercial customers in and around the City of Cheney, Washington. The Defendants' Fluorochemical Products, including, but not limited to, PFAS containing fluorochemicals/intermediates and AFFF, were used at fire training facilities, and/or fire departments such that those compounds traveled by stormwater, surface water, groundwater, and infiltrated Plaintiff's Water System.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth A. Sansone, Esq. SL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP PC 4 Park Street, Suite 300 Concord, NH 03301 Phone: (603) 227-6298 Facsimile: (415) 366-3047 Email: ksansone@slenvironment.com - and - Robert A. Bilott, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, OH 45202-3957 Phone: (513) 381-2838 Facsimile: (513) 381-0205 Email: bilott@taftlaw.com - and - David J. Butler, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 65 East State Street, Suite 1000 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 221-2838 Facsimile: (614) 221-2007 Email: dbutler@taftlaw.com - and - Kevin J. Madonna, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN MADONNA, PLLC 48 Dewitt Mills Road Hurley, NY 12443 Phone: (845) 481-2622 Facsimile (845) 230-3111 Email: km@kmadonnalaw.com - and - Gary J. Douglas, Esq. Michael A. London, Esq. Rebecca G. Newman, Esq. Tate J. Kunkle, Esq. DOUGLAS & LONDON, P.C. 59 Maiden Ln, 6th Fl, New York, NY 10038 Phone: (212) 566-7500 Email: gdouglas@douglasandlondon.com mlondon@douglasandlondon.com rnewman@douglasandlondon.com tkunkle@douglasandlondon.com - and - Ned McWilliams, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, RAFFERTY, PROCTOR, BUCHANAN, O'BRIEN & MOUGEY, P.A. 316 S. Baylen St. Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 435-7138 Email: nmcwilliams@levinlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Drangstveit Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Lee Drangstveit, 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-02900-RMG (D.S.C., May 8, 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 Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma 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: Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq. RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP 225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110 Atlanta, GA 30624 Phone: 404-381-2888 Email: buck@lawrsd.com 3M COMPANY: Highberg Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Erik Highberg, and others similarly situated 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-02825-RMG (D.S.C., May 3, 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 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 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 or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a civilian firefighter at multiple sites located throughout Washington state and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS. 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: Gary K. Shipman, Esq. William G. Wright, Esq. SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, LLP 575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106 Wilmington, NC 28405 Phone: (910) 762-1990 Email: wwright@shipmanlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Hughes Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------ Wayne P. Hughes, 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-02901-RMG (D.S.C., May 8, 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 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: Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq. RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP 225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110 Atlanta, GA 30624 Phone: 404-381-2888 Email: buck@lawrsd.com 3M COMPANY: Jones Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Lee Jones, on behalf of himself v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:24-cv-02902-RMG (D.S.C., May 8, 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 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: Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq. RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP 225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110 Atlanta, GA 30624 Phone: 404-381-2888 Email: buck@lawrsd.com 3M COMPANY: Linehan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals --------------------------------------------------------- James Linehan, Sr., 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-02903-RMG (D.S.C., May 8, 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 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: Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq. RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP 225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110 Atlanta, GA 30624 Phone: 404-381-2888 Email: buck@lawrsd.com 3M COMPANY: Reed Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- John Reed and Kristen Reed, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA US, INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHE-MDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHE-MGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS, INC., f/k/a DowDuPont, Inc.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DV PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C., INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC., a/Wa Chubb National Foam; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UNITED CORPORATION; UTC FIRE AMERICAS CORPORATION, Interlogix, Inc., TECHNOLOGIES & SECURITIES INC., f/n/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-02893-RMG (D.S.C., May 8, 2024), is brought for personal injury damages 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 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 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 Vernon Burks 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. Plaintiffs' 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, Plaintiffs seek 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 Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. Plaintiffs further seek injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff John Reed regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish active fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF or underlying PFAS containing PFOA or PFOS chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles R. Houssiere, III, Esq. HOUSSIERE, DURANT & HOUSSIERE, LLP 1990 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 800 Houston, TX 77056-3812 Phone: 713-626-3700 Facsimile: 713-626-3709 Email: choussiere@hdhtex.com 3M COMPANY: SBWD Sues Over Contaminated Water Supplies ------------------------------------------------------ South Berwick Water District, and other similarly situated v. AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:24-cv-02837-RMG (D.S.C., May 3, 2024), is brought to recover by this action the substantial costs necessary to protect the public and restore its water supplies, which are contaminated with the synthetic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including but not limited to perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid ("PFHxS"), perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA), perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS), perfluorobutane sulfonate ("PFBS"), as well as all of their salts and ionic states, the acid forms of the molecules and their chemical precursors, and any other compounds the State regulates in the future. The Plaintiff brings this action to address widespread contamination of groundwater that provides drinking water to Plaintiff with PFAS, to recover costs associated with the contamination of drinking water and groundwater with PFAS, and further seek abatement of the ongoing nuisance these chemicals constitute in the environment, and for such other action as is necessary to ensure that the PFAS that contaminate the stormwater, surface water and aquifers supplying drinking water for Plaintiff do not present a risk to the public. PFAS are persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative compounds when released into the environment. PFAS have impacted stormwater, surface water and groundwater, and now contaminate the water supplies used by Plaintiff. The Defendants are companies that designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold PFAS, the chemical precursors of PFAS, and/or products containing PFAS, and/or their chemical precursors. Defendants made products with PFAS including but are not limited to, Teflon, Scotchgard, waterproofing compounds, stain-proofing compounds, waxes, paper and cloth coatings, aqueous film-forming foam ("AFFF"), a firefighting agent used to control and extinguish Class B fuel fires, and fluorosurfactants used in the manufacture of AFFF as well as telomer building blocks used to make fluorosurfactants that were then used to manufacture other PFAS-containing products, including AFFF. Collectively, Defendants' PFOA, PFOS, precursors, products containing PFAS, AFFF, and other products and intermediates containing PFAS are referred to herein as "Fluorochemical Products." The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, stored and/or sold Fluorochemical Products with the knowledge that these toxic compounds would be released into the environment during fire protection, fire training, and response activities, even when used as directed and intended by defendants. The Defendants were also aware that their Fluorochemical Products would be and have been used, released, stored, and/or disposed of at, near, or within the vicinity of Plaintiff's water supplies such that PFAS, and their chemical precursors would enter the environment, migrate through the soil, sediment, stormwater, surface water, and groundwater, thereby contaminating the water that supplies Plaintiff. As a result of the use of Defendants' Fluorochemical Products for their intended purpose, PFAS, and/or their chemical precursors have been detected in Plaintiff's water supplies at levels exceeding or approaching the Maine interim standards and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") national drinking water standards and lifetime health advisory levels. The Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that their PFAS compounds would enter the environment, contaminate soil, reach groundwater, pollute drinking water supplies, render drinking water unusable and unsafe, and threaten public health and welfare, says the complaint. The Plaintiff owns and operates a water system that provides drinking water to residents and commercial customers in the cities of South Berwick and Berwick, Maine. The Defendants' Fluorochemical Products, including, but not limited to, PFAS containing fluorochemicals/intermediates and AFFF, were used at fire training facilities, and/or fire departments such that those compounds traveled by stormwater, surface water, groundwater, and infiltrated Plaintiff's Water System.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth A. Sansone, Esq. SL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP PC 4 Park Street, Suite 300 Concord, NH 03301 Phone: (603) 227-6298 Facsimile: (415) 366-3047 Email: ksansone@slenvironment.com - and - Robert A. Bilott, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, OH 45202-3957 Phone: (513) 381-2838 Facsimile: (513) 381-0205 Email: bilott@taftlaw.com - and - David J. Butler, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 65 East State Street, Suite 1000 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 221-2838 Facsimile: (614) 221-2007 Email: dbutler@taftlaw.com - and - Kevin J. Madonna, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN MADONNA, PLLC 48 Dewitt Mills Road Hurley, NY 12443 Phone: (845) 481-2622 Facsimile (845) 230-3111 Email: km@kmadonnalaw.com - and - Gary J. Douglas, Esq. Michael A. London, Esq. Rebecca G. Newman, Esq. Tate J. Kunkle, Esq. DOUGLAS & LONDON, P.C. 59 Maiden Ln, 6th Fl, New York, NY 10038 Phone: (212) 566-7500 Email: gdouglas@douglasandlondon.com mlondon@douglasandlondon.com rnewman@douglasandlondon.com tkunkle@douglasandlondon.com - and - Ned McWilliams, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, RAFFERTY, PROCTOR, BUCHANAN, O'BRIEN & MOUGEY, P.A. 316 S. Baylen St. Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 435-7138 Email: nmcwilliams@levinlaw.com ADVANCE AUTO: Dragone Sues Over Data Security Failures ------------------------------------------------------ DYLAN JOSEPH DRAGONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00357-BO (E.D.N.C., June 24, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to adequately secure and safeguard personally identifiable information of its current and former job applicants and employees. According to the complaint, the Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on its affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class, to keep their PII confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. However, Defendant breached its numerous duties and obligations by failing to implement and maintain reasonable safeguards; failing to comply with industry-standard data security practices and federal and state laws and regulations governing data security; failing to properly train its employees on data security measures and protocols; failing to timely recognize and detect unauthorized third parties accessing its system and that substantial amounts of data had been compromised; and failing to timely notify the impacted Class. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Headquartered in Raleigh, NC, Advance Auto Parts, Inc. is a retailer of automotive aftermarket parts that operates around 4,777 stores primarily in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5003 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: sharris@milberg.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com AEROVIRONMENT INC: Oral and Written Discovery in Labor Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------- Aerovironment Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending April 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2024, that the oral and written discovery for a labor class suit is ongoing in the California Superior Court in Los Angeles, California. On August 9, 2021, a former employee filed a class action complaint against AeroVironment in California Superior Court in Los Angeles, California alleging various claims pursuant to the California Labor Code related to wages, meal breaks, overtime, unreimbursed business expenses and other recordkeeping matters. The complaint seeks a jury trial and payment of various alleged unpaid wages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts. The Company filed its answer on December 16, 2021. Written and oral discovery are ongoing. Aerovironment, Inc. is into multi-domain robotic systems and related services based in Virginia. AGC CHEMICALS: New Castle Sues Over Contaminated Water ------------------------------------------------------ Municipal Services Commission of The City of New Castle, and other similarly situated v. AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:24-cv-03004-RMG (D.S.C., May 13, 2024), is brought to recover by this action the substantial costs necessary to protect the public and restore its water supplies, which are contaminated with the synthetic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including but not limited to perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid ("PFHxS"), perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA), perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS), perfluorobutane sulfonate ("PFBS"), as well as all of their salts and ionic states, the acid forms of the molecules and their chemical precursors, and any other compounds the State regulates in the future. The Plaintiff brings this action to address widespread contamination of groundwater that provides drinking water to Plaintiff with PFAS, to recover costs associated with the contamination of drinking water and groundwater with PFAS, and further seek abatement of the ongoing nuisance these chemicals constitute in the environment, and for such other action as is necessary to ensure that the PFAS that contaminate the stormwater, surface water and aquifers supplying drinking water for Plaintiff do not present a risk to the public. PFAS are persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative compounds when released into the environment. PFAS have impacted stormwater, surface water and groundwater, and now contaminate the water supplies used by Plaintiff. The Defendants are companies that designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold PFAS, the chemical precursors of PFAS, and/or products containing PFAS, and/or their chemical precursors. Defendants made products with PFAS including but are not limited to, Teflon, Scotchgard, waterproofing compounds, stain-proofing compounds, waxes, paper and cloth coatings, aqueous film-forming foam ("AFFF"), a firefighting agent used to control and extinguish Class B fuel fires, and fluorosurfactants used in the manufacture of AFFF as well as telomer building blocks used to make fluorosurfactants that were then used to manufacture other PFAS-containing products, including AFFF. Collectively, Defendants' PFOA, PFOS, precursors, products containing PFAS, AFFF, and other products and intermediates containing PFAS are referred to herein as "Fluorochemical Products." The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, stored and/or sold Fluorochemical Products with the knowledge that these toxic compounds would be released into the environment during fire protection, fire training, and response activities, even when used as directed and intended by defendants. The Defendants were also aware that their Fluorochemical Products would be and have been used, released, stored, and/or disposed of at, near, or within the vicinity of Plaintiff's water supplies such that PFAS, and their chemical precursors would enter the environment, migrate through the soil, sediment, stormwater, surface water, and groundwater, thereby contaminating the water that supplies Plaintiff. As a result of the use of Defendants' Fluorochemical Products for their intended purpose, PFAS, and/or their chemical precursors have been detected in Plaintiff's water supplies at levels exceeding or approaching the Maine interim standards and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") national drinking water standards and lifetime health advisory levels. The Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that their PFAS compounds would enter the environment, contaminate soil, reach groundwater, pollute drinking water supplies, render drinking water unusable and unsafe, and threaten public health and welfare, says the complaint. The Plaintiff owns and operates a water system that provides drinking water to residents and commercial customers in and around the City of New Castle Delaware. The Defendants' Fluorochemical Products, including, but not limited to, PFAS containing fluorochemicals/intermediates and AFFF, were used at fire training facilities, and/or fire departments such that those compounds traveled by stormwater, surface water, groundwater, and infiltrated Plaintiff's Water System.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth A. Sansone, Esq. SL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP PC 4 Park Street, Suite 300 Concord, NH 03301 Phone: (603) 227-6298 Facsimile: (415) 366-3047 Email: ksansone@slenvironment.com - and - Robert A. Bilott, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, OH 45202-3957 Phone: (513) 381-2838 Facsimile: (513) 381-0205 Email: bilott@taftlaw.com - and - David J. Butler, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 65 East State Street, Suite 1000 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 221-2838 Facsimile: (614) 221-2007 Email: dbutler@taftlaw.com - and - Kevin J. Madonna, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN MADONNA, PLLC 48 Dewitt Mills Road Hurley, NY 12443 Phone: (845) 481-2622 Facsimile (845) 230-3111 Email: km@kmadonnalaw.com - and - Gary J. Douglas, Esq. Michael A. London, Esq. Rebecca G. Newman, Esq. Tate J. Kunkle, Esq. DOUGLAS & LONDON, P.C. 59 Maiden Ln, 6th Fl, New York, NY 10038 Phone: (212) 566-7500 Email: gdouglas@douglasandlondon.com mlondon@douglasandlondon.com rnewman@douglasandlondon.com tkunkle@douglasandlondon.com - and - Ned McWilliams, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, RAFFERTY, PROCTOR, BUCHANAN, O'BRIEN & MOUGEY, P.A. 316 S. Baylen St. Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 435-7138 Email: nmcwilliams@levinlaw.com AIRIST CO: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AIRIST CO. INC., et al. The case is styled as Sandy Gonzalez, Erich Mues, Leigha Scott, Lawrence Williamson, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. AIRIST CO. INC., DOES 1 THROUGH 10, Case No. CGC24614501 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 9, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Airist -- https://www.airist.net/ -- is a lounge service provider to major airlines and airport operation companies like Air France/KLM and TAV Airport Holding.[BN] s The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory N. KARASIK, Esq. KARASIK LAW FIRM 519 Arbramar Ave. Pacific Palisades, CA. 90272 Phone: 415-461-6400 Fax: 415-461-3900 AMERICAN FAMILY: McCluskey Bid for Case Management Conference Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Connor McCluskey, et al., v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01002 (W.D. Wisc., Filed Nov. 2, 2020), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for a case management conference. -- If the parties agree that computing damages for tens of thousands of policyholders prior to class certification is not a good use of resources, they can agree to defer that discovery until later in the case. -- Under the current schedule, damages expert disclosures are not due until March 2025, so the court sees no imminent relevant deadlines. -- The parties are encouraged to reach a solution together, rather than resorting to motions practice. The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Default. American Family offers auto, home, life, umbrella, business, health, and farm and ranch insurance products and services.[CC] AMERICAN HONDA: Court Tosses Cadena Bid to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kathleen A. Cadena et al., v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-04007-MWF-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael Fitzgerald entered an order: -- granting in part and denying in part Honda's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Roland D. Hoover Pursuant to Rule 702 (the "First Daubert Motion"); -- denying Honda's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of J. Michael Dennis and Colin Weir Pursuant to Rule 702 (the "Second Daubert Motion"); and -- denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class (the "Certification Motion") with respect to Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim under Massachusetts law but is otherwise GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court certifies the following classes: 1. California Class: "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle from a Honda- authorized dealership in California." 2. Florida Class: "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle from a Honda- authorized dealership in Florida." 3. New York Class: "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle from a Honda- authorized dealership in New York." 4. Ohio Class: "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle from a Honda- authorized dealership in Ohio." 5. North Carolina Class: "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle from a Honda- authorized dealership in North Carolina." 6. New Jersey Class: "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle from a Honda- authorized dealership in New Jersey." 7. Arizona Class: "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle from a Honda- authorized dealership in Arizona." 8. Massachusetts Class: "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle from a Honda- authorized dealership in Massachusetts." 9. Iowa Class: "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle from a Honda- authorized dealership in Iowa." "Class Vehicle" is defined as any model year 2017–2019 Honda CR- V or model year 2018–2020 Honda Accord, excluding vehicles designated as 'Fleet' orders in Honda's sales data." This putative class action concerns alleged design defects in the "Honda Sensing" system – specifically, the Collision Mitigation Breaking System ("CMBS") – in certain Honda vehicles. The Court previously summarized the facts of this action in its Order Granting in Part Honda's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint. American Honda is the North American subsidiary of Japanese Honda Motor Company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tU9BS3 at no extra charge.[CC] ANGIE'S LIST: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Aguilar Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- LEONARDO AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANGIE'S LIST, INC. d/b/a ANGI, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-22400-RKA (S.D. Fla., June 21, 2024) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Angie's List Inc. provides Internet information and content. The Company offers product and company reviews, actively collects data on listed companies, and provides complaint resolution services between business and client. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 E-mail: zane@jibraellaw.com jibrael@jibraellaw.com ASCENSION HEALTH: Negron Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI ----------------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Negron, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASCENSION HEALTH, Case: 1:24-cv-03857 (N.D. Ill., May 12, 2024), is brought to seek monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendant Ascension, arising from its failure to safeguard certain Personally Identifying Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (collectively, "Personal Information") and other sensitive, non-public information (collectively, "Personal Information") of thousands of its patients resulting in a cyberattack of and unauthorized access of Defendant's network systems on May 9, 2024. As an ongoing harm resulting from the Data Breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members are unable to effectively communicate with their healthcare providers and/or receive the requisite medical care and attention they need for months following the Data Breach because Ascension's network systems, including its MyChart patient portal, remained offline and were inaccessible to patients. The MyChart patient portal is the primary way Ascension providers communicate with patients and families and patients have access to their records. On May 9, 2024, Ascension's network systems were unauthorizedly accessed in a ransomware attack, resulting in the unauthorized disclosure of the Personal Information of Plaintiffs and the Class Members, including names, dates of birth, patient records, Social Security numbers, and other PHI (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiffs and Members of the Class have suffered significant injury and damages due to the Data Breach permitted to occur by Ascension, and the resulting misuse of their Personal Information and fraudulent activity, including monetary damages including out-of-pocket expenses, including those associated with the reasonable mitigation measures they were forced to employ, and other damages. Plaintiff and the Class also now forever face an amplified risk of further misuse, fraud, and identity theft due to their sensitive Personal Information falling into the hands of cybercriminals as a result of the tortious conduct of Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been a patient of Ascension Saint Mary-Chicago for the past sixteen years. Ascension Health, is a non-profit corporation properly recognized and sanctioned by the laws of the State of Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: T. J. Jesky, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF T. J. JESKY 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601-5902 Phone: 312-894-0130, Ext. 3 Fax: 312-489-821 Email: tj@jeskylaw.com AT&T INC: Berendt Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------ The case styled as William Berendt, Xavier King, Hugo Orellana, Kimberly Townsend, Therese Kyker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04310 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on June 20, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01540-E to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- is an American multinational telecommunications holding company.[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 AT&T INC: Walker Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as Aquelia Walker, on behalf of herself and all others who are similarly situated v. AT&T Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00438 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on June 20, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01527-E to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Torts/Pers Prop: Other Fraud for Federal Trade Commission Act. AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- is an American multinational telecommunications holding company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Arturo Pena Miranda, Esq. STERLINGTON PLLC One World Trade Center, 85th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (407) 259-0234 Email: arturo.pena@sterlingtonlaw.com ATLAS CREST INVESTMENT: Wortman Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlas Crest Investment LLC, et al. The case is styled as Josh Wortman, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated stockholders v. Atlas Crest Investment LLC, Adam Goldstein, Archer Aviation Operating Corp., Archer Aviation, Inc., Brett Adcock, Christopher Callesano, David Fox, Eileen Murray, Emanuel Pearlman, Kenneth Moelis, Michael Spellacy, Moelis & Company Group LP, Moelis & Company LLC, Todd Lemkin, Case No. 2024-0665-LWW (Del. Chancery Ct., June 19, 2024). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties." Atlas Crest -- https://www.atlascrestcorp.com/ -- is a leading franchise of special purpose acquisition companies focused on identifying high growth companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Bennett, Esq. Phone: (302) 984-3813 Fax: (302) 652-5379 BAYER AG: Brunson Investigates Xarelto Side Effects Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- If you or a loved one have experienced serious medical complications you feel are related to the use of the drug Xarelto and would like more information about the Xarelto Class Action Lawsuit call Brunson, Barnett and Sherrer, PC, at (205)702-6700 or (205)625-5555. Xarelto, a relatively new anticoagulant medication, has been linked to severe side effects and adverse reactions such as uncontrollable bleeding and an increased risk of blood clots. Have you or someone that you love suffered a serious side effect that may include a hemorrhage or stroke while taking this medication, and are considering filing a Xarelto claim or lawsuit? Did you know that you or that injury victim may be able to file a lawsuit against the manufacturer and seek financial compensation for your injuries and medical bills? The Legal Team at Brunson, Barnett and Sherrer, PC are studying reports of dangerous side effects, and would like to speak with anyone who may have had a negative reaction to the drug. If you took Xarelto and had an adverse side effect, call 205-702-6700 or 205-625-5555. We are currently helping Xarelto injury victims and their families and are ready to help investigate your Xarelto claim. Your first consultation is free and we only get paid when we obtain a recovery on your behalf. What is Xarelto? Xarelto (rivaroxaban) was first approved by the FDA in July of 2011. The blood thinner has three main uses: -- Reducing the risk of blood clots and stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, -- Treating deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolisms, and -- Reducing the risk of blood clots in patients undergoing knee or hip replacement surgery. To treat a clotting disorder (which can lead to strokes or embolisms), a medication like Xarelto may be prescribed which will keep the blood from clotting. As a result of the action of this drugs, patients must be very careful to avoid injury, as the blood can no longer clot naturally. Older blood thinners like warfarin (Coumadin) have been around for over 50 years. Warfarin has an antidote, and its blood thinning effects can be reversed with a shot of Vitamin K. Unlike warfarin, Xarelto does not have an antidote. If a patient taking Xarelto is injured or needs surgery, there is no shot which will reverse its effects and allow the body to resume clotting normally. Patients who begin hemorrhaging while taking Xarelto may not be able to stop, leading to massive blood loss and possibly death. [GN] BELL COUNTY FISCAL: Hale Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bell County Fiscal, et al. The case is styled as Melvin Hale, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bell County Fiscal, Court, Gary Ferguson, Deputy Joshua Collett, Deputy Chad Money, Robin Venable, Tommy Shackleford, Jane/John Does, being sued as employees of the Bell County Fiscal Court; Gary Ferguson, being sued in his capacity as former BELL COUNTY JAILER; Gary Ferguson, being sued in his capacity as BELL COUNTY DEPUTY JAILER; Deputy Joshua Collett, being sued in his capacity as BELL COUNTY DEPUTY JAILER; Deputy Chad Money, being sued in his capacity as BELL COUNTY DEPUTY JAILER; Robin Venable, being sued in his capacity as BELL COUNTY JAILER, Case No. 6:24-cv-00086-REW (E.D. Ky., June 19, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Petitions (Prison Condition). Bell County Fiscal is a Government office in Temple, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Alan Bartley, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY BARTLEY 35 Public Square Somerset, KY 42501 Phone: (606) 678-7265 Fax: (606) 416-5974 Email: jbartleylaw@gmail.com - and - Stephen P. New, Esq. STEPHEN NEW & ASSOCIATES 430 Harper Park Drive Beckley, WV 25801 Phone: (304) 250-6017 Fax: (304) 250-6012 Email: steve@newlawoffice.com BERRY DUNN: Encarnacion Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Yasmin Encarnacion, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BERRY, DUNN, MCNEIL & PARKER LLC, and RELIABLE NETWORKS of MAINE LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00174-JAW (D. Maine, May 13, 2024), is brought arising out of a targeted cyberattack and data breach caused by the Defendants' failure to secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and over 1.1 million other individuals' personally identifying information ("PII") including names, Social Security numbers ("SSNs"), dates of birth, addresses, and individual health insurance policy numbers. On September 14, 2023, BerryDunn was notified by Reliable that between September 12, 2023 and September 14, 2023, an unauthorized third-party gained access to Defendants' networks and systems (the "Data Breach"). These networks housed PII stored on BerryDunn's Health Analytics Practice Group's systems. Upon learning of the vulnerability, Defendant BerryDunn "immediately implemented" an incident response protocol and engaged cybersecurity experts "to assist with determining what occurred and whether any data was compromised." The Defendants did not notify Plaintiff and Class Members that their highly sensitive PII had been compromised in the Data Breach until on April 25, 2024, over seven months after the unauthorized third party gained access to Defendants' systems and to the PII of Plaintiff and the Class. The Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff and the other Class Members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII against unauthorized access and disclosure. The Defendants breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect the PII of individuals stored on BerryDunn's Health Analytics Practice Group systems from unauthorized access and disclosure. For its part, BerryDunn also failed to adequately supervise the vendors with which it contracted--including Reliable Networks--to ensure those vendors were properly securing the PII of BerryDunn clients entrusted to BerryDunn, to the extent the PII entrusted to it was stored on third party networks. As a result of Defendants' inadequate security and breach of their duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and the other Class Members' PII was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all persons whose PII was exposed as a result of the Data Breach, which occurred between September 12, 2023, and September 14, 2023, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received Defendant BerryDunn's Notice of Data Breach letter over seven months after the Data Breach occurred, in late April 2024. The Defendant is "a leading national professional services firm providing assurance, tax, and consulting services to businesses, nonprofits, and government agencies throughout the US and its territories."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander E. Spadinger, Esq. SHAHEEN & GORDON, P.A. P.O. Box 977 Dover, NH 03821 Phone: (603) 749-5000 Email: aspadinger@shaheengordon.com - and - James Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 540-7200 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Steven Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 357-1100 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com BEYOND BOUNDARIES: Robinson Seeks Proper Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- TONYA ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. BEYOND BOUNDARIES SUPPORTIVE LIVING, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-539-BRW (E.D. Ark., June 24, 2024) seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs as a result of Defendant's policies and practice of failing to pay sufficient wages and proper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant employed Plaintiff from approximately July 2021 through February 2024. Plaintiff was employed as an hourly-paid caregiver by Defendant. As a caregiver, the Plaintiff performed duties on Defendant's behalf such as bathing, cooking, cleaning, and administering medication to a client that lived with her. Allegedly, the Plaintiff and the Class Members were subjected to the same pay provisions in that they were paid under the same pay plan and were not paid at time and one half their regular rates of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says the suit. Beyond Boundaries Supportive Living, LLC operates as non-profit organization that provides equine-assisted activities to children and adults with disabilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com BLACKBERRY LTD: Discovery in Parker Employment Class Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- BlackBerry Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending May 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2024, that discovery is ongoing for the Parker employment class suit. On March 17, 2017, a putative employment class action was filed against the Company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Parker v. BlackBerry Limited). The Statement of Claim alleges that actions the Company took when certain of its employees decided to accept offers of employment from Ford Motor Company of Canada amounted to a wrongful termination of the employees' employment with the Company. The claim seeks (i) an unspecified quantum of statutory, contractual, or common law termination entitlements; (ii) punitive or breach of duty of good faith damages of CAD$20 million, or such other amount as the Court finds appropriate, (iii) pre- and post- judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) such other relief as the Court deems just. The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class action on May 27, 2019. The Company commenced a motion for leave to appeal the certification order on June 11, 2019. The Court denied the motion for leave to appeal on September 17, 2019. The Company filed its Statement of Defence on December 19, 2019. The parties participated in a mediation on November 9, 2022, which did not result in an agreement. The Court has set a trial date of June 2, 2025, and scheduled a pre-trial conference on December 4, 2024. Discovery is proceeding. BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and services to enterprises and governments based in Canada. BLACKBERRY LTD: Trial Date in Swisscanto Class Suit Not Yet Set --------------------------------------------------------------- BlackBerry Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending May 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2024, that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has not yet set the trial date for the Swisscanto class suit. On July 23, 2014, the plaintiff in the putative Ontario class action (Swisscanto Fondsleitung AG v. BlackBerry Limited, et al.) filed a motion for class certification and for leave to pursue statutory misrepresentation claims. On November 17, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a statutory claim for misrepresentation. On December 2, 2015, the Company filed a notice of motion seeking leave to appeal this ruling. On November 15, 2018, the Court denied the Company's motion for leave to appeal the order granting the plaintiffs leave to file a statutory claim for misrepresentation. On February 5, 2019, the Court entered an order certifying a class comprised persons (a) who purchased BlackBerry common shares between March 28, 2013, and September 20, 2013, and still held at least some of those shares as of September 20, 2013, and (b) who acquired those shares on a Canadian stock exchange or acquired those shares on any other stock exchange and were a resident of Canada when the shares were acquired. Notice of class certification was published on March 6, 2019. The Company filed its Statement of Defence on April 1, 2019. Discovery is proceeding and the Court has not set a trial date. BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and services to enterprises and governments based in Canada. BLACKSTONE VALLEY: Perez Sues Over Failure to Secure Information ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alba Peralta Perez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BLACKSTONE VALLEY COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00189-WES-PAS (D.R.I., May 14, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its employees. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure--was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. Blackstone collected and maintained certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are (or were) employees of Defendant. The PII compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names and Social Security numbers ("personally identifiable information" or "PII"). The PII compromised in the Data Breach was exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target PII for its value to identity thieves. 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 employees' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. Moreover, upon information and belief, Defendant was targeted for a cyber-attack due to its status as a healthcare entity that collects and maintains highly valuable PII on its systems. The Defendant maintained, used, and shared the PII in a reckless manner. In particular, the PII was used and transmitted by Defendant in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was a known risk to Defendant, and thus, Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the PII from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves. 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. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's PII was accessed during the Data Breach. The Defendant is a healthcare corporation that "provides a full range of affordable services from pediatrics to behavioral health."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent L. Greene, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 40 Westminster St., 5th Floor Providence, RI 02903 Phone: (401) 457-7700 Email: vgreene@motleyrice.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: dlietz@milberg.com BOHEMIAN CLUB: Roussell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BOHEMIAN CLUB, et al. The case is styled as Ron Roussell, as an individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated class members v. BOHEMIAN CLUB, DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC24614539 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 9, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." The Bohemian Club is a private club with two locations: a city clubhouse in the Nob Hill district of San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (310) 496-5818 Fax: (310) 510-6429 Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com BRIDGE PROPERTY: Burton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bridge Property Management & Real Estate, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jaquain Iscell Burton, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bridge Property Management & Real Estate, LLC, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CGC24614640 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 14, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Bridge Property Management -- https://www.bridgepm.com/ -- is completely committed to providing the best in resident management and the best in investment real estate management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243 Phone: 310-438-5555 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Yard Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Mark Yard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Build-A-Bear Workshop Inc., Case No. 2024LA000430 was removed from the DuPage County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 13, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-03893 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. -- http://www.buildabear.com/-- is an American retailer headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri that sells teddy bears, stuffed animals, and characters.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Peterson, Esq. 230 E. Ohio St., Suite 410 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (815) 999-9130 Email: mtp@lawsforconsumers.com The Defendants are represented by: Edward T. Pivin, Esq. Michael J. Hickey, Esq. LEWIS RICE LLC 600 Washington Ave., Ste. 2500 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 444-7600 Email: epivin@lewisrice.com mhickey@lewisrice.com BYRAM HEALTHCARE: Dudley Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled CRYSTAL DUDLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BYRAM HEALTHCARE CENTERS, INC.; OWENS & MINOR DISTRIBUTION, INC.; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 24-2-09844-5 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 24, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00911-SKV to the proceeding. The case arises out of Defendant's alleged violations of the job posting requirements of Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act. Byram Healthcare is a medical supply company based in White Plains, NY. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Peter H. Nohle, Esq. Gray Jeong, Esq. 520 Pike Street, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 626-6436 (206) 626-6406 E-mail: Peter.Nohle@jacksonlewis.com Gray.Jeong@jacksonlewis.com CALIFORNIA: Renewed Brief in Support of Class Cert Due August 23 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anders, et al., v. California State University, Fresno, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00179 (E.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 12, 2021), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered an order granting unopposed request for an extension of time: -- The Plaintiffs' renewed brief in support Aug. 23, 2024 of class certification is due: -- Fresno State's response is due: Sept. 27, 2024 -- The Plaintiffs' reply is due: Oct. 11, 2024 The nature of suit states Civil Rights – Education. California State is a public research university in Long Beach, California.[CC] CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Class Cert Deadlines Vacated in Roland Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROLAND, et al., v. Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-11586 (D. Mass., Filed July 14, 2023), Hon. Judge Angel Kelley entered an order vacating the remaining deadlines including the deadline for class certification in light of the Notice of Settlement. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. Cardinal is a party logistics provider.[CC] CARE PRO SERVICES: Turner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Care Pro Services, Inc. The case is styled as Wanda Turner, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Armada Protective Services Inc., Does 1 Through 50, Case No. 24CECG02051 (Cal. Super. Ct., Fresno Cty., May 13, 2024). The case type is stated "Unlimited - Other Employment." CAREPRO Services -- https://careproservices.com/ -- provides carpet cleaning, carpet repair, tile cleaning, upholstery cleaning, and stain removal services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Sung, Esq. Justice for Workers, P.C. 600 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1815 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2622 Phone: 323-922-2000 Email: william@justiceforworkers.com CARNIVAL CORP: Continues to Defend COVID Handling-Related Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Carnival Corp. & PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending May 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the COVID handling-related class suit in Australia and Italy. As of May 31, 2024, two purported class actions brought against the Company by a former guest in the Federal Court in Australia and Italy remains pending. The actions include claims based on a variety of theories, including negligence, gross negligence and failure to warn, physical injuries and severe emotional distress associated with being exposed to and/or contracting COVID-19 onboard its ships. On October 24, 2023, the court in the Australian matter held that we were liable for negligence and for breach of consumer protection warranties as it relates to the lead plaintiff. The court ruled that the lead plaintiff was not entitled to any pain and suffering or emotional distress damages on the negligence claim and awarded medical costs. In relation to the consumer protection warranties claim, the court found that distress and disappointment damages amounted to no more than the refund already provided to guests and therefore made no further award. Further proceedings will determine the applicability of this ruling to the remaining class participants. The Company continues to take actions to defend against the above claims. It believes the ultimate outcome of these matters will not have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements. Carnival businesses operate the largest global cruise company, and among the largest leisure travel companies, with a portfolio of world-class cruise lines namely AIDA Cruises, Carnival Cruise Line, Costa Cruises, Cunard, Holland America Line, P&O Cruises (Australia), P&O Cruises (UK), Princess Cruises and Seabourn. CHANNEL ISLANDS: Aceves Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Raul Yerena Aceves, Juan Munoz, Rolando Velasco Lopez, Vicente Mayo, Irving J. Cruz Palma, and Javier Dolores Calizto, all individuals, solely as aggrieved employee representatives on behalf of all similarly situated current and former aggrieved employees v. CHANNEL ISLANDS DAIRY FARMS, LLC, a California Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV12453 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 15, 2024), is brought stemming from unpaid wages earned and due, including but not limited to unpaid wages, unpaid and illegally calculated overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to maintain required records, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to indemnify employees for losses incurred in discharging their duties, and interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses thereon. While employed as non-exempt Agricultural workers, Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees routinely worked periods of 4 hours or more, twice per work day, without receiving 2 full, uninterrupted, 10 minute lest break periods per every 4 hours worked, in violation of California Industrial Commission's Orders. The Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs and the Aggrieved Employees, All Non-Exempt Agricultural Workers, a full and uninterrupted 30 minute meal period for every five hours worked. Defendants did not obtain written meal period and/or rest period waivers signed by Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Aggrieved Employees for days where meal periods and rest periods were missed by Plaintiffs and Aggrieved Employees. Moreover, Plaintiffs and Aggrieved Employees were not compensated for missed, late, shortened, or interrupted meal and rest periods in compliance with applicable California laws and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee at times relevant. The Defendants own and operate dairy and agricultural businesses and facilities throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shoham J. Solouki, Esq. Grant Joseph Savoy, esq. SOLOUKI | SAVOY, LLP 316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Phone: (213) 814-4940 Facsimile: (213) 814-2550 Email: Shoham@soloukisavoy.com grant@soloukisavoy.com CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Islami Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Catip Islami, 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-00967 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-55014-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: Ellen G. Jalkut, Esq. Kellie Lerner, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601 New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 675-3728 - and - Meegan F. Hollywood, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN - NEW YORK 399 Park Avenue, Ste. 3600 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 980-7400 Fax: (212) 980-7499 Email: mhollywood@robinskaplan.com The Defendants are represented by: E. Kate Patchen, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING - SAN FRANCISCO 415 Mission Street, Ste. 5400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 591-5000 Email: kpatchen@cov.com - and - Kyle William Chow, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018-1405 Phone: (914) 391-6013 - and - Robert D. Wick, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING - WASHINGTON One City Center 850 10th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 662-6000 Email: rwick@cov.com CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Spadafino Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Michael Spadafino, 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-01452 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-55022-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: Jonathan Scott Crevier, Esq. Gregory Scott Asciolla, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLC 485 Lexington Avenue Tenth Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (646) 933-1000 Fax: (646) 494-9648 - and - Robin A. Van Der Meulen SCOTT & SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 230 Park Ave, Ste 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 223-6444 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 COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Reyes Suit in California Court ------------------------------------------------------ Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 12, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2024, that in November 2023, a former employee filed the case captioned "Martin Reyes v. Costco Wholesale Corporation," Sacramento County Superior Court (Case No. 23cv011351) against the company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse expenses, failure to pay wages when due, and failure to pay sick pay. It was removed to federal court, Case No. 2:24-cv-00300 (E.D. Cal.). An amended complaint was filed, which the company has moved to dismiss. In January 2024, the same plaintiff filed a related Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) representative action, seeking civil penalties and asserting the same alleged underlying Labor Code violations and an additional suitable seating claim. In May 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended PAGA complaint, as to which the company has not responded Costco Wholesale Corporation is a retail company based in Washington. DIRECT EXPRESS: Settles Debit Card Class Action for $1.2 Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a $1.2 million Direct Express settlement resolves claims that Conduent and Comerica mishandled fraud claims. The settlement benefits Direct Express debit card account holders who submitted one or more claims of fraudulent transactions between Feb. 12, 2018, and Sept. 28, 2022, that Conduent and/or Comerica denied. According to the class action lawsuit, Conduent and Comerica failed to properly handle Direct Express cardholders' fraud claims. This mishandling allegedly violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. Direct Express is a prepaid debit card provided by Conduent and issued by Comerica. Conduent and Comerica have not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $1.2 million to resolve the Direct Express fraud class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Direct Express settlement, class members can receive a pro rata share of the net settlement fund. Payment amounts will vary depending on the number of valid claims filed with the settlement. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 13, 2024. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Sept. 5, 2024. To receive Direct Express settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 12, 2024. Who's Eligible Direct Express debit card account holders who submitted one or more claims of fraudulent transactions between Feb. 12, 2018, and Sept. 28, 2022, that Conduent and/or Comerica denied Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form Deadline 09/12/2024 Case Name Carnley, et al. v. Conduent Business Services LLC, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01075-XR, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas Final Hearing 09/05/2024 Settlement Website DirectExpressClassAction.com Claims Administrator Almon, et al. v. Conduent State & Local Solutions, Inc. c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC PO Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 info@DirectExpressClassAction.com Tel: (833) 425-9800 Class Counsel E Adam Webb G Franklin Lemond Jr WEBB KLASE & LEMOND LLC 1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Tel: (770) 444-9325 Fax: (770) 444-0271 Email: Contact@WebbLLC.com Allen Vaught VAUGHT FIRM LLC 1910 Pacific Ave Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (972) 707-7816 Defense Counsel Jonathan R Chally COUNCILL GUNNEMANN & CHALLY LLC One Atlantic Center 1201 W Peachtree St NW Ste 2613 Atlanta, GA 30309 Tel: (404) 407-5250 [GN] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAKEL BARNES, et al., v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00750-RCL (D.D.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order, under Rule 6(b)(1)(A), extending the time to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification from June 26, 2024, to August 23, 2024, two weeks after the District's responsive pleading deadline. -- The Plaintiffs consent to this extension. Here, the District's deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is August 9, 2024. -- The District's proposed extension would set the District's deadline to oppose Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification two weeks after its response to the Complaint is due. District of Columbia is the capital city and federal district of the United States. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nG332Z at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Brian L. Schwalb, Esq. Stephanie E. Litos, Esq. Matthew R. Blecher Amanda C. Pescovitz Helen M. Rave, Esq. Honey Morton, Esq. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HONEY MORTON [1019878] 400 6th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 805-7495 E-mail: amanda.pescovitz1@dc.gov DOCUSIGN INC: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Weston Suit to 9th Cir ------------------------------------------------------------------- DOCUSIGN, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Richard R. Weston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DocuSign, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00824, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements about DocuSign's business and operations with the Securities and Exchange Commission in order to trade DocuSign securities at artificially inflated prices between June 4, 2020, and December 2, 2021. On May 28, 2024, Judge William H. Orrick entered a sealed order certifying class. The appellate case is captioned Weston v. DocuSign, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-3610, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 10, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent RICHARD R. WESTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 DUCKHORN PORTFOLIO: Faces Labor Suit in California Court -------------------------------------------------------- The Duckhorn Portfolio, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2024, that on March 22, 2024, a former employee of the company filed a putative class action in San Benito County Superior Court, seeking to represent all non-exempt workers of the company in the State of California. The complaint alleges various wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and related statutes. Plaintiff has also served a Private Attorneys General Act notice for the same alleged wage and hour violations. The claims predominantly relate to alleged unpaid wages (overtime) and missed meal and rest breaks. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and costs The Duckhorn Portfolio, Inc. is a wine company based in California. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Knopp Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ HARRY KNOPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS PARENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01501-X (N.D. Tex., June 17, 2024) arises from the Defendant's failure to secure and safeguard Plaintiff's entrusted personally identifying information, to prevent its unauthorized access and disclosure to third parties, to guard it from theft, and to detect any attempted or actual breach of its systems. According to the Defendant, on April 14, 2024, it "detected unauthorized access to some of [their] internal IT systems," which resulted in their customers' PII being accessed by a "third party." The compromised data includes full names, Social Security numbers, and Dates of Birth of 751,895 individuals, says the suit. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to prevent the data breach because it did not adhere to commonly accepted security standards and failed to detect that its databases were subject to a security breach. He asserts that he suffered severe emotional distress as a result of their PII being compromised and will continue to suffer for an indefinite period of time. Frontier Communications Parent, Inc. provides Internet services to residential and corporate consumers.[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 - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514-1851 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Muto Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARCELO MUTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS PARENT, INC. Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01507-B (N.D. Tex., June 17, 2024) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Frontier with sensitive personally identifiable information that was subsequently exposed in a data breach, which Frontier publicly disclosed on June 6, 2024. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard PII that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. More than 750,000 consumers were affected by the Data Breach, in which sensitive personal information, including names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers, were accessed by an unauthorized third party, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Frontier Communications is a telecommunications company headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Frontier provides broadband internet services, digital television services, and computer technical support services to customers across 25 states.[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 - Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: cmaccarone@zlk.com GENERAL MOTORS: Parton Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Donald Parton, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, Onstar LLC, LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc., Verisk Analytics, 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-02698-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: Dennis G. Pantazis, Esq. Dennis G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS 301 19th Street, North The Kress Building Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 314-0500 Email: dgp@wcqp.com dgpjr@wigginschilds.com GENERAL MOTORS: Valencia Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Christopher Valencia, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, Onstar LLC, LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc., Verisk Analytics, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-02978 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-02701-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: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 223-5505 Fax: (813) 222-2434 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com The Defendants are 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 GNL CORP: Lester Wage and Hour Suit Removed to D. Nevada -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JULIE LESTER, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. GNL, CORP.; GNL, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. A-24-893207-C, was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada to the U.S. District Court for District of Nevada on June 24, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the District of Nevada assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01154 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendants' alleged unlawful time sheet rounding policy that resulted to underpayment of approximately 28.5 hours of Plaintiff's compensation over the course of her employment. Headquartered in New York, NY, GNL Corp. owns and operates commercial properties, including hotels and motels. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kirsten A. Milton, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 900 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 921-2460 E-mail: kirsten.milton@jacksonlewis.com GRITSTONE BIO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set August 6 ------------------------------------------------------------ Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Gritstone bio, Inc. ("Gritstone" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GRTS) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of Gritstone investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between March 9, 2023 and February 29, 2024. Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of our team: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/gritstone-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=87362&wire=4 GRTS investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (i) the Company would be unable to launch the Phase 2b CORAL Study, it's approved COVID-19 vaccine, in the timeframe it had represented to investors; (ii) the foregoing would impair Gritstone's ability to obtain external funding in connection with the Study, thereby negatively affecting Gritstone's ability to maintain its balance sheet and cash position; (iii) accordingly, Gritstone overstated its ability to successfully develop and commercialize its products; (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Gritstone during the relevant time frame, you have until August 6, 2024 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Burnes Files Suit in D. Hawaii ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nova Burnes; Maui Concierge Aesthetics, LLC; Lani Chadli, individually and as Trustee of the Aotaki Family Irrevocable Trust; Monica I. Eder; Rede S. Eder; Candace Faust;Peter Faust; David Heymes; Kathryn Llamas; Jennifer Lynn McNamee; Chardell Naki; Barret Procell; and Rolland Williams Jr., individually and on behalf of others similar situated v. Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. doing business as: Hawaiian Electric, Maui Electric Company, Limited doing business as MECO, Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc., Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00259-JAO-BMK (D. Haw., June 18, 2024), The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. doing business as Hawaiian Electric (HEI) -- https://www.hawaiianelectric.com/ -- is the largest supplier of electricity in the U.S. state of Hawaii, supplying power to 95% of Hawaii's population through its electric utilities.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kelly K. McNabb, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Phone: (212) 355-9500 Fax: (212) 355-9592 - and - Lexi J. Hazam, Esq. Nicholas W. Lee, Esq. Patrick I. Andrews, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 956-1000 Email: lhazam@lchb.com nlee@lchb.com pandrews@lchb.com - and - Patrick Kyle Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KYLE SMITH 604 Ilimano Street Honolulu, HI 96734 Phone: (808) 799-5175 Email: kyle@smithlawhawaii.com - and - Paul V. Smith, Esq. Terrance M. Revere, Esq. REVERE & ASSOCIATES, LLLC 970 N Kalaheo Ave A301 Kailua, HI 96734 Phone: (808) 723-9040 Email: pvsmith@mail2world.com terry@revereandassociates.com - and - Richard E. Wilson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD E. WILSON LLC 850 Richards St Ste 600 Honolulu, HI 96813 Phone: 545-1311 Fax: 545-1388 Email: rewilson_law@yahoo.com HEARTLAND EXPRESS: Partridge Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Duane Partridge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEARTLAND EXPRESS, INC. OF IOWA, a foreign Profit Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 24-2-08101-7 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-05486-MLP. The Complaint asserts one cause of action against Defendant on behalf of Plaintiff and the putative class for the alleged violation of RCW.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Laura T. Morse, Esq. JENSEN MORSE BAKER PLLC 520 Pike Street; Suite 2375 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.682.1550 Email: Laura.morse@jmblawyers.com HERTZ GLOBAL: Faces Edward Securities Suit Over SEC Filing ---------------------------------------------------------- Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K report for June 20, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2024, that on May 31, 2024, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned "Edward M. Doller v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. et al." (No. 2:24-CV-00513). The case asserts claims against Hertz Holdings, Stephen M. Scherr, and Alexandra Brooks, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, concerning statements regarding the financial impact of vehicle depreciation and demand for electric vehicles. Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Hertz Holdings securities between April 27, 2023 and April 24, 2024. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, together with interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., known as Hertz, is an American car rental company based in Estero, Florida. The company operates its namesake Hertz brand, along with the brands Dollar Rent A Car, Firefly Car Rental and Thrifty Car Rental. HOMESITE INSURANCE: Underpays Property Damage Claim, Fletcher Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES FLETCHER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOMESITE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01543-GMS (D. Ariz., June 24, 2024) arises from Defendant's underpayment of Plaintiff's property damage claim. On or about July 8, 2021, the Plaintiff's insured property suffered structural damage covered by the Policy. The damage to the insured property required replacement and/or repair. The Plaintiff timely submitted a claim to Defendant requesting payment for the covered loss. However, the Defendant materially breached its duty to indemnify by withholding future labor costs associated with repairing or replacing the insured property in its actual cash value payments as "depreciation," thereby paying the Plaintiff less than what was supposed to be paid under the terms of the insurance policy, which does not permit the withholding of non-material depreciation, including future labor. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract and declaratory judgment and relief. Homesite Insurance Company sells property insurance coverage for residential and commercial buildings in Arizona, California, Maryland, Texas, and Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michaile J. Berg, Esq. BERG LAW, PLLC 8710 E. Vista Bonita Dr. Scottsdale, AZ 85255 Telephone: (480) 745-7440 E-mail: mberg@berg.law - and - J. Brandon McWherter, Esq. McWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 109 Westpark Drive, Suite 260 Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 354-1144 E-mail: brandon@msb.law - and - Erik D. Peterson, Esq. ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES, PSC 110 W. Vine St., Ste. 300 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: 800-614-1957 E-mail: erik@eplo.law - and - T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq. SNODGRASS LAW LLC 100 South 5th Street, Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 448-2600 E-mail: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com HOSPITAL SISTERS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Brahm Due Sept. 27 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Natalie Brahm v. Hospital Sisters Health System, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00444 (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order that: -- The Plaintiff's motion for class Sept. 27, 2024 certification and related disclosure of class certification experts due: -- Defendants' opposition and related Oct. 25, 2024 disclosure of class certification experts due: -- Plaintiff's reply in support of class Nov. 22, 2024 certification due: The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other fraud. Hospital Sisters is a non-profit healthcare system headquartered in Springfield, Illinois.[CC] HSS CALIFORNIA: Velasco Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ALEJANDRO VELASCO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HSS CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. C24-01332, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 24, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-03769 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the Unfair Competition Law under the California Business & Professions Code. Headquartered in Denver, CO, HSS California, Inc. offers managed security services in both physical and virtual high-risk environments. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew M. Sonne, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 Telephone: (714) 513-5100 Facsimile: (714) 513-5130 E-mail: msonne@sheppardmullin.com - and - Bryanne J. Lewis, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 Facsimile: (213) 620-1398 E-mail: blewis@sheppardmullin.com INFOSYS LIMITED: Sued Over Data Breach Incident ------------------------------------------------ Infosys Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 24, 2024, that on May 15, 2024, a class action complaint arising out of a cybersecurity incident involving its affiliate Infosys McCamish Systems, LLC. The complaint arises out of at McCamish initially disclosed on November 3, 2023. The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of some or all individuals whose personally identifiable information was compromised in the incident. On June 4, 2024, the court consolidated this into another class actions and closed the class action that was filed on May 15, 2024. Infosys is a provider of consulting, technology, outsourcing and next-generation digital services used in digital transformation. IOWA: Smith Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- KARLA SMITH, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Karla Smith, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kimberly Reynolds, in her official capacity as Governor of State of Iowa, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00156-SMR, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged civil rights violations. On Oct. 17, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on Oct. 31, 2023. On May 10, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Stephanie M. Rose. The appellate case is captioned Karla Smith, et al. v. Kimberly Reynolds, et al., Case No. 24-2187, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on June 11, 2024. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appendix is due on July 22, 2024; -- Appellants' brief is due on July 22, 2024; and -- Appellees' brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of Appellants. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants KARLA SMITH, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Bruce Henry Stoltze, Jr., Esq. John Q. Stoltze, Esq. STOLTZE LAW GROUP, PLC 300 Walnut Street, Suite 260 Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: (515) 989-8529 Defendants-Appellees KIMBERLY REYNOLDS, in her official capacity as Governor of State of Iowa, et al. are represented by: Christopher Jordan Deist, Esq. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE Hoover Building 1305 E. Walnut Street Des Moines, IA 50319 Telephone: (515) 281-5164 J & P POOL: Navarette Sues Over Pool Laborers' Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN NAVARETTE, AVELINO REYES and MARCOS JIMENEZ, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J & P POOL, INC., PANTELIS FARTSALAS and MAGGIE FARTSALAS, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04284 (E.D.N.Y., June 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime wages on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges the failure of the Defendants to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees premium overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of the state and federal laws. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as pool laborers. They performed non-exempt duties that include cleaning, maintaining and covering swimming pools. J & P Pool, Inc. is engaged in the maintenance of swimming pools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com KEYBANK NATIONAL: McDaniels Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Porsha McDaniels, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a domestic corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. C24-01273 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 20, 2024, and assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-03691. The Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint asserts individual and class claims for: Failure to Pay Hourly Wages and Overtime; Failure to Pay Proper Sick Pay; Failure to Provide Accurate Written Wage Statements; Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages; Failure to Indemnify; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Nader, Esq. George J. Theofanis, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-840-3150 Facsimile: 916-840-3159 Email: Michael.Nader@ogletree.com george.theofanis@ogletree.com MARYLAND: Justice Appeals Social Security Payments Suit Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- THEODORE JUSTICE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Theodore Justice, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner of Social Security, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01372-MJM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The Plaintiff brought this action against the Defendants for alleged constitutional and statutory violations related to his Social Security payments. On May 28, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Matthew J. Maddox on June 6, 2024. The Court held that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. The Plaintiff's vague allegations do not constitute specific facts that clearly show actual and imminent harm. The Plaintiff also fails to demonstrate that any members of the public face irreparable harm as a result of his reduced Social Security payments. Accordingly, because the Plaintiff has failed to establish the elements required to warrant the drastic remedy of preliminary injunctive relief, the motion will be denied. Further, because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. The appellate case is captioned Theodore Justice v. Commissioner of Social Security, Case No. 24-1525, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on June 10, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant THEODORE JUSTICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. MIAMI PRODUCTS: Telephone Status Conference Set for July 19 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miami Products & Chemical Co. v. Olin Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00385 (W.D.N.Y., Filed March 22, 2019), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford entered an order that: -- A telephone status conference is set in this matter for July 19, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. -- Counsel for Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs ("IPPs"), Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ("DPPs"), and Defendants must attend. -- By no later than July 12, 2024, the parties shall file letters of no more than five pages addressing the next procedural steps in this litigation, including at least: (1) IPPs' and Defendants' positions regarding the viability of IPPs' pending motions for class certification and preliminary settlement approval, in light of the Court's prior rulings on DPPs' motions; and (2) DPPs' and Defendants' positions regarding the timing of motions for summary judgment. The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation. Olin Corporation is an American manufacturer of ammunition, chlorine, and sodium hydroxide.[CC] MISSION PRODUCE: Settlement Deal Reached in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Mission Produce Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2024, that on April 23, 2020, former Mission Produce, Inc. employees filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles against the company alleging violation of certain wage and labor laws in California, including failure to pay all overtime wages, minimum wage violations, and meal and rest period violations, among others. In May 2021, the plaintiffs in both class action lawsuits and the Company agreed to settle the class action cases. Additionally, on June 10, 2020, former Mission Produce, Inc. employees filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Ventura against the company alleging similar violations of certain wage and labor laws. The plaintiffs in both cases seek damages primarily consisting of class certification and payment of wages earned and owed, plus other consequential and special damages. Per the terms of the settlement agreement between the parties, the total amount of the settlement is $1.5 million. A final approval hearing is scheduled for June 2024. Mission Produce, Inc. is into sourcing, producing, and distributing fresh avocados, serving retail, wholesale, and food service customers based in California. NATIONAL EXPRESS: Newcomb Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Express Transit Corporation, et al. The case is styled as David Newcomb, Felipe Cortes, Josue Castro, Sameth Smon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Express Transit Corporation, a Delaware Corporation dba National Express Carriers, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0007221 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 18, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." National Express LLC -- https://nellc.com/ -- is a premier transportation firm that offers a high level of safety, quality transportation, as well as great customer service.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory Mauro, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92318 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com NEW YORK, NY: Court Extends Stay of Discovery in Aboubakar ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aboubakar, et al., v. The City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01716 (N.D.N.Y., Filed April 7, 2020), the Hon. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis entered an order granting the Defendants' request for an extension of the stay of discovery and decisions on the pending motions for class certification. -- The stay will remain in effect until Sept. 19, 2024, and the parties are directed to provide a status update to the court regarding negotiations on or before August 9, 2024. -- This will be the final extension of the stay. The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights. New York City is a city and port located at the mouth of the Hudson River, southeastern New York state, northeastern U.S.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Court Extends Stay of Discovery in Brennan -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brennan, et al., v. City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02054 (E.D.N.Y., April 9, 2019), the Hon. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis entered an order granting the Defendants' request for an extension of the stay of discovery and decisions on the pending motions for class certification. -- The stay will remain in effect until Sept. 19, 2024, and the parties are directed to provide a status update to the court regarding negotiations on or before August 9, 2024. -- This will be the final extension of the stay. The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights. New York City is a city and port located at the mouth of the Hudson River, southeastern New York state, northeastern U.S.[CC] NEW YORK: Ansbro Appeals Ruling in Suit v. FDNY ----------------------------------------------- ANDREW ANSBRO, et al. has taken an appeal from a ruling entered by the Hon. Arlene P. Bluth in their lawsuit captioned Andrew Ansbro, individually and as president of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Daniel Nigro, as Commissioner of the Fire Department of the City of New York, et al., Defendants, Case No. 150230/2022. The case type is stated as Civil Action - General. The appellate case is captioned Andrew Ansbro, individually and as president of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, et al. vs. Daniel Nigro, et al., Case No. 24-03652, in the First Judicial Department of New York Appellate Division, filed on June 10, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners ANDREW ANSBRO, individually and as president of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, et al., are represented by: Christopher John Dellicarpini, Esq. SULLIVAN PAPAIN BLOCK MCMANUS COFFINAS & CANNAVO PC New York 120 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10271 Telephone: (212) 732-9000 NEWCOURSE COMMUNICATIONS: Settles 2022 Data Breach Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a Newcourse Communications settlement provides free credit monitoring and additional expense reimbursement to consumers affected by a 2022 data breach. The settlement benefits individuals whose Social Security numbers were compromised in a 2022 Newcourse Communications data breach and who received a mailed data breach notification in October 2022. The settlement also benefits consumers whose Social Security numbers were not compromised by the breach but who received a mailed data breach notification and asserted a claim for data breach damages against Newcourse and/or First United Bank due to the misuse of their information. The Newcourse data breach allegedly occurred between April 27, 2022, and May 3, 2022, and compromised sensitive consumer information, such as Social Security numbers. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim Newcourse failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures before the breach and later failed to inform them of the breach until October 2022. Newcourse Communications provides data-processing and print-and-mail services to numerous clients, including First United Bank. Newcourse hasn’t admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $600,000 to affected consumers to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Newcourse Communications settlement, class members can receive two years of free identity theft monitoring services. This service includes three-bureau monitoring and $1 million in insurance coverage. Class members can also receive up to $500 for ordinary data breach expenses, such as bank fees, travel expenses, credit costs and up to five hours of lost time compensated at a rate of $20 per hour. Individuals who were the victims of actual, documented identity theft can receive additional reimbursement of up to $4,000 for unreimbursed financial losses they suffered as a result of the data breach and subsequent identity theft. The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 10, 2024. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct. 11, 2024. To receive Newcourse Communications settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 24, 2024. Who’s Eligible Individuals whose Social Security numbers were compromised in a 2022 Newcourse Communications data breach and who received a mailed data breach notification in October 2022 or consumers whose Social Security numbers were not compromised by the breach but who received a mailed data breach notification and asserted a claim for data breach damages against Newcourse and/or First United Bank due to the misuse of their information Potential Award $4,500 Proof of Purchase Account statements, travel receipts, invoices, credit reports and other documentation of data breach-related expenses Claim Form Deadline 08/24/2024 Case Name Arend, et al. v. Newcourse Communications Inc., et al., Case No. 23C303, in Circuit County of Davidson County, Tennessee in the 20th Judicial District at Nashville Final Hearing 10/11/2024 Settlement Website NewcourseDataBreachSettlement.com Claims Administrator Arend et al. v. Newcourse Communications, Inc. et al. c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 Tel: (833) 522-9119 Class Counsel J Gerard Stranch IV STRANCH JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC 223 Rosa L Parks Ave #200 Nashville, TN 37203 Tel: (615) 254-8801 Lynn A Toops COHEN & MALAD LLP One Indiana Square 1400 N Pennsylvania St Indianapolis, IN 46204 Tel: (317) 636-6481 Defense Counsel David A Cole FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY LLP 100 Galleria Pkwy #1600 Atlanta, GA 30339 Tel: (770) 818-0000 John S Hicks BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ PC 6060 Poplar Avenue, Suite 440 Memphis, TN 38119 Tel: 901-579-3100 Email: contact@bakerdonelson.com [GN] ORACLE AMERICA: Moves to Dismiss NetSuite ERP Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Fulmer, writing for mondaq, reports that the Complaint, filed by Realscape Group LLC d/b/a Realogic Solutions against Oracle America, Inc., alleges that Oracle defrauded small to medium-sized businesses by selling them NetSuite software under false pretenses. Oracle purportedly marketed the software as an "off the shelf" solution requiring minimal implementation, but in reality, the software was not functional without extensive customization. Oracle is accused of misleading businesses into financing agreements, then selling these contracts to third parties while failing to ensure the software's functionality, which effectively relieved Oracle of its obligation to perform while guaranteeing that customers must continue to pay for deficient or non-existent work. The lawsuit seeks to certify a class of businesses with under 1,000 employees who purchased NetSuite software in the past four years and paid for implementation services but did not receive fully functioning software. Overview of Oracle's Motion to Dismiss Oracle's motion to dismiss hinges on several key arguments, each targeting different aspects of Realogic's claims: -- Mandatory Forum-Selection Clause: Oracle argues that Realogic's case should be dismissed or transferred to the Northern District of California based on the forum-selection clause in their contract. -- Failure to Provide Notice and Opportunity to Cure: Oracle claims Realogic did not provide the required written notice of breach and a chance for Oracle to cure those breaches before filing the lawsuit. -- Integration Clause and Lack of Specific Delivery Date: Oracle points to the contract's integration clause and the absence of any specified date for software delivery, countering Realogic's breach of contract claims. -- Limited, Exclusive Warranty: Oracle asserts that the contract's limited, exclusive warranty precludes the breach of warranty claims. -- Economic Loss Doctrine: Oracle argues that claims for unjust enrichment, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation cannot stand because they are rooted in contractual obligations and are barred by the economic loss doctrine. -- Declaratory Relief: Oracle states that Realogic's claim for declaratory relief is not an independent cause of action and should be dismissed. Analysis of Contract-Based Arguments -- Forum-Selection Clause Oracle's Argument: Oracle asserts that the contract mandates any legal disputes be resolved in California courts, thus the case should be dismissed or transferred from Ohio to California. Potential Weakness: Enforceability Under Fraud Allegations: Courts may not enforce forum-selection clauses if the plaintiff can demonstrate that the clause itself stemmed from fraud or overreaching. Realogic could argue that the entire agreement, including the forum-selection clause, was induced by fraudulent misrepresentations by Oracle. Oracle relies on its Subscription Services Agreement ("SSA"), which is found in a grayed-out hyperlink on the Estimate Form, which Oracle claims is the governing agreement. The hyperlink appears to be intentionally designed to be inconspicuous and is not set off in a different color or highlighted in any way. Clicking on the link does not take the reader directly to the agreement. Instead, the reader is forced to search around on the Oracle website for the relevant agreement. Most Oracle SuiteSuccess customers who we have spoken with do not even know that the SSA exists. A court could find that such a contract procured by fraud and under these circumstances should not be enforceable. -- Failure to Provide Notice and Opportunity to Cure Oracle's Argument: Oracle argues that Realogic did not follow the contractual obligation to provide notice of the breach and an opportunity to cure the issue before filing the lawsuit. As discussed above, most Oracle customers are unaware of the notice provision of the SSA because they are unaware of the very existence of the SSA. As a result, they fail to give notice of breach pursuant to this provision. Instead, if Oracle is unable to deliver the promised solution, Oracle customers typically request that the contract be "cancelled". Usually Oracle, without citing to the termination for cause provision of the SSA, then tells the customer that they cannot cancel. The entire practice is very deceptive. Potential Weakness: The Contract was Fraudulently Induced: As discussed above, Realogic may argue that the contract was fraudulently induced and the contract should be void. But as currently pled, the Complaint does not have a fraud in the inducement claim. Realogic's time for responding to the Complaint has not run. It will be interesting to see if Realogic amends to assert a fraud in the inducement claim. Unilateral Mistake: Oracle customers are mistaken about a material fact, and Oracle knew or should have known of the mistake and took advantage of it. The material fact being that Oracle knows that most customers are unaware of the SSA, and the requirements for providing notice of breach or notice of deficient work under the warranty provisions. They exploit the customer's mistake and lack of knowledge to game the relationship. Unconscionability: The customers that Oracle appears to target for its SuiteSuccess solution are usually unsophisticated small mom & pop owned businesses. Indeed, many businesses are owned by a husband-and-wife team. The companies do not have legal departments. They are more like consumers, and have no chance against a large, sophisticated entity like Oracle. Ambiguity in Notice Requirements: Realogic may argue that the notice and cure provisions were not clear or were otherwise impractical given the circumstances of the alleged breaches. They might also argue that immediate legal action was necessary due to the extent of the alleged fraud and resulting damages. -- Integration Clause and Lack of Specific Delivery Date Oracle's Argument: Oracle claims the contract's integration clause invalidates any prior oral agreements, and the contract did not specify a delivery date for the software. Potential Weakness: Reliance on Prior Representations: Realogic could argue that they relied on Oracle's verbal promises regarding the delivery date and that these promises were material to their decision to enter into the contract. This could invoke the concept of promissory estoppel, where a party is prevented from going back on a promise even if a formal contract were not signed concerning that promise. Fraud in the Inducement: Under California law, an argument can be made that an integration clause does not preclude evidence of oral misrepresentations that induced a contract. This is because the law allows for claims of fraud in the inducement of a contract, even when an integration clause is present. We are not sure what the law is in Ohio, but this will be an interesting issue to watch if the case stays in Ohio and is not transferred to California, and the Court declines to apply California law. One issue with these SuiteSuccess cases is always the time to go live. Typically, the parties discuss the time to go live in pre-contract execution discussions because this is material to most SuiteSuccess customers and induces them into going with the Oracle solution, rather than that of a competitor. Although this is a major topic of conversation, and Oracle sales provides dates for go live, when Oracle tenders the contract it has no "go live" date specified. Oracle SuiteSuccess customers should request in writing that the contract specify a go live date, and if Oracle declines to provide one, perhaps the customer should take a pass. Also, the customer should require that Oracle provide a copy of the complete contract upfront so that the customer has a chance to meaningfully review it, and not allow Oracle to dump it on the customer at the last moment and then claim that discounts will go away unless it is immediately signed. Finally, require that Oracle provide a PDF copy of all agreements contained in the hyperlinks well before contract execution, and this includes the SSA. Then review the contracts carefully, preferably with legal counsel. -- Limited, Exclusive Warranty Oracle's Argument: The contract contains a limited, exclusive warranty which precludes Realogic's claims for breach of warranty. Potential Weakness: Unconscionability of Warranty Terms: Realogic might challenge the limited warranty as unconscionable if it leaves them and other customers without a meaningful remedy for Oracle's failure to deliver the promised software functionality. Courts sometimes refuse to enforce warranty limitations that are found unfair or that significantly deprive one party of the contract's benefits. In its warranty provision, Oracle includes a sentence that says essentially that Oracle is not responsible for ensuring that the services meet the customer's requirements or expectations. So essentially Oracle is not responsible if the solution does not work. A court could find this unconscionable. -- Economic Loss Doctrine Oracle's Argument: Oracle contends that claims for unjust enrichment, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation are invalid because they do not exist independently of the contract, and are barred by the economic loss doctrine. Potential Weakness: Exceptions to Economic Loss Doctrine: Realogic could argue that the economic loss doctrine does not apply if Oracle's actions amounted to fraud in the inducement or intentional misrepresentation, which are exceptions to the doctrine under California law. Furthermore, they might claim that the unjust enrichment claim is based on benefits conferred on Oracle beyond the scope of the contract. However, a fraud in the inducement claim would need to be added. -- Declaratory Relief Oracle's Argument: Oracle argues that declaratory relief is not an independent claim, and depends on the other claims to be asserted. Oracle also argues that the Plaintiff's allegations in the claim for declaratory relief are inconsistent with the breach of contract and breach of warranty claim so that those claims should be disregarded for declaratory relief. For the fraud-based claims and unjust enrichment, Oracle has moved to dismiss those claims and asks that the declaratory relief claim be dismissed should the Court dismiss those claims. Potential Weakness: Relevance of Declaratory Judgment: Realogic may assert that while declaratory relief is not an independent cause of action, it is a necessary remedy to resolve the uncertainty surrounding the contractual obligations and to prevent further damage to Oracle customers from Oracle's alleged breaches and related tortious conduct. Declaratory Relief re Financing Agreement and Related OCC Assignments: A key issue raised in the Complaint involves the Oracle Credit Corporation ("OCC") financing agreements and the enforceability of the assignments to third party financing institutions such as Banc of America Leasing, Bank of America, N.A., Wells Fargo Bank, Dext Capital and others. Essentially, Oracle offers to finance the costs of the solution and the implementation to sweeten the deal and induce the contracts. Then shortly after contract execution and usually before the implementation has had time to completely go off the rails, OCC assigns the financing agreement to a third party. Oracle's clever financing contract scheme allows it to assign the financing agreement to a third party without the consent of the borrower. But the OCC contract also provides if Oracle can't deliver the promised solution, the Oracle customer cannot interpose defenses that it may have against Oracle to cut off the payment obligations to the third parties. And litigious third parties such as Banc of America Leasing are hitting these SuiteSuccess customers with collection lawsuits, mainly in California state court in San Mateo County. So, it is a real weapon that Oracle and the financial institutions are welding against small and medium size Oracle customers. Importantly, Oracle seems to bring in the same cast of characters as the assignee banks. We believe that these banks have knowledge that many of the implementations fail and that is why the customer quits paying. So they do not appear to be bona fide assignees that come to the table without knowledge of the Oracle scheme. We hope that this issue gets litigated. Conclusion We will be watching with interest to see what the plaintiff does here. Will they amend and include a fraud in the inducement claim? Or will they oppose the motion on the merits? We will know shortly. Check back here for updates. The case is Realscape Group, LLC. v. Oracle America, Inc., Case Number 1:24-cv-00558 CEF, venued in the Northern District of Ohio. [GN] PANDA RESTAURANT: Halliday Data Breach Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled MARC-ANTONY HALLIDAY, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV12667, was removed from the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-05322 to the proceeding. The case arises from a data breach incident, asserting claims for negligence, negligence per se, declaratory judgment, and for violations of the California Customers Records Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the Right of Privacy under California Constitution. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. owns and operates a chain of restaurants worldwide. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Marcus McCutcheon, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 600 Anton Boulevard Suite 900 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7221 Telephone: (714) 754-6600 Facsimile: (714) 754-6611 E-mail: mmccutcheon@bakerlaw.com PANERA BREAD: Employees Sue Over Company Security Breach -------------------------------------------------------- Joanna Fantozzi, writing for Nation's Restaurant News, reports that three months after Panera Bread experienced a massive systemwide tech outage in March that was widely speculated to be the result of a cybersecurity breach, the company began informing staff that personal employee data had been leaked. According to some employees posting on the Panera subreddit, a not insignificant number of employees allegedly had their social security numbers leaked. As a result, a former Panera employee has filed a proposed class action lawsuit -- with a potential class of up to 100 current and former employees -- against the company for its "failure to protect highly sensitive data." The lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of Missouri by a former employee of Panera who worked there from 2022 to 2024, claims that Panera "failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect [its employees]." Furthermore, the lawsuit takes issue with the fact that Panera "waited a full 86 days" after the breach was discovered to notify affected employees. Related: How restaurant operators can protect themselves from tech outages The lawsuit states that Panera did inform affected employees that, "the data breach created a present, continuing, and significant risk of suffering identity theft" and suggested that employees remain vigilant for instances of suspected identity theft. Employees who received a letter have stated that Panera is offering a year of a free credit monitoring service to keep an eye on the security of their personal data. Since the breach, the lawsuit states that Panera claims it has "taken steps to further enhance existing security measures," though no further details have been released. The plaintiff is asking that the court grant the request for a class action lawsuit, and award the class, "applicable compensatory, exemplary, punitive damages, and statutory damages," as a result of the damage caused by the data leak. [GN] PANORAMA EYE CARE: Otero Sues Over Private Info Exposure -------------------------------------------------------- THERESA OTERO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PANORAMA EYE CARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01694 (D. Colo., June 17, 2024) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all those similarly situated to seek relief for the consequences of Panorama's failure to reasonably safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members' private information; its failure to reasonably provide timely notification that their private information had been compromised; and for Panorama's failure to inform them concerning the status, safety, location, access, and protection of their private information. According to Panorama's public statements, between May 22, 2023 and June 4, 2023, Panorama experienced a data breach incident in which unauthorized cybercriminals accessed its information systems and databases and stole private information belonging to Plaintiff and Class members. Panorama discovered this unauthorized access on June 3, 2023. On June 5, Panorama sent a notice to individuals whose information was accessed in the Data Breach. The Plaintiff asserts that the Data Breach occurred because Panorama failed to implement reasonable security protections to safeguard its information systems and databases. Had Plaintiff and similarly situated patients been made aware of this fact, they would have never provided such information to Panorama., says the suit. Panorama Eye Care, LLC is a management services organization that serves eye care providers throughout Colorado and Wyoming.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kathryn Stimson, Esq. STIMSON, LABRANCHE, HUBBARD, LLC 1652 N. Downing St Denver, CO 80218 E-mail: stimson@slhlegal.com - and - Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com nhagman@caffertyclobes.com PEORIA CITY, IL: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in James Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as James v. City of Peoria, Case No. 1:24-cv-01113-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge entered an order Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GbGZ68 at no extra charge.[CC] RAY MARKS: Goetz Sues Over Deceptive Product Marketing ------------------------------------------------------ LOUISE GOETZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAY MARKS CO. LLC and AINSWORTH PET NUTRITION, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04799-JPO (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2024), accuses the Defendants of deceptive marketing in connection with its misrepresentation that many of its products are "natural." As a result of its deceptive conduct, the Defendants violated state consumer protection statutes and have been unjustly enriched at the expense of consumers. The Plaintiff purchased Defendants' products and, on behalf of herself and similarly situated purchasers, asserts claims for violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, and for breach of express warranty. Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, LLC is a pet food company headquartered in Meadville, PA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, Esq. Victoria X. Zhou, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com jdiamond@bursor.com vzhou@bursor.com RENEO PHARMACEUTICALS: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Onkure ------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Reneo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: RPHM), relating to its proposed merger with OnKure, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Reneo stockholders are expected to own approximately 31% of the combined company. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/reneo-pharmaceuticals-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] SANTANDER BANK: Elbardissi Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID ELBARDISSI, For Himself and all Others Similarly Situated, v. SANTANDER BANK, N.A., and JOHN DOES, Case No. 2:23-cv-02069-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for class certification. Santander is an American bank operating as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Spanish Santander Group. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ImqfaI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Salmanson, Esq. SALMANSON GOLDSHAW, P.C. Two Penn Center, Suite 1230 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 640-0593 Facsimile: (215) 640-0596 SECOND NATURE: Removes Best Suit to District of Colombia -------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of ELISABETH BEST; JENNA BUCKLEW; RACHEL IRIAS; and CASSANDRA STEPHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SECOND NATURE BRANDS, INC.; SECOND NATURE INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC; QBE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; QBE INSURANCE CORPORATION; QBE AMERICAS, INC.; COLUMBIA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC; and SCOTT BLOOM, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of Colombia, County (Case No. 2024-CAB-002681) to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia on June 21, 2024. The clerk of court for the District of Colombia assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01799. The case is assigned to Judge Jia M Cobb. Second Nature Brands, Inc. offers a variety of trail mixes and snacks designed for on-the-go consumption, featuring natural ingredients without preservatives or artificial additives. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: H. Hunter Bruton, Esq. ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 1450 Raleigh Road, Suite 100 Chapel Hill, NC 27517 Telephone: (919) 328-8800 Facsimile (919) 328-8791 Email: hbruton@robinsonbradshaw.com SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Mclean Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CURTIS MCLEAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00230 (D. Neb., June 17, 2024) is a class action against SPI for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated SPI patients' personally identifiable information and protected health information. On or about February 9, 2024, SPI filed official notice of a hacking incident with the Maine Attorney General's Office. Under state and federal law, organizations must report breaches involving PHI within at least 60 days. On or about June 10, SPI also sent out data breach letters to individuals whose information was compromised as a result of the hacking incident. As a result of this delayed response, the Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea for five months that their private information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address SPI's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained, and its failure to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members of the types of information that were accessed, and that such information was subject to unauthorized access by cybercriminals. Signature Performance, Inc. based in Omaha, Nebraska, is a healthcare administration and solutions provider that serves more than 40 medical facilities across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mason A. Barney, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com SIRIUS XM: Balmores Sues Over Music Royalty Fee Scheme ------------------------------------------------------ CINDY BALMORES; JUSTIN BRASWELL; DEBORAH GARVIN; and THEA ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00886 (W.D. Wa., June 21, 2024) alleges violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint, that the Defendant is engaged in a deceptive pricing scheme whereby the Defendant falsely advertises its music plans at lower prices than it actually charges. The Defendant failed to include in its advertised prices the amount of its invented "U.S. Music Royalty Fee," which increases the true plan price by 21.4 percent above the advertised price for the plans. The Defendant intentionally does not disclose the Fee to its subscribers. The Defendant even goes so far as to not mention the words "U.S. Music Royalty Fee" in any of its advertising, including in the fine print, says the suit. Sirius XM Radio Inc. operates as an audio entertainment company. The Company offers music, sports, entertainment, comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels on subscription fee basis. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq. Che Corrington, Esq. HATTIS & LUKACS 11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone: (425) 233-8650 Facsimile: (425) 412-7171 Email: dan@hattislaw.com pkl@hattislaw.com che@hattislaw.com - and - Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 5 Greentree Centre, Suite 410 525 Route 73 N Marlton, NJ 08057 Telephone: (856) 797-9951 Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com SLASHSUPPORT INC: Yarbrough Appeals Judgment to 5th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA YARBROUGH, et al. have filed an appeal from court orders in their lawsuit entitled Joshua Yarbrough, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SlashSupport, Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-CV-905, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged employment discrimination. The Plaintiffs filed claim discrimination based on both tangible actions, such as terminations and denials of promotions, and on the alleged creation of a hostile work environment. The Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment, which the Court granted in part and denied in part through an Order entered by Judge Sean D. Jordan on Feb. 2, 2022. The Defendants also filed an oral motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), which the Court granted, and Plaintiff Joshua Walker's constructive discharge-based discrimination claim and retaliation claim were dismissed with prejudice on Feb. 16, 2022. On Mar. 1, 2024, the Court granted Defendant Glow's motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to all Plaintiffs' discrimination claims and Paul Tijani's and Matt Lofland's retaliation claims. It was denied with respect to Peter Tijani's and William Aigheyisi's retaliation claims. However, Glow's alternative motion for new trial was granted with respect to Peter Tijani's and William Aigheyisi's retaliation claims. For those claims, it was ordered that both liability and damages shall be retried. On May 15, 2024, the Court entered final judgment as to certain claims under Rule 54(b). The Court certified that except for Peter Tijani's and Will Aigheyisi's retaliation claims, all claims have been resolved by final judgments for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), and that there is no reason for delaying an appeal of those claims. Accordingly, the Court ordered that Peter Tijani's and Will Aigheyisi's retaliation claims are stayed pending appeal of all claims for which there has been a final judgment. The appellate case is captioned Yarbrough v. SlashSupport, Case No. 24-40421, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on June 11, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JOSHUA YARBROUGH, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Brian Paul Sanford, Esq. BRIAN P. SANFORD, P.C. 1910 Pacific Avenue Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 717-6653 Defendants-Appellees SLASHSUPPORT, INCORPORATED, et al. are represented by: Rachel Z. Ullrich, Esq. FORDHARRISON, L.L.P. 1601 Elm Street Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 256-4712 SMITH & WESSON: Faces Class Suit Over Shootings in Canada --------------------------------------------------------- Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2024, that it is a defendant in a putative class proceeding before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Canada that was filed in December 2019. A hearing on plaintiffs' certification motion was held in January 2024. On March 5, 2024, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Three appeals have now been filed, appealing from the decisions issued to date in the case. All three appeals will be heard together in the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The action claims CAD$50 million in aggregate general damages, CAD$100 million in aggregate punitive damages, special damages in an unspecified amount, together with interest and legal costs. The named plaintiffs are two victims of a shooting that took place in Toronto in July 2018 and their family members. One victim was shot and injured during the shooting. The other victim suffered unspecified injuries while fleeing the shooting. The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a claim on behalf of classes that include all persons who were killed or injured in the shooting and their immediate family members. The plaintiffs allege negligent design and public nuisance. The case has not been certified as a class action. In July 2020, the company filed a Notice of Motion for an order striking the claim and dismissing the action in its entirety. In February 2021, the court granted the motion in part, and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims in public nuisance and strict liability. The court declined to strike the negligent design claim and ordered that the claim proceed to a certification motion. In March 2021, the company filed a motion for leave to appeal the court's refusal to strike the negligent design claim with the Divisional Court, Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In July 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion to stay the motion for leave to appeal with the Divisional Court, on grounds that appeal is premature. In November 2021, the Divisional Court granted plaintiffs' motion, staying the company's motion for leave to appeal until 30 days after the decision on the balance of plaintiffs' certification motion. Plaintiffs' certification motion has been extended by the court to January 2024. Smith & Wesson Brands is a manufacturer and designer of handguns (including revolvers and pistols), long guns (including modern sporting rifles), handcuffs, firearm suppressors, and other firearm-related products for sale STATE FARM: Bid to Stay Class Notice in Clippinger Partly Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clippinger v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Case No. 2:20-cv-02482 (W.D. Tenn., Filed July 2, 2020), the Hon. Judge Thomas L. Parker entered an order granting in part: -- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company motion to stay class notice in September 2023 pending the Sixth Circuit's resolution of State Farm's appeal of the Court's Order on Class Certification and Motion to Exclude Expert Witnesses; and -- Audatex North America motion to stay the case, including all pending motions, until the Sixth Circuits resolution of State Farm's appeal. The Court stays all matters and pending motions relating to class certification and class notice only. The nature of suit states diversity-contract dispute. State Farm is a group of mutual insurance companies throughout the United States.[CC] STS AVIATION: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Anderson Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STS AVIATION GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-14201-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 21, 2024) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves, says the suit. STS Aviation Group, Inc. provides maintenance support services. The Company offers aerospace staffing, line maintenance, engineering, and aircraft component distribution services. STS Aviation Group serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 478 E. Altamonte Dr., Ste 108-570 Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 Telephone: (407) 720-4057 Email: joshua@jacobsonphillips.com eservice@jacobsonphillips.com - and - Cassandra Miller, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: cmiller@straussborrelli.com TELLURIDE RESORT: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Reply Extended to July 8 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alvarez, et al., v. Telluride Resort Partners, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00354 (D. Colo., Filed Feb. 7, 2023), the Hon. Judge John L. Kane entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for 14-day extension of time to file reply in support of motion for class certification. -- The Plaintiffs shall file their Reply on or before July 8, 2024. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] TENNESSEE: Parents Sue Over Abuse of Disabled Children ------------------------------------------------------ Anita Wadhwani of Tennessee Lookout reports that The Department of Children's Services is illegally and unconstitutionally warehousing kids with disabilities in prison-like facilities, where they are pepper-sprayed, beaten and denied access to education and healthcare, a new class action complaint alleges. In the sweeping 114-page legal complaint filed Wednesday, June 26, in a Nashville federal court, page after page details "horrific experiences of youths trapped in (DCS) custody." A few of them: -- a 17-year-old boy beaten more than 31 times -- a 15-year-old girl shackled, dragged across the floor and placed in a solitary cell, where she was later pepper sprayed while naked. -- a single Middle Tennessee juvenile detention facility with 48 instances of pepper sprayings e ach month. -- kids left in solitary 23 hours a day, sleeping on bare bed frames in bug-infested cells with no education or mental health care provided. -- multiple DCS facilities where "bounties" are used to induce kids to attack other kids, singling out those who filed grievances against staff or conditions. Ramen noodles were a popular reward for kids who beat other kids, the lawsuit noted. "We have spent the last two years doing everything in our power to effect change to these systems, without success," said Jack Derryberry, legal director of Disability Rights Tennessee, which is leading the legal challenge "At this point, we have no choice but to ask the courts to step in to protect those who cannot protect themselves," he said. The complaint, which also names DCS Commissioner Margie Quin, and the Tennessee Department of Education and its commissioner, Lizzette Reynolds, seeks class status to represent what attorneys estimate could be more than 1,000 Tennessee youth with disabilities who have been in state custody via the juvenile justice system. It claims the state has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against excessive force, unjust confinement and failure to provide medical care, and the Eighth Amendment, which guards against cruel and unusual punishment. Amy Lannom Wilhite, a spokesperson for Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, responded on behalf of DCS and said the agency was aware of the lawsuit but did not offer comment. The lawsuit comes after years of turmoil and chaos for children in the custody of DCS, which has struggled to find safe and adequate places for Tennessee children. Children have been left to sleep on state office building floors and linger in hospital rooms months past their discharge dates. Recently, DCS announced it intends to place kids in group homes that have served adults with severe disabilities for over a decade -- a move that has raised alarms among loved ones of adults facing potential dislocation to make way for kids. They have accused state officials of pitting one vulnerable population against another. Children come into DCS custody either due to allegations of neglect or abuse in their own homes, or after they have had brushes with the law, failed to attend school or other infractions that land them in the juvenile court systems. It is children with disabilities who end up in DCS custody through the juvenile courts that the lawsuit is seeking to protect. There are roughly 600 to 650 youth in DCS juvenile justice custody at any one time -- 1,200-1,400 in total per year; an estimated 65% to 85% live with a disability, based on national data, said Derryberry. Some of these children are routinely denied legally mandated accommodations and receive little or no mental health or other healthcare services -- sometimes as a form of discipline, the lawsuit claims. Kids have been denied psychiatric medication as punishment for perceived infractions and medical treatment for self-inflicted injuries, it says. Kids in juvenile facilities are also denied an adequate education mandated by law, the lawsuit says. Youth Law Center and the law firm of Sanford Heisler Sharp, represented in this case by former federal judge Kevin Sharp, along with Disability Rights Tennessee have filed the suit, seeking class action status. [GN] TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Vehicle Filter Defect --------------------------------------------------------- Toyota Motor Corporation disclosed in its Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2024, that it is named as a defendant in an economic loss class action lawsuit in Australia in which damages are claimed on the basis that diesel particulate filters in certain vehicle models are defective. On April 7, 2022 and March 27, 2023, Toyota received unfavorable judgments in the court of first instance and the Federal Court of Australia, respectively. The judgments included a finding that there was a perceived reduction in vehicle value of certain vehicle models. Toyota disagrees with the appeal court judgment and has filed a final appeal. Other claims of economic loss in this class action lawsuit continue to be litigated at the court of first instance. Toyota Motor Corporation is a limited liability, joint-stock company incorporated under the Commercial Code of Japan and continues to exist under the Companies Act of Japan. It primarily conducts business in the automotive industry. TRUIST BANK: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Boyd Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ MARSHALL BOYD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUIST BANK, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00583 (W.D.N.C., June 21, 2024) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves, says the suit. Truist Bank operates as a bank. The Bank offers saving and current account, investment and financial services, online banking, mortgage and non-mortgage loan facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans. Truist Bank serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5003 Email: sharris@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com U-HAUL CO: Willis Sues Over Unlawful Employment Practices --------------------------------------------------------- KRYSTALL WILLIS, on behalf of herself and all other employees or former employees of U-HAUL similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. U-HAUL CO. OF ALABAMA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00834-HNJ (N.D. Ala., June 24, 2024) arises from Defendant' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and its retaliation against Plaintiff for opposing unlawful employment practices. Plaintiff Willis began working for U-HAUL in 2017 and has worked on and off until her termination on May 8, 2024. Plaintiff routinely worked more than 40 hours per week on behalf of Defendant but was not paid her full compensation due to her in violation of the FLSA. When she complained about the unpaid hours, she was demoted and fired as a result of her complaint, says the Plaintiff. U-HAUL Co. of Alabama, Inc. rents used automobiles and offers trucks, trailers, buses, and other motor vehicles as well as vehicle parts and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Teri Ryder Mastando, Esq. Eric J. Artrip, Esq. MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC 301 Holmes, Ave. NE Suite 100 Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 532-2222 Facsimile: (256) 513-7489 UNITED STATES: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Feb. 3, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Monk v. USA, Case No. 3:22-cv-01503 (D. Conn., Filed Nov. 28, 2022), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order approving in part Supplemental 26(f) Report and amending scheduling order. Judge Underhill says, "In my ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss, I concluded that the plaintiffs' claims "do not require me to re-open individual benefits decisions, evaluate the VA's findings of fact or law, or pass judgment on any individual VA benefits decision."" The Scheduling Order is as follows: -- Defendants' Initial Disclosures due by: July 8, 2024 -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Feb. 3, 2025 Certification due by: -- Discovery due by: May 21, 2025 -- Dispositive motions due forty-five days after the close of Discovery. -- Trial brief due 60 days after the ruling on dispositive motions, or 60 days after the close of discovery if no dispositive motions are filed. -- Trial ready date is sixty days after the trial brief is filed. The nature of suit states Tort Claim.[CC] VAAGEN BROS: Loomer Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ BREWSTER LOOMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VAAGEN BROS. LUMBER, INC., a Washington corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00206 (E.D. Wash., June 17, 2024) is brought as a class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Washington Minimum Wage Act, and the Wage Rebate Act to recover unpaid wages owed to Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees. The complaint alleges the Defendant's failure to pay all overtime wages; failure to pay for all hours worked; failure to provide additional pay for each missed meal and rest breaks; failure to pay all wages due, and at the end of the established pay period, at the end of their employment; and willful refusal to pay wages. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Washington as a non-exempt electrician from approximately June 14, 2021, to present. Vaagen Bros. Lumber, Inc. is a family-owned wood products manufacturer that maintains operations and conducts business throughout the State of Washington, including in Stevens County, and the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hardeep S. Rekhi, Esq. Gregory A. Wolk, Esq. Erika Lane, 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 VICTORIA GOLD: Kalloghlian Probes Potential Investor Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kalloghlian Myers LLP is investigating a potential investor class action against Victoria Gold Corp. (TSX: VGCX) and certain directors and officers. On June 24, 2024, Victoria Gold Corp. announced that its Eagle Gold Mine heat leach pad experienced a failure. On this news, the price of Victoria Gold Corp. shares dropped from $7.43 at the close of trading on June 24 to $1.27 at the opening of trading on June 25. If you owned Victoria Gold Corp. shares, contact Kalloghlian Myers LLP: Kalloghlian Myers LLP is a Toronto-based law firm specializing in investor class actions. [GN] VOLUSIA COUNTY, FL: Powell Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY POWELL, as next of kin and on behalf of J.T.A., a minor, et al., v. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, a Political subdivision of the state of Florida, Case No. 6:21-cv-01791-JSS-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the Class pray for ask the Court to enter an order declaring the action to be a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposed Class is defined as follows: "all students throughout the state of Florida with learning disabilities who attended public schools owned and operated by the Defendant, The School Board of Volusia County, Florida." Those qualifying proposed Class members underthe age of 18 will be represented by their respective next of kin. On April 2, 2018, the United States of America opened an investigation of the Defendant, under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 12131 - 12134, and Title II's implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. pt. 35, in response to a complaint received on behalf of 11 students with disabilities, 9 of whom have a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder, in various grade levels and from schools across the school district. On July 13, 2021, the Defendant entered into a Settlement Agreement with the United States of America with respect to the systematic violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiffs include YVONNE WOLFE, as next of kin and on behalf of C.L., a minor, LYNETTE CLEWS, as next of kin and on behalf of M.A.R., a minor, ELICIA RODRIGUEZ, as next of kin and on behalf of A.J.R., a minor, MORGAN RICHARDS, as next of kin and on behalf of D.R.R., a minor, GEORGIA HINES, as next of kin and on behalf of G.J.H, a minor, CRYSTAL COOPER, as next of kin and on behalf of M.R.J., a minor, ANGELICA AMIS, as next of kin and on behalf of D.S., a minor, DONALD FAULKNER, JR., as next of kin and on behalf of B.C.D. and J.J.F., minors, JEFFREY BLASSMEYER, as next of kin and on behalf of L.I.B., a minor, KIMBERLY AMIS, as next of kin and on behalf of J.M.B., a minor, BRYAN SIROIS, as next of kin and on behalf of M.E.S., a minor, SHANNON ROBINSON, as next of kin and on behalf of L.D.S., a minor, KAYLA KLINGLER, as next of kin and on behalf of J.J.K., a minor, TENEA PHILLIPS, as next of kin and on behalf of C.N.P., a minor, BRANDON BRINDLEY, as next of kin and on behalf of A.C.B., a minor, TIFFANY REINHARDT, as next of kin and on behalf of W.M.A., a minor, SARAH WINDHOVEN, as next of kin and on behalf of J.M.W., a minor, ANNI SUADI, as next of kin and on behalf of L.A., AMANDA SULLIVAN, as next of kin and on behalf of C.M.C.L., a minor, EMMA VANCURAN, as next of kin and on behalf of N.D.V.C., a minor, BRENT EULER, as next of kin and on behalf of C.A.E., a minor, HEATHER DEY, as next of kin and on behalf of D.C.D., a minor, KEVIN TOMAKA, as next of kin and on behalf of N.A.T., a minor, WENDY WEISHEIMER, as next of kin and on behalf of C.W., a minor, DONALD W. POWELL, as next of kin and on behalf of S.E.P., PAMELA TOMS, as next of kin and on behalf of M.T.K., a minor, TERRIE L. FUEHRER, as next of kin and on behalf of C.L.F., a minor, TINA TRENCHERD, as next of kin and on behalf of H.C.T., a minor, CARLA ANDER, as next of kin and on behalf of T.A., MIRANDA FREELAND, as next of kin and on behalf of J.W.D., III, a minor, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DEuy5I at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason L. Harr, Esq. THE HARR LAW FIRM The Harr Professional Center 517 South Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Telephone: (386) 226-4866 Facsimile: (386) 226-4886 E-mail: jasonharr@harrlawfirm.com lynnwilkins@harrlawfirm.com miriamjuarez@harrlawfirm.com WALMART INC: Wertymer Files 7th Circuit Appeal ---------------------------------------------- JOHN WERTYMER has filed an appeal in his lawsuit entitled John Wertymer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Walmart Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-14700, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its honey products as "raw" and/or "organic." The appellate case is captioned John Wertymer v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 24-2001, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on June 11, 2024. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's brief is due on or before August 9, 2024; -- Appellee's brief is due on or before September 9, 2024; and -- Appellant's reply brief, if any, is due on or before September 30, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN WERTYMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kenneth T. Goldstein, Esq. KRISLOV LAW 20 N. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 606-0500 Defendant-Appellee WALMART INC. is represented by: William F. Northrip, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 111 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 704-7798 WASHINGTON FINE: Burke Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CHERIE BURKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON FINE WINE & SPIRITS, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24-2-11344-4 KNT, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 24, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00905 to the proceeding. The arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act in connection with their failure to post the wage scale or salary range for a Tukwila-based cashier/customer service job. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC operates as retailer of wine, beer, spirits and cigars. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Malaika M. Eaton, Esq. McNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN PLLC 600 University Street, Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 467-1816 E-mail: meaton@mcnaul.com - and - William J. Murphy, Esq. John J. Connolly, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440 Baltimore, MD 21202-1031 Telephone: (410) 332-0444 E-mail: wmurphy@zuckerman.com jconnolly@zuckerman.com WELLS FARGO: Faces Rice Suit Over Unauthorized Fund Transfers ------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER RICE, and ERIK WESTERVELT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02647 (E.D. Pa., June 17, 2024) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. The Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, bring this complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant routinely holding consumers liable for unauthorized electronic fund transfers made out of their deposit accounts held with Defendant, thereby violating the EFTA. By failing to refund Plaintiffs and Class Members for the unauthorized electronic transfers that was wrongfully taken from Plaintiffs and Class Members deposit accounts, the Defendant failed to act as a reasonable fiduciary would have acted under similar circumstances, the suit asserts. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank offers online and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans and credit, investment and retirement, wealth management, and insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Matthew R. Snyder, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com msnyder@toddflaw.com WELLS FARGO: Parties Must File Joint Statement by July 5 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Simmons v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01889 (N.D. Cal., Filed March 27, 2024), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order directing the parties to file by July 5, 2024, a joint statement stating why it should not be consolidated with that case and dismissed pursuant to the consolidation order. The Court declines to keep this duplicative case open as a separate action purely on the basis of speculation about a possible class certification decision in the other case. The motion hearing set for June 27, 2024, is vacated. The case appears to be substantively identical to In Re Wells Fargo Mortgage Discrimination Litigation, Case. No. 22-00990 JD. The nature of suit Civil Rights -- Housing/Accommodations. Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company.[CC] [*]Text Messages Considered Key Evidence in Securities Fraud Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ryan Cohen of Crowell reports that text messages and other non-email, electronic communications have become increasingly important in securities fraud matters. These communications are often sent from personal mobile devices and often provide key evidence. It has become clear that the most interesting, and sometimes most problematic, communications often do not take place via email. Messages sent via text and other messaging applications are increasingly being relied upon as evidence in securities fraud investigations and litigations. Since 2021, the SEC has investigated large trading firms for "off-channel communications," business-related communications through platforms that are not monitored or firm-approved (e.g., text messages). As a result, the SEC has fined financial firms a total of over $1.7 billion for failure to maintain and preserve electronic communications. Following a civil trial in June 2024, now-bankrupt Terraform Labs agreed to a $4.47 billion settlement to resolve an SEC lawsuit after its co-founder was found liable of fraud. This settlement will be treated as an unsecured claim in Terraform's Chapter 11 case.[2] At trial, the SEC offered text messages among employees that detailed a secret arrangement between Terraform and a crypto trading platform to prop up Terraform's cryptocurrency before it collapsed into evidence. These text messages included a message from the head of communications stating that the co-founder "said if [crypto trading platform] hadn't stepped in we actually might've been f-ed." The business development head responded "I know. They saved our a--." SEC v. Terraform Labs PTE LTD, 23-cv-1346 (JSR) (July 31, 2023). After a discussion with a crypto trading platform, the communications head texted "Spoke with [co-founder], we're going to deploy $250 million from stability reserve through [crypto trading platform] to stabilize the peg." He followed up with "[crypto trading platform] has already started buying. May not need the entire $250 million." The next day, Terraform's official Twitter account posted "Terra's not going anywhere. $1 parity on UST already recovered." This is just one example of a case where the preservation, collection, and production of text messages were critical to its outcome. There are, at least, three areas where companies should examine their internal policies concerning mobile device data: (1) policies and procedures for mobile device use and "off-channel" communications; (2) preservation and collection obligations regarding employee communications on mobile devices (including personal devices) in litigation; and (3) content of mobile messages that will be produced in litigation. Policies and Procedures Internal policies governing the use of mobile devices and any "off-channel" communications should be in place and discussed with employees as a critical part of onboarding, as well as ongoing HR, and employee policies. Business-related communications via messaging applications that are not monitored or maintained by their employers has dramatically increased since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. For those working in financial services, including investment bankers and securities traders, the existence of communications about firm business on messaging applications like iMessage, WhatsApp, Slack, or Signal risks scrutiny and fines from government regulators. Additionally, employees at financial firms may be more likely to send problematic or even illegal messages through unmonitored channels if they believe the messages will not be subject to scrutiny, particularly on their personal devices. These messages may give rise to civil liability to both regulators and private plaintiffs. When developing a mobile device policy, companies should consider the following questions: Whether employees use company-issued devices or, if not, is there a policy for employees who bring their own devices (a "BYOD" policy)? Many employees prefer to use a single device for both personal and work-related purposes, even when a corporate device is offered. They should, however, be informed of the risks of intermingling business and personal communications, particularly if their good friends are also business contacts. A friendly chat about the state of the industry could blur the lines into business-related communications. In United States v. Blaszczak, a CMS employee remained friends with Blaszczak, the defendant, after he left the organization to work for a hedge fund. 947 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2019). The employee then provided inside information via phone calls, emails, and text messages on CMS rate changes that lowered reimbursement rates in the course of his friendship with Blaszczak. Are employees required to cooperate with requests for access to their devices during litigation? This consideration underscores the requirement for a BYOD policy or corporate device policy. Either of these policies should specifically articulate the requirement of providing access to business-related communications, documents, photographs and other data stored on mobile devices in case of litigation. Policies should also discuss an employee's expectation of privacy with respect to the personal data on a device that is used for business purposes. This will also help employees make informed decisions about how and when to communicate on a mobile device for work purposes before the information is discoverable. How are the mobile device policies enforced? Which applications are employees allowed to use for work purposes? It is important to consider mobile device management and mobile device data archiving tools, and other corporate access to mobile devices that will be used for business purposes. The software can allow companies to remotely monitor, update, secure, and even delete data from personal smartphones or tablets that are used for business purposes. Employers can designate applications for business use. As an example, Microsoft Office 365 provides a full suite of applications, including Outlook, Teams, and applications to view and edit documents. These and other similar applications can be protected by passwords and/or two-factor authentication. Importantly, data from applications designed for corporate use can also be stored on a company server. Employee access can be granted or revoked remotely, and the data is preserved in the event that a device is lost or damaged. Additionally, if the employee has only used corporate applications such as Teams, Slack or Skype for business-related messaging (rather than texts or other platforms where personal communications are mixed in), it will not be necessary to collect messaging data from the employee's personal device during litigation because the company will already have that data on the company's servers. What are the policies and procedures for departing employees? If the departing employee used a corporate device, internal policies should require the employer's IT department to verify whether there is an obligation to preserve the data on the device before it is erased. If the departing employee used a personal device, the company should collect any data that may be relevant to an ongoing or foreseeable litigation. If it is not possible to collect the data prior to the employee's departure, the employee should be reminded of the potential obligation. Preservation and Collection In litigation, companies are required to produce data that is within their possession, custody, and control. As part of this determination, courts will consider the following factors when it comes to mobile data: (1) whether the employer issued the devices, (2) how frequently the devices were used for business purposes, (3) whether the employer had a legal right to obtain communications from the devices, and (4) whether company policies address access to communications on personal devices. See, e.g., Miramontes v. Peraton, Inc., No. 3:21-CV-3019-B, 2023 WL 3855603 (N.D. Tex. June 6, 2023). Given the increasing use of mobile communications to conduct business, particularly in the era of remote or hybrid work, it is reasonable to expect that mobile-device data will be part of a discovery request in a securities class action litigation. Companies have the same obligation to make reasonable, good faith efforts to preserve mobile data, including data on employee personal devices, as with any other type of data that may be relevant to a litigation. Here are some considerations related to preservation and collection of mobile data: What communications may be relevant? Any employee who may possess information relevant to the litigation may also possess relevant mobile data. Counsel, along with forensic examiners, will often interview employees who likely have information relevant to the litigation to identify the type and frequency of business communications, applications used for business purposes, and the amount of potentially-relevant information the employee possesses on their mobile device. In Boston Retirement System v. Uber Technologies, Inc., the defendant produced text messages from an employee related to an alleged securities fraud. No. 19-cv-06361-RS (DMR), 2024 WL 555891 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2024). The plaintiff filed a motion to compel additional text messages from other employees, but the court denied the motion because the employees stated in their interrogatories that they did not communicate about business via text message and they had not texted about the subject matter of the lawsuit. Other details may help focus the text message collection, including the relevant time periods of the conversation (e.g., the time periods surrounding a particular trade or release of information), the communication platforms used (e.g., iMessage, WhatsApp, Signal) and the parties of interest. In United States v. Buyer, the defendant was accused of trading on inside information related to a proposed acquisition of Navigant by Guidehouse. 22 CR. 397 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2023). He admitted to phone calls and text exchanges with a Guidehouse employee right before he purchased Navigant stock. The government also presented a Signal message from the defendant as evidence of an attempted coverup. The message read: "I need to see you. Please, I will catch the next flight. I was interviewed and told them I bought . . . ." The defendant had intended this message to be deleted after 5 minutes. What is the level of technical sophistication of the employees? Data may be inadvertently lost in a number of ways, including: failure to follow a litigation hold, accidental deletion of messages (e.g., auto-delete), upgrading the device to a different model without transferring or backing up its data, or performing a factory reset. It is important to assess whether to trust an employee to properly manage their device settings, or whether it may be necessary to preemptively collect mobile data to ensure that it is preserved. It is important to be aware of the default settings in place before a litigation hold is in effect, both on mobile devices and corporate servers, as these settings may need to be adjusted. Mobile device management systems and applications backed up to a remote server (e.g., Microsoft Outlook and Teams) make it easier to preserve data at a global level and eliminate user error. If an employee uses text messages or other messaging apps to communicate for business purposes, it will be important to instruct the employee to change their device settings to ensure no information will be inadvertently deleted, particularly because courts will likely consider business communications to be within the employer's control. Although proper preservation of mobile data often does not require a substantial effort, a failure to adequately preserve relevant mobile data can result in monetary sanctions and/or adverse inferences at trial. In Hunters Capital, LLC et al v. City of Seattle, the Seattle mayor deleted thousands of text messages from her employer-owned phone, claiming that this was partly because she inadvertently set all text messages to auto-delete after 30 days. 2023 WL 184208 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 13, 2023). The court issued an adverse inference instruction to the jury, telling them they could presume that the text messages were unfavorable to the defendant. What are the technical requirements and procedures for collection? The collection process can often be performed remotely, but the forensic examiner will sometimes require physical possession of the device. If the mobile data in question is backed up on a remote server, it can be collected remotely, and with minimal disruption to the employee. Apple iPhone data can typically be collected remotely through iCloud, while Android data typically must be collected from the device itself. Messages and other data from mobile devices that are not available on a remote server are typically collected through a logical extraction, which creates a forensic image of the entire phone, preserving the integrity of the data at the time of the collection. Importantly, however, logical extraction cannot recover deleted files or be used on a locked device. Ephemeral messaging applications (e.g., Signal, Telegram), which do not permit archiving or remote storage of messages, can only be collected through screenshots or manual collection methods. Additionally, if an employee has very few relevant messages, a screenshot or other manual collection may be appropriate. After a logical collection, the collected data is encrypted and is not in a viewable format until it is processed. Accordingly, none of the employee's text messages or other application data are readable at this stage. Data collected through screenshots or other manual methods will be in an immediately viewable format. Messaging data and other data from sources identified as relevant to the litigation is processed and loaded into a database where it can be viewed by counsel. The employee can also identify their business contacts, further limiting what outside counsel will view and helping to ensure the privacy of their personal messages. Content of Mobile Messages In litigation, as opposed to regulatory investigations, the parties may have more room to negotiate the scope and relevancy of mobile messages to be produced to the other side. The legal team can opt to produce only the relevant portions of message threads, redacting non-relevant messages and images (including personal messages and photos). In some instances, however, it may be necessary to produce non-relevant messages to provide context. See Al Thani v. Hanke, No. 20 CIV. 4765 (JPC), 2022 WL 1684271, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2022) ("a single text message, standing alone, is oftentimes meaningless without other messages in the text chain to provide context"). Additionally, one-off messages, gifs or emojis can sometimes provide important evidence if they are understood to have a certain meaning in the relevant industry-specific communications. For example, in the case of In re Bed Bath & Beyond Corp. Securities Litigation, a message with an emoji provided potentially key evidence of securities fraud. U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129613 (D.D.C. July 27, 2023). [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***