/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240705.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, July 5, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 135
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Adams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Bell Legal Files 24 Lawsuits Over Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Breneman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Campbell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Rolling Hills Sues Over Contaminated Water
3M COMPANY: Tipton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Warren Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Water Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Weigandt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
A & A RESTORATION: Faces Mendez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: La Rosa Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
ACCIDENT LLC: Faces Lane Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
ADT LLC: Mitchener Sues Over Use of Trap & Trace Process on Website
ADVANCE AUTO: Fails to Secure Private Info, Smith Suit Alleges
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NC: Collective & Class Cert OK'd in Beers Suit
ALI TORABI: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 12
ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK: Chavez Suit Seeks Class Certification
AMAZON.COM INC: Coordinated Discovery Sched Partly OK'd in Brown
AMAZON.COM INC: Discovery Sched Partly Granted in De Coster Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Discovery Sched Partly Granted in Frame-Wilson
AMICK FARMS: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Diaz Class Suit
ASHTON CHARLESTON: Marsh View Files Suit Over Construction Defects
BIG LOTS INC: Bellomo Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling
BNP PARIBAS: Status Conference in Kashef Suit Set for Sept. 24
BOCAITO INC: Mendoza Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Wine Bar Staff
CARDON DISCOUNT: Mejias Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
CENCORA INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, M.W. Suit Says
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Nix Must Produce List of Potential Class Members
CHRISTOPHER SUNUNU: Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Expert Declarations
CLIPPER REALTY: Ct. Partly OK's Conditional Status of Sanchez Suit
COMMUNITY CARE: Plaintiffs Seek Distribution of Class Cert Notice
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Novak Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Purcell Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Torres Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: WFE Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
CORELOGIC CREDCO: Class Settlement Deal Gets Final Nod
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Agrees to Settle Flushable Wipes Suit for $2MM
DAVID ALLEN: Fabricant Bid for Default Judgment Nixed w/o Prejudice
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Narrows Claims in Clark Suit
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Briefing
DREAMLAND BABY: Faces Muse Suit Over Weighted Sleep Products
EXPRESS WASH: Curry Faces Over Deceptive Automatic Renewal Scheme
FACEBOOK INC: Class Cert Hearings Continued to Sept. 26
FCA US: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Maugain
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: MacDermott Class Status Bid Tossed
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Macci Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Pratt Sues Over Unauthorized Info Access
FUTUREFUEL CORP: Faces Wilkinson Class Suit Stock Price Drop
G.A.T. AIRLINE: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GN TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Filing in Lee Continued to August 19
GOBRANDS INC: Silva Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GOLDEN STATE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Continued to July 1
GROUP 2029: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Williams Suit
GROUP HEALTH: Jenich Suit Removed to W.D. Wisconsin
H & R ACCOUNTS: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Daniels Suit
HCA HEALTHCARE: Wingo Suit Removed From State Court to C.D. Cal.
HENRY FORD: Class Settlement in Pelt Suit Gets Initial Nod
HIGHCAPE CAPITAL: Farzad Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
HOLIDAY INN CLUB: Lingard Suit Seeks to Certify Class
IGN ENTERTAINMENT: Joseph Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Info
INDIAN HILL: RLK Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Students
IONIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Venegas Sues Over Unpaid Wages
JACKSON HEWITT: Court Likely to Initially Approve Settlement
JAMES JUSTICE: Plaintiffs' Request for Admission Tossed
JEWISH GENERAL: Faces Class Suit Over Sexual Assaults in Children
JM SMUCKER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jeruchim Due Oct. 29
JOHN DOE: Must File Bids Contesting Subpoena
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Castle Sues Over Deceptive Conduct
JOY CONE: Class Settlement in Currie Suit Gets Initial Nod
KATIEJNYC INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Espinal Alleges
KROME PLAZA: Faces Pardo Suit Over Inaccessible Parking Spaces
KRONOS SOLAR: Bird Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
LASKO PRODUCTS: Completion of Expert Discovery Due Sept. 20
LENOVO INC: Court Dismisses Class Action Over Computer Performance
LINCARE HOLDINGS: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Final Nod
LION STUDIOS: Beveridge Sues Over Unlawful Advertising Practices
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to July 29
LOS ANGELES, CA: Plaintiffs Seek Relief to File Class Certification
LTF CLUB: Class Cert Denial Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice to Refiling
MADELYNE BEAUTY: Underpays Beauty Store Staff, Quezada Suit Claims
MANDYTODDCO INC: Dobbins Seeks to Recover Unpaid Tip & BackPay
MAXEON SOLAR: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set August 26
MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA: Rohan Files Suit in C.D. California
MCLANE CO: McGowan Suit Removed From State Court to C.D. Cal.
MCLAREN OAKLAND: Williams Seek to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA
ME&I CONSTRUCTION: Court Holds Action for Class Cert Bid
MERCEDES-BENZ: Court Junks Hamm Bid for Class Certification
METROHEALTH SYSTEM: Bid to Supplement Instanter Granted
MINT JULEP: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Murray Suit Alleges
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to Dec. 31
MONTREAL, QC: Court Authorizes Suit Against Former Principal, EMSB
NERDWALLET INC: Jurdi Sues Over Unlawful De-Anonymization
NEW DIRECTION: Suit Seeks TRO from Adopting 2024 Custodial Deal
NEW YORK, NY: Court Extends Stay of Discovery in Capobianco
NEWREZ LLC: CWELT 2008 Files Suit in S.D. Florida
NORTH CAROLINA: Court Dismisses ACLU-NC Class Suit
NORTHERN TRUST: Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Opposition
NOVA SOUTHEASTERN: Plan Participant Class Certified in Rzepkoski
NUTRICOST: Faces Kurtz Suit Over Dietary Supplements' False Ads
OGILVY HOLDINGS: Chestnut Suit Removed to N.D. California
PANDA RESTAURANT: Sarfo Sues Over Failure to Secure Information
PANERA LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hollis Suit Says
PEORIA COUNTY, IL: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Zeiler
PHILIPS NORTH: Faces Miller Suit Over Mislabeled Baby Products
PRESTIGE CARE: Discovery Completion Due Jan. 9, 2026
PROFESSIONAL COMPOUNDING: Mills Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Louisiana
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Bid to Take Silva Deposition OK'd
QUAKER OATS: Kessler Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
QUICK STOP: Faces Padilla Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
QUINCY EXACT: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Squellati Suit
R&R PIZZA: Leisten Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY: Court OKs Settlement in Securities Suit
REDFIN CORP: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, Mata Says
REGENTS OF UCLA: Nitka Sues Over Negligence and Breach of Contract
RIVERSIDE, CA: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 15
ROCKWELL COLLINS: Leeman Suit Removed to C.D. California
RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Parties Seek August 9 Class Cert Bid Filing
SALVATION ARMY: Henderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SARATOGA COUNTY, NY: Parties Must File Status Report by Oct. 4
SELENE FINANCE: Whitfield Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Georgia
SOUTHSTATE BANK: Class Settlement in Fludd Suit Gets Final Nod
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Class Cert Bid Adjourned to July 1
SUN NONG DAN: Ojeda Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SUNDANCE HOLDINGS: Sued Over Selling of Personal Information
SUSAN DESKI: Court Tosses Fund Texas Bid for Class Certification
TANDYM GROUP: Marte Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
TARO PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Settlement in Lee Suit Gets Final Nod
TECO ENERGY: Bid to File Reply Brief Partly OK'd
THIRDLOVE INC: Montgomery Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TOYOTA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit, Issues Product Recalls
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Davis Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
TREASURY WINE: Faces Labor-Related Class Action Lawsuit
TRUIST BANK: Ruffin Files Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit
TYSON FOODS: McBride Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
UMPQUA BANK: Bid for Partial Decertification Tossed
UMPQUA BANK: Court Defers Final Ruling on Standing
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Velasquez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
UPMC BENEFIT: Faces Livingston Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages
UROLOGY OF GREATER ATLANTA: Bland Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct.
US HEALTHWORKS: Parties Seek to Continue Class Hearing to July 2
VISA INC: Antitrust Suit Remanded to N.D. Ill.
VS CLIPPER: Clipper Hills Residents Sue Over Maryland's SLAPP Law
WALMART INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due June 6, 2025
WELCH FOODS: Morris Sues Over Fruit & Yogurt Snacks' Misleading Ads
WELLS FARGO: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for May 9, 2025
WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: Patel Sues Over Uniform Policy Expenses
WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due August 1
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to July 15, 2025
WILLIAM WARREN: Failed to Pay Managers' OT Wages Under FLSA
WOODSTREAM CORPORATION: Maroney Suit Seeks to Certify Six Classes
YODLEE INC: Clark Seeks to Seal Documents
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Still Defends Personal Injury Suits
*********
3M COMPANY: Adams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Adams, 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-02997-RMG (D.S.C.,
May 10, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting
from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his
firefighting career and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
rlee@belllegalgroup.com
gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Bell Legal Files 24 Lawsuits Over Toxic Aqueous Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bell Legal Group, LLC filed 24 lawsuits seeking class action status
against the Defendants 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. Each of the complaints are stemming from personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF 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, the military, and/or
training.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
All of the complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina. The complaints were filed
in April 19, 2024.
The Plaintiffs are:
Douglas Broadway. Case No. 2:24-cv-02945-RMG.
Carroll Mewbourn. Case No. 2:24-cv-02936-RMG.
Charles Wells. Case No. 2:24-cv-02938-RMG
Cristopher Morrison. Case No. 2:24-cv-02939-RMG.
Dale Mitchell. Case No. 2:24-cv-02940-RMG.
Danny Merryman. Case No. 2:24-cv-02943-RMG.
Donald Dudley. Case No. 2:24-cv-02944-RMG.
Douglas Dunn. Case No. 2:24-cv-02946-RMG.
Felicia Simmons. Case No. 2:24-cv-02950-RMG.
Frederick Morey. Case No. 2:24-cv-02954-RMG.
Gabrielle Holloway. Case No. 2:24-cv-02957-RMG.
George Kunz. Case No. 2:24-cv-02960-RMG.
Guy Mull Jr. Case No. 2:24-cv-02961-RMG.
Hector Pagan. Case No. 2:24-cv-02962-RMG.
James Mulford. Case No. 2:24-cv-02964-RMG.
Jeff Tooker. Case No. 2:24-cv-02965-RMG.
Jerry Elks. Case No. 2:24-cv-02966-RMG.
Edward Lynch. Case No. 2:24-cv-02947-RMG.
Edward McCusker. Case No. 2:24-cv-02948-RMG.
John Morgan Jr. Case No. 2:24-cv-02968-RMG.
George Morris. Case No. 2:24-cv-02958-RMG.
John Myers. Case No. 2:24-cv-02967-RMG.
Bruce Whitten. Case No. 2:24-cv-02932-RMG.
Bruce Williams. Case No. 2:24-cv-02933-RMG.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
rlee@belllegalgroup.com
gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Breneman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Breneman, 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-02990-RMG (D.S.C.,
May 10, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting
from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his
firefighting career and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
rlee@belllegalgroup.com
gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Campbell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Campbell, 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-02994-RMG (D.S.C.,
May 10, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting
from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his
firefighting career and was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
rlee@belllegalgroup.com
gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Rolling Hills Sues Over Contaminated Water
------------------------------------------------------
Rolling Hills MHC LLC, 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-02835-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 of a manufactured home community in
Elbridge, New York.
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: Tipton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Tipton, individually and as personal representative for
Decedent, David Edwin Tipton, and other 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.; 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; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY
LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION;
SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P. as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and
W.L.GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02814-RMG (D.S.C.,
May 2, 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 Kelly Tipton is the surviving next of kin and
personal representative of the Estate of Decedent David Edwin
Tipton, who was 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: Warren Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Dolan Warren, 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-02904-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: Water Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland County Water, 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-02889-RMG (D.S.C.,
May 8, 2024), is brought in order to address contamination of its
water system caused by fluorinated Class B firefighting foam that
is manufactured with the synthetic per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS").
In this complaint, the term ("PFAS") refers to a family of
synthetic man-made chemicals and surfactants including but not
limited to: Perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"),
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorohexanoic acid
("PFHxA"), Perfluoropentanoic acid ("PFPA"), Perfluoroheptanoic
acid ("PFHpA"), Pentafluorobenzoic acid ("PFBA"),
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Perfluorononanoic acid
("PFNA"), Perfluorodecacanoic acid ("PFDA") and Perfluorohexane
Sulfonic Acid ("PFHS"). In this complaint, the term Aqueous Film
Forming Foam ("AFFF") refers to any fluorinated firefighting foams
that contains PFOS and/or PFOA (including any of their salt, ionic
or acid forms and their precursors or degradation products)
manufactured, sold or distributed by the Defendants for civilian,
military and training applications worldwide.
PFOS and PFOA are synthetic fluorinated compounds that are
particularly useful for controlling and extinguishing aviation,
marine, fuel, and other Class B fires because fluorine atoms have
extremely persistent and stable physio-chemical properties. PFOS
and PFOA are soluble in water, not easily biodegradable, and
persistent in the environment. Both are known to be harmful to
human health. When AFFF containing PFOS or PFOA is released into
the environment; both compounds, their precursors and degradation
products, can migrate into soil and groundwater. It has been shown
that the bioconcentration and bioaccumulation of perfluorinated
acids is directly related to fluorination.
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,
defendant 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.
The Defendants failed to warn individuals, communities,
municipalities, or states of the serious environmental, human, and
animal toxicity concerns linked to the use and exposure to
fluorinated AFFF foams. Because the Defendants knowingly placed
defective and dangerously toxic fluorinated AFFF foams into the
stream of commerce they are strictly liable to the Plaintiff for
causing the release of toxic PFAS compounds into the Plaintiff's
drinking water supply.
The Defendants sold, manufactured, and distributed AFFF containing
fluorinated surfactants touting the superior firefighting
performance for decades and deliberately chose not to warn end
users or purchasers of the potential environmental or human
toxicity concerns linked to fluorinated compounds. Because the
Defendants negligently caused the release of toxic PFAS compounds
onto the Plaintiff's drinking water supply they are all jointly and
severally liable, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff CCW provides a drinking water system to people within
Cleveland County, North Carolina.
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:
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: Weigandt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
------------------------------------------------------
Byron Weigandt, 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-02906-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 Bladder Cancer as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
A & A RESTORATION: Faces Mendez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
ISMAEL MENDEZ, BOLIVAR LEON & KEVIN LEON, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. A & A RESTORATION,
INC, INTER RENOVATION INC., JOSE BAILON, SEGUNDO ANGAMARCA,
KRZYSZTOF PYRYT & ROMAN JEMIELITY, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-04289 (E.D.N.Y., June 18, 2024) is brought pursuant to the
wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law due to Defendants' alleged unlawful labor
practices.
The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay wages for all
of their hours worked and overtime premiums for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek and failure to make, keep, and
preserve records to determine the wages, hours, and other
conditions and practices of employment.
The Plaintiffs were construction workers employed by Defendants to
work on various commercial and/or residential construction projects
in New York City.
The Defendants jointly operate a construction business that does
construction work for commercial and residential projects
throughout the New York Metropolitan area.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Harrison, Esq.
Julie Salwen, Esq.
HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
110 State Highway 35, Suite 10
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (718) 799-9111
Facsimile: (718) 799-9171
E-mail: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com
jsalwen@nynjemploymentlaw.com
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: La Rosa Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIA LA ROSA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Natalia La Rosa, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-5435,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action against the
Defendants for alleged violations of New York and California false
advertising laws due to allegedly deceptively labeled at-home
ovulation test kits.
On Feb. 7, 2023 and May 10, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their first
and second amended complaints, respectively.
On Aug. 7, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Sept. 8, 2023.
On May 7, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' third amended complaint through an Order entered by
Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr.
The Court ruled that the Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege
that a reasonable consumer of the Defendants' products would be
deceived. The Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed. The action was
dismissed in its entirety and the Clerk of the Court was directed
to terminate this case.
The appellate case is captioned La Rosa v. Abbott Laboratories,
Case No. 24-1575, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on June 12, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants NATALIA LA ROSA, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Daniella Quitt, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
745 5th Avenue, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10151
Defendants-Appellees ABBOTT LABORATORIES, et al. are represented
by:
Joshua A. Kipnees, Esq.
PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
- and -
Eileen Miriam Patt, Esq.
KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
1177 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
- and -
Evan Morgen Mandel, Esq.
MANDEL BHANDARI LLP
80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10005
- and -
Charles Hyun, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
599 Lexington Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10022
New York, NY 10005
- and -
Kristen Renee Fournier, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 790-5342
ACCIDENT LLC: Faces Lane Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE TERRELL LANE, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. ACCIDENT, LLC, Case No. e 6:24-cv-01155 (M.D. Fla.,
June 25, 2024) is a class representative action against the
Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
for making telemarketing calls to numbers on the National Do Not
Call Registry.
The Plaintiff contends that her cellular telephone number has been
registered with the National Do Not Call Registry since May of
2021. She uses her cell phone for personal use only. It is not used
as a business number. Despite this, the Plaintiff received
telemarketing calls and text messages on April 24, 2024, from (307)
217-5784 promoting Accident's lawyer referral services.
Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to thousands
or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff
brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of
other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on
behalf of Defendant, the lawsuit says.
Accident offers lawyer referral services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
ADT LLC: Mitchener Sues Over Use of Trap & Trace Process on Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
COURTNEY MITCHENER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADT LLC D/B/A ADT SECURITY
SERVICES, a Florida limited liability company; and DOES 1 through
25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-03669 (N.D. Cal., June
18, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of California Trap and Trace Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants use a trap and trace
process on its website by deploying the TikTok Software to capture
the phone number, email, routing, addressing, and other signaling
information of website visitors. The Defendant did not obtain
consent from the Plaintiff or any of the Class members before using
trap and trace technology to identify users of its website, the
suit alleges.
ADT LLC, doing business as ADT Security Services, is a provider of
home security systems and services doing business in California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tauler, Esq.
Matthew J. Smith, Esq.
TAULER SMITH LLP
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 927-9270
Email: robert@taulersmith.com
matthew@taulersmith.com
ADVANCE AUTO: Fails to Secure Private Info, Smith Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
DON SMITH on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC., Case No. 5:24-CV- 356 (E.D.N.C., June 24,
2024) is class action lawsuit to address the Defendant's failure to
safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information
that Defendant collected and maintained, and for Defendant's
failure to:
(1) provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other
Class Members that their Private Information had been
subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third
party,
(2) identify precisely what specific type of information was
accessed; and
(3) identify the threat actor.
After investigating the stolen files, the Defendant states "[it]
believes contain personal information for current and former
employees and job applicants, including social security numbers and
other government identification numbers" (collectively, "Private
Information"). The Defendant stored and utilized Plaintiff's and
Class Members' Private Information. By obtaining, collecting,
using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of
Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable
duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant
maintained the Private Information in a negligent and/or reckless
manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on
Defendant’s computer system and network in a condition vulnerable
to cyberattacks, says the suit.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
face a substantial risk of imminent and certainly impending harm.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have and will continue to suffer
injuries associated with this risk, including but not limited to as
a loss of time, mitigation expenses, and anxiety over the misuse of
their Private Information, the suit alleges.
The Defendant is an automotive parts provider, headquartered in
Raleigh, North Carolina. AAP operates approximately 4,777 stores
and has over 20,000 employees nationwide.
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 -
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 E. Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NC: Collective & Class Cert OK'd in Beers Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW S. BEERS and
KATHERINE WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. TERRY S. JOHNSON, in his official capacity as SHERIFF
OF ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00367-TDS-JLW
(M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Schroeder entered an order
granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for collective and class
certification with modifications to the class definition, in that:
1. Plaintiffs' claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
is
conditionally certified as a collective action under 29
U.S.C.
section 216(b), and the conditionally certified FLSA class is
identified as "all current and former Detention Officers and
Corporals who worked pursuant to the 'Alamance County
Sheriff's
Office 12 Hour Employee Schedule – Permanent' schedule
during
the time period May 5, 2020 through present;"
2. Plaintiffs' claim for breach of contract under North Carolina
law is certified as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule
of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), and the certified class is defined
as
"all current and former Detention Officers Detention Officers
and Corporals who worked pursuant to the ‘Alamance County
Sheriff's Office 12 Hour Employee Schedule – Permanent'
schedule
during the time period May 5, 2021 through present;" and
3. The court appoints Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., and Corey M.
Stanton
of Gibbons Law Group, PLLC as Class Counsel.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H7wNFU at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALI TORABI: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 12
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C. JEFFERY BOWEN, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ALI TORABI,
D.D.S., P.L.L.C. d/b/a FLAWLESS SMILE DENTISTRY, Case No.
4:24-cv-00173-SH (N.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Susan Huntsman
entered class certification scheduling order:
Joint Status Report on Discovery (filed) Sept. 3,
2024
Motions to Join Parties or Amend Pleadings (filed) Sept. 27,
2024
Plaintiff Class Certification Expert Nov. 12,
2024
Identification and Summaries/Reports under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) (exchanged)
Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion and Nov. 12,
2024
Briefing
Defendant Class Certification Expert Dec. 12,
2024
Identification and Summaries/Reports under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) (exchanged)
Defendant's Response to Class Certification Motion Dec. 12,
2024
Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Class Certification Jan. 2, 2025
Class Certification Discovery Cutoff Jan. 2, 2025
Class Certification Hearing at 10:00 a.m. Jan. 15,
2025
Settlement Conference requested after this date. Oct. 1, 2024
Flawless offers dental care services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QFxOtP at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK: Chavez Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MINERVA CHAVEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMINITY COMPANY, Case No.
3:22-cv-00166-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony Battaglia
entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion to certify class,
appointing Plaintiff Minerva Chavez as class representative, and
appointing Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Stephan Zouras, LLP, and Manfred,
APC as class counsel.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class:
"All California residents who purchased personal automobile
insurance from Allstate covering any portion of the time period
from March 1, 2020 to June 11, 2021."
Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Minerva Chavez’s
motion to certify class, to appoint Ms. Chavez as class
representative, and to appoint Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Stephan
Zouras, LLP, and Manfred, APC as class counsel. (Doc. No. 70.)
Defendant Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Co. (“Allstate”) filed
an opposition to the motion, (Doc. No. 78), to which Plaintiff
replied, (Doc. No. 82). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1, the
Court finds the instant matter suitable for determination on the
papers and without oral argument. Accordingly, the Court hereby
VACATES the hearing currently set for July 25, 2024. For the
reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS the motion.
Plaintiff alleges Allstate failed to issue adequate refunds under
its "Shelter-in-Place Payback" ("SIPP") program, under which it
provided a 15% premium credit to personal auto insurance customers
for March, April, and May 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Plaintiff, a current customer of Allstate, became an Allstate
customer on October 26, 2019, and has renewed her policy with
Allstate every six months thereafter.
Allstate offers insurance for your car, home, rental, and
motorcycle.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2FleT8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Coordinated Discovery Sched Partly OK'd in Brown
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BROWN, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:22-cv-00965-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an
order granting in part Amazon's motion for a coordinated discovery
schedule:
1. Fact discovery in the above-captioned cases shall be
coordinated
with fact discovery in FTC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-
01495-JHC (W.D. Wash.) and California v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
No.
CGC-22-601826 (Cal. Super. Ct.).
a. Amazon shall continue to produce documents that it
produces
in the CA AG case to Plaintiffs in the above-captioned
cases
on a rolling basis.
b. Amazon shall also produce documents that it produces in
the
FTC case to Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases on a
rolling basis, to the extent they are relevant to any
"parity" claims asserted in the above-captioned actions.
c. Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases may participate in
depositions as set forth in the Coordination Protocol and
Order entered on April 17, 2024, in the CA AG case.
d. Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases and Amazon shall
use
all reasonable efforts to coordinate the depositions of
Amazon witnesses and nonparty witnesses across all of the
coordinated cases (the three above-captioned cases, the
FTC
case, the CA AG case, and Mbadiwe v. Amazon.com, Inc.
(S.D.N.Y.), No. 1-22-cv-09542-VSB (S.D.N.Y.)), absent
either
(i) agreement of the parties or (ii) a showing of good
cause
and order of the Court
2. Consistent with the deadlines set forth in the FTC case and
the
CA AG case, the fact discovery deadline in the
above-captioned
cases shall be Aug. 8, 2025.
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a17dwD at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Discovery Sched Partly Granted in De Coster Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH DE COSTER et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:21-cv-00693-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an
order granting in part Amazon's motion for a coordinated discovery
schedule:
1. Fact discovery in the above-captioned cases shall be
coordinated
with fact discovery in FTC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-
01495-JHC (W.D. Wash.) and California v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
No.
CGC-22-601826 (Cal. Super. Ct.).
a. Amazon shall continue to produce documents that it
produces
in the CA AG case to Plaintiffs in the above-captioned
cases
on a rolling basis.
b. Amazon shall also produce documents that it produces in
the
FTC case to Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases on a
rolling basis, to the extent they are relevant to any
"parity" claims asserted in the above-captioned actions.
c. Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases may participate in
depositions as set forth in the Coordination Protocol and
Order entered on April 17, 2024, in the CA AG case.
d. Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases and Amazon shall
use
all reasonable efforts to coordinate the depositions of
Amazon witnesses and nonparty witnesses across all of the
coordinated cases (the three above-captioned cases, the
FTC
case, the CA AG case, and Mbadiwe v. Amazon.com, Inc.
(S.D.N.Y.), No. 1-22-cv-09542-VSB (S.D.N.Y.)), absent
either
(i) agreement of the parties or (ii) a showing of good
cause
and order of the Court
2. Consistent with the deadlines set forth in the FTC case and
the
CA AG case, the fact discovery deadline in the
above-captioned
cases shall be Aug. 8, 2025.
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lsSH8U at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Discovery Sched Partly Granted in Frame-Wilson
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an
order granting in part Amazon's motion for a coordinated discovery
schedule:
1. Fact discovery in the above-captioned cases shall be
coordinated
with fact discovery in FTC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-
01495-JHC (W.D. Wash.) and California v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
No.
CGC-22-601826 (Cal. Super. Ct.).
a. Amazon shall continue to produce documents that it
produces
in the CA AG case to Plaintiffs in the above-captioned
cases
on a rolling basis.
b. Amazon shall also produce documents that it produces in
the
FTC case to Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases on a
rolling basis, to the extent they are relevant to any
"parity" claims asserted in the above-captioned actions.
c. Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases may participate in
depositions as set forth in the Coordination Protocol and
Order entered on April 17, 2024, in the CA AG case.
d. Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases and Amazon shall
use
all reasonable efforts to coordinate the depositions of
Amazon witnesses and nonparty witnesses across all of the
coordinated cases (the three above-captioned cases, the
FTC
case, the CA AG case, and Mbadiwe v. Amazon.com, Inc.
(S.D.N.Y.), No. 1-22-cv-09542-VSB (S.D.N.Y.)), absent
either
(i) agreement of the parties or (ii) a showing of good
cause
and order of the Court
2. Consistent with the deadlines set forth in the FTC case and
the
CA AG case, the fact discovery deadline in the
above-captioned
cases shall be Aug. 8, 2025.
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aVL89f at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMICK FARMS: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Diaz Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Diaz, Jean-Nichole
Diaz, Diaz Family Farms LLC, on their own behalf and on behalf of
all other similarly situated, v. Amick Farms, LLC, Case No.
5:22-cv-01246-JDA (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Jacquelyn Austin entered
a fifth and final amended conference and scheduling order.
1. Fact Discovery shall be completed no later than Nov. 15,
2024.
2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to Fed.
R.
Civ. 23 ("Class Certification Motion") and Defendant's Motion
to
Decertify the Conditionally Certified Collective (if any)
shall
be filed no later than Nov. 22, 2024.
3. Plaintiff(s) shall file and serve a document identifying by
full
name, address, and telephone number each person whom
Plaintiff(s) expects to call as an expert at trial, and
certifying that a written report prepared and signed by any
expert meeting the criteria under Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(B),
including all information required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(B), has been disclosed to other parties by December
16,
2024. For all other expert witnesses, counsel should make the
disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C) by Dec.
4. Defendant(s) shall file and serve a document identifying by
full name, address, and telephone number each person whom
Defendant(s) expects to call as an expert at trial, and
certifying that a written report prepared and signed by any
expert meeting the criteria under Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(B),
including all information required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
Amick produces poultry products.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TXFFm4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ASHTON CHARLESTON: Marsh View Files Suit Over Construction Defects
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARSH VIEW HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; and CYNTHIA KELLY FLYNN,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. ASHTON CHARLESTON RESIDENTIAL, LLC; PORTRAIT HOMES-SOUTH
CAROLINA, LLC; PORTRAIT HOMESMARSH VIEW COMMONS, LLC; HUNTER QUINN
HOMES, LLC f/k/a Hunter-Quinn Properties, LLC; and JOHN DOE 1-200,
Defendants, Case No. 2024CP1003074 (S.C. Com. Pl., June 18, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence and gross
negligence, breach of implied warranty of workmanship, breach of
implied warranty of habitability, breach of fiduciary duty, and
violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs discovered the townhomes
and common elements in Marsh View Commons are extensively damaged
with the damage being the proximate result of the improper work
performed by Defendants and Defendants' employees, agents,
servants, and subcontractors. The townhomes in Marsh View Commons
suffered a loss of value as a direct and proximate result of the
improper and defective work by Defendants and Defendants'
employees, agents, servants, and subcontractors, says the suit.
As a direct and proximate result of the improper and defective work
by Defendants and Defendants' employees, agents, servants, and
subcontractors, the Plaintiffs will be required to spend
substantial sums to investigate the deficiencies, develop and
design repairs, and undertake repairs to the townhomes and common
elements in Marsh View Commons, in addition to other damages. The
improper and defective work performed by Defendants resulted in
substantial consequential and resulting damage to other components
of the townhomes and common elements in Marsh View Commons, the
suit asserts.
The Association is the homeowner's association for the Marsh View
Commons residential development located on McLernon Trace, Winding
River Drive, and Lanyard Street in Charleston County, South
Carolina.
Ashton Charleston Residential, LLC is a general contractor in
Charleston, South Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
F. Elliotte Quinn IV, Esq.
Rachel Igdal, Esq.
THE STEINBERG LAW FIRM, LLC
P.O. Box 9
Charleston, SC 29402
Telephone: (843) 720-2800
E-mail: equinn@steinberglawfirm.com
rigdal@steinberglawfirm.com
BIG LOTS INC: Bellomo Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Bellomo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BIG LOTS INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-03480 (E.D.N.Y, May 12,
2024), is brought against the Defendants' sunscreen labeled as
"Reef Conscious," under its Sound Body brand ("Product") which
contains false and misleading labeling.
The description of the Product as "Reef Conscious," next to a
graphic of a reef, is "false or misleading," because its active and
inactive ingredients, including avobenzone, homosalate,
octocrylene, and/or octylacrylamide copolymer, do not "protect and
safeguard" reef ecosystems and/or the environment, because they are
harmful to them, causing it to be "misbranded.
Nowhere on the labeling does the Product tell purchasers that its
active and inactive ingredients, including avobenzone, homosalate,
octocrylene, and/or octylacrylamide copolymer, do not "protect and
safeguard" reef ecosystems and/or the environment, and are not
"Reef Conscious," promoted next to a graphic of a reef, because
they are linked to harm and/or cause harm to them.
As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$3.79 for 5.5 oz (156 g), excluding tax and sales, higher than
similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher
than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and
omissions, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased, used, consumed, and/or applied the
Product.
Big Lots operates over 1,400 stores in 47 states, with sixty-four
in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Fax (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
BNP PARIBAS: Status Conference in Kashef Suit Set for Sept. 24
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ENTESAR OSMAN KASHEF et
al., v. BNP PARIBAS SA, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-03228-AKH-JW
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Alvin Hellerstein entered an order
scheduling next status conference for September 24, 2024, at 2:30
p.m. in Courtroom 14D.
The identities of people on the list who are not in the class are
not a concern as long as potential class members are identified and
given notice. The other notice procedures identified are sufficient
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2).
BNP Paribas is a multinational universal bank and financial
services holding company/
A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NN47IO at no extra
charge.[CC]
BOCAITO INC: Mendoza Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Wine Bar Staff
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILSON JAVIER BRITO MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOCAITO, INC. (D/B/A
BOCAITO), MAYRA AYALA, NICOLE AYALA, and PABLO AYALA, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-04324 (E.D.N.Y., June 18, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide
spread-of-hours pay, failure to provide wage notices, failure to
timely pay wages, and failure to provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed as a busboy, food runner, and barback at
the Defendants' restaurant and wine bar located at 81-15 Northern
Blvd., Queens, New York from approximately January 29, 2022, until
on or about December 14, 2023.
Bocaito, Inc., doing business as Bocaito, is an owner and operator
of a restaurant and wine bar at 81-15 Northern Blvd., Queens, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
Email: catalina@csmlegal.com
CARDON DISCOUNT: Mejias Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN MEJIAS and ISREAL ESPARRA, Individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. CARDON DISCOUNT A/C & HEATING, LLC and
KEITH CARDON, Individually, Case No. 8:24-cv-01532 (M.D. Fla., June
25, 2024) seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Throughout Plaintiffs' employment, the Plaintiffs were required to
work over 40 hours a week and was not compensated at the rate of at
least one and a half times their regular hourly rate of pay
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for all hours
worked over 40 in the work week. Instead, the Defendants, as a
policy, custom, and practice, refused to pay Plaintiffs for travel
time, in violation of the FLSA.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs were issued a work vehicle. The
Plaintiffs regularly would work at jobsites outside of Tampa Bay
and transported tools and equipment necessary for the employer’s
business. The Defendants failed to keep accurate time records as
required by the FLSA. The Plaintiffs estimate that they averaged
thirty 30 hours a week of drive time for which they were not
compensated, the suit asserts.
Mr. Mejias was employed with Defendants from 2017 until March 29,
2024, as a full-time HVAC technician and paid $29.00 an hour.
Mr. Esparra was employed with Defendants, from 2019 until May 24,
2024, as a full-time HVAC technician and paid $36.00 an hour.
Cardon Discount A/C & Heating is a specialty contractor that serves
the Tampa, Florida area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
FLORIN | GRAY
16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
Lutz, FL 33558
Telephone (727) 254-5255
Facsimile (727) 483-7942
E-mail: WFlorin@floringray.com
angela@floringray.com
MBouzas@floringray.com
CENCORA INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, M.W. Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
M.W. and F.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CENCORA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-02672 (E.D. Pa., June 18, 2024) is a class action on behalf
of the Plaintiffs and all other individuals similarly situated
against Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard the
protected health information and personally identifiable
information of thousands of individuals who are customers of the
company.
According to the complaint, the Defendant required its customers,
including Plaintiffs, to provide it with their sensitive PHI and
PII and failed to protect it. The Defendant had an obligation to
secure their customers' PHI and PII by implementing reasonable and
appropriate data security safeguards. This was part of the bargain
between Plaintiffs and Class Members and Defendant.
As a result of the Defendant's failure to provide reasonable and
adequate data security, Plaintiff' and the Class Members'
unencrypted, non-redacted PHI and PII has been exposed to
unauthorized third parties. The Plaintiffs and the Class are now at
much higher risk of identity theft and cybercrimes of all kinds,
especially considering the highly sensitive PII stolen here and the
fact that the compromised PHI and PII is already being sold on the
dark web, the suit alleges.
Cencora, Inc. is headquartered in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania and is
a company providing drug wholesale services and goods across the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
Lucy McShane, Esq.
MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC
4006 Central
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 888-8010
Facsimile: (816) 332-6295
E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Nix Must Produce List of Potential Class Members
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brent Nix, et al., v. The
Chemours Company FC, LLC, et al. Case No. 7:17-cv-00189-D
(E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert Numbers, II entered an order
granting the Defendants' amended motion to compel.
To the extent that they have not already done so, Plaintiffs must
produce the list of potential class members' names and addresses in
response to Defendants' discovery requests. Plaintiffs must provide
this information no later than 14 days after entry of this order.
Each party will bear their own costs incurred in connection with
this motion.
No later than 7 days after entry of this order, the Defendants must
submit an affidavit specifying, in detail, the search protocol used
to search for responsive documents.
The parties' discussion of Plaintiffs' motion to compel Rule
30(b)(6) designees (D.E. 464) suggested that many items at issue in
that motion can be resolved by agreement instead of a court order.
Finally, as the court noted at the hearing, Plaintiffs' response to
Defendants' motion to compel misstated the language of various
cases cited in that document. These misstatements are unacceptable.
Their presence negatively reflects on the attorneys who drafted and
signed that document.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fmEpsh at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHRISTOPHER SUNUNU: Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Expert Declarations
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as G.K., et al., v.
CHRISTOPHER SUNUNU, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00004-PB (D.N.H.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
A. Sealing at Level I, indefinitely, Exhibit 12 to the Second
Supplemental Declaration of Tracey Feild in Support of
Plaintiffs' First Motion for Leave to Supplement Expert
Declarations; and
B. Granting such further relief in favor of the Plaintiffs as
deemed just and appropriate.
Exhibit 12 was inadvertently omitted from Plaintiffs' Motion to
Seal Designated Portions of Plaintiffs' First Motion to Supplement.
The Plaintiffs' First Motion to Supplement attaches Exhibit 12 to
the Second Supplemental Declaration of Tracey Feild, an Exhibit
which the Defendants designated in its entirety as confidential and
which the Plaintiffs agree includes confidential information as
defined under paragraph 3 of the Amended Protective Order.
On May 2, 2024, the Plaintiffs' counsel conventionally filed the
Exhibit, among others, provisionally under seal in accordance with
LR 83.12 and AP 3.3.
In their Motion to Seal, Plaintiffs inadvertently omitted reference
to Exhibit 12 to the Second Supplemental Declaration of Tracey
Feild. Therefore, Plaintiffs did not request that Exhibit 12 be
filed under seal at Level 1 indefinitely.
The Plaintiffs do not request the sealing of this Motion to Seal,
nor do they request that any docket text entries be sealed.
Under L.R. 7.1(c), defense counsel has notified undersigned counsel
that the Defendants assent to the relief set forth in this motion.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 26, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GChGMS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michelle Wangerin, Esq.
Kay E. Drought, Esq.
NEW HAMPSHIRE LEGAL ASSISTANCE
154 High Street
Portsmouth, NH 03801
Telephone: (603) 431-7411
Facsimile: (603) 431-8025
E-mail: mwangerin@nhla.org
kdrought@nhla.org
- and -
Gilles R. Bissonnette, Esq.
Henry R. Klementowicz, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
NEW HAMPSHIRE
18 Low Avenue
Concord, NH 03301
Telephone: (603) 224-5591
E-mail: gilles@aclu-nh.org
henry@aclu-nh.org
- and -
Jennifer A. Eber, Esq.
Kayla J. Turner, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER-NH, INC.
64 North Main Street, Suite 2
Concord, NH 03301-4913
Telephone: (603) 228-0432
Facsimile: (603) 225-2077
E-mail: jennifere@drcnh.org
kaylat@drcnh.org
- and -
Ira Lustbader, Esq.
Kathleen Simon, Esq.
Carolyn Hite, Esq.
Aarti Iyer, Esq.
Rebecca Ritchin, Esq.
Madeleine MacNeil Kinney
CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC.
88 Pine Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 683-2210
Facsimile: (212) 683-4015
E-mail: ilustbader@childrensrights.org
ksimon@childrensrights.org
chite@childrensrights.org
aiyer@childrensrights.org
rritchin@childrensrights.org
mkinney@childrensrights.org
- and -
Konrad L. Cailteux, Esq.
Sarah Ryu, Esq.
Kathleen Stanaro, Esq.
Katheryn Maldonado, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Telephone: (212) 310-8000
Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
E-mail: Konrad.Cailteux@weil.com
Sarah.Ryu@weil.com
Kathleen.Stanaro@weil.com
Katheryn.Maldonado@weil.com
CLIPPER REALTY: Ct. Partly OK's Conditional Status of Sanchez Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODNEY SANCHEZ, on behalf
of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. CLIPPER
REALTY, INC., d/b/a CLIPPER REALTY, CLIPPER REALTY OP L.P., d/b/a
CLIPPER REALTY OP L.P., CLIPPER REALTY CONSTRUCTION LLC, CLIPPER
107 CH LLC, d/b/a CLOVER HOUSE, CLIPPER EQUITY LLC, d/b/a CLIPPER
EQUITY, Case No. 1:21-cv-08502-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Katherine Polk Failla entered an order granting in part and denying
in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a
collective and for Court facilitation of notice.
Specifically, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification of a collective of porters, handymen, concierges, and
repairmen; who worked at Clover House, 50 Murray Street, or 53 Park
Place; within the three years prior to the filing of the Complaint
in this action.
The Court further denies Plaintiff's request for equitable tolling
of the statute of limitations at this time.
Plaintiff's motion to distribute the Proposed Notice to this
putative collective is granted in line with the modifications
discussed in this opinion.
The Plaintiff is directed to submit a revised proposed notice for
the Court's approval consistent with this Opinion within 14 days of
the date of issuance.
The Defendants are ordered to provide Plaintiff, in Microsoft Excel
or equivalent format, the names, titles, compensation rates, last
known mailing addresses, email addresses, all known telephone
numbers, and dates of employment for all employees within the
putative collective within 14 days of the date of this Opinion.
Finally, the Court denies Plaintiff's letter motion to compel
discovery) as moot, consistent with the terms of this Opinion
In sum, the Plaintiff and several coworkers reported substantially
similar factual details concerning Defendants' alleged time-shaving
practices. At the conditional certification stage, this is
sufficient to satisfy Plaintiff's modest burden to establish that
putative plaintiffs were subject to a common policy or plan
violative of the FLSA.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him his
full wages due to their unlawful policy of time shaving.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a porter at several of
the Defendants' residential properties from Sept. 2019 to Sept.
2020.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tsnae1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
COMMUNITY CARE: Plaintiffs Seek Distribution of Class Cert Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEH et al v. Community
Care Companions Inc et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01417-JLS-MJR
(W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order that the
Court:
(1) approve the proposed form and manner of distribution of the
Notice of Class Certification, and
(2) order the Defendants to produce a complete list of last
known
addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers for all
members
of the Class within ten days of the Court's order approving
the
Notice.
On Jan. 26, 2023, Judge Sinatra certified a class of:
"All persons employed by CCC as home care workers in the
Western District of New York on or after Oct. 14, 2017 but
on
or before Jan. 3, 2020 (exclusive of any persons who have
filed
an Acceptance of an Offer of Judgment in this action) who
were
not paid wages by CCC within seven (7) calendar days of the
end
of each workweek in which the wages were earned."
The Plaintiffs intend to hire a Class Administrator who will send
the notices by mail and email to all Class members within five
business days after receiving contact information for the Class
members from Defendants. Class members will have approximately 30
days from the date of mailing and emailing to opt out of the Class.
The contents of the proposed Notice satisfy the Rule. The Notice
summarizes in plain language the nature of the pending action and
apprises Class members of the Class definition, the Class claim,
that any Class member may retain their own counsel, that any Class
member may opt out of the Class by advising Plaintiffs' counsel by
mail or email of their wish to do so, and that if they do not
opt-out, they will be bound by any judgment regarding, or
settlement of, the Class claim.
The Defendants have expressed no position on the substance or
proposed manner of distribution of the notice.
Community is a home care and nurse staffing agency specializing in
hourly and live-in care.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RuOmrM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jessica E. Harris, Esq.
GLADSTEIN, REIF & MEGINNISS, LLP
39 Broadway, Suite 2430
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 228-7727
Facsimile: (212) 228-7654
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Novak Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Frank Novak, 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-01202 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-55019-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:
Justin Solomon Nematzadeh, Esq.
NEMATZADEH PLLC
101 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 909
New York, NY 10013
Phone: (646) 799-6729
- and -
Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 545-4669
Fax: (212) 545-4653
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam C. Hemlock, Esq.
David Lender, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES - NEW YORK
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Phone: (212) 310-8000
Fax: (212) 310-8007
Email: adam.hemlock@weil.com
david.lender@weil.com
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Purcell Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Daniel Purcell, Luke Cuddy, Elizabeth Twitchell,
individually and on behalf of all others individually 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-00938 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-55015-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:
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ-CHICAGO
111 West Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 984-0000
Email: malmstrom@whafh.com
- and -
Thomas H. Burt
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 545-4669
Fax: (212) 545-4653
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam C. Hemlock, Esq.
David Lender, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES - NEW YORK
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Phone: (212) 310-8000
Fax: (212) 310-8007
Email: adam.hemlock@weil.com
david.lender@weil.com
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Torres Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Marco A. Torres, 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-01124 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-55018-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:
Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
Meghan Jane Talbot, Esq.
Zachary Pogust, Esq.
POGUST GOODHEAD - CONSHOHOCKEN
161 Washington Street, Ste. 250
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (610) 941-4204
Email: jgittleman@barrack.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Istvan
Roberta D. Liebenberg
Adam J. Pessin
FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK-PHILADELPHIA
1 South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 567-6565
Fax: (215) 568-5872
Email: jistvan@finekaplan.com
rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
apessin@finekaplan.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam C. Hemlock, Esq.
David Lender, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES - NEW YORK
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Phone: (212) 310-8000
Fax: (212) 310-8007
Email: adam.hemlock@weil.com
david.lender@weil.com
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: WFE Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Wilkerson Farms ET, LLC, on behalf of itself and
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-00970 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-55024-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:
Alec Blaine Finley, Jr., Esq.
Christian Hudson, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Phone: (202) 789-3960
- and -
Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA
300 North Tucker Blvd., Ste. 801
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 226-1015
Fax: (202) 789-1813
Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com
CORELOGIC CREDCO: Class Settlement Deal Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCO A. FERNANDEZ,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CORELOGIC CREDCO, LLC., Case No. 3:20-cv-01262-JM-SBC (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Miller entered an order as follows:
1. The court grants final approval of the proposed Settlement
Agreement;
2. Class Members are defined as:
Inaccurate Reporting Class:
"All individuals who were the subject of an OFAC Report that
the Defendant disseminated to a third party from June 3, 2013
through Aug. 28, 2023, where the OFAC Report reported at
least
one hit, match, possible match, or "record for review";
Failure to Disclose Class:
"All individuals (i) who were the subject of an OFAC Report
that
Defendant disseminated to a third party from June 3, 2015
through Aug. 28, 2023, where the OFAC Report reported as
least
one hit, match, possible match or "record for review;" and
(ii)
who made a request to Defendant for their consumer file or
report after such OFAC Report had been disseminated";
Failure to Identify Class:
"All individuals who, from June 3, 2015 to June 30, 2021,
made a
request to the Defendant and to whom the Defendant provided a
consumer file disclosure";
An OFAC Report is a report disseminated by the Defendant
that
included any one of only the following products sold by
Defendant: ProScan OFAC, Bureau OFAC, LoanSafe Fraud Manager,
LoanSafe Risk Manager OFAC, and ProScan ID Index OFAC
Class period is defined as follows: The Inaccurate Reporting
Class and Failure to Disclose Class have a Class Period of
June
3, 2013, through August 28, 2023, whereas the Failure to
Identify Class Period spans from June 3, 2015 to June 30,
2021.
3. This order applies to all claims or causes of action settled
under the Settlement Agreement and binds all Class Members
who
did not affirmatively opt-out of the Settlement Agreement by
submitting a timely and valid Request for Exclusion.
4. The court grants Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees,
costs
and class representative payments. The court grants Class
Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of $14,625,000 and
$851,825.77 in costs from the Settlement Fund. The Settlement
Administrator shall pay Class Counsel from the Settlement
Fund
within ten (10) days of Final Approval of the Settlement, as
set
forth in Paragraph 3.2(b) of the Settlement Agreement;
5. The court grants a class representative award of $20,000 to
Plaintiff Marco A. Fernandez to be paid from the Settlement
Fund.
6. The court approves settlement administrator costs not to
exceed
$2,135,228.00, absent further order of the court.
7. The court Overrules any objections to the Settlement. After
carefully considering each objection, the court concludes
that
neither of the objections create questions as to whether the
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
On June 2, 2020, Plaintiff Marco A. Fernandez filed a putative
class action complaint against Defendant in San Diego Superior
Court alleging a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA).
The Defendant sells consumer reports to mortgage lenders, mortgage
brokers, auto dealers, and other entities seeking to evaluate
consumer creditworthiness.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0DdOMT at no extra
charge.[CC]
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Agrees to Settle Flushable Wipes Suit for $2MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that $2 million in payments are available
from a Costco flushable wipes settlement resolving claims the
products are not flushable as advertised.
The settlement benefits consumers who purchased Kirkland Signature
Moist Flushable Wipes between July 1, 2011, and May 31, 2017.
Despite claims Kirkland wipes were flushable, the plaintiffs claim
flushing them caused damage to pipes, septic systems, sewage lines
and other plumbing. Consumers argue they would not have purchased
the wipes if they knew they were not truly flushable as
advertised.
Costco is a wholesale retailer that sells products under the
Kirkland brand.
Costco hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $2 million
to resolve the false advertising class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Costco flushable wipes settlement, class
members can receive $1.30 per purchased product. Class members will
receive a minimum payment of $7.50 but can claim up to 43 products
for a maximum payment of $55.90. Proof of purchase is not required
to receive these payments.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 9, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Aug.
30, 2024.
To receive Costco flushable wipes settlement payments, class
members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 9, 2024.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who purchased Kirkland Signature Moist Flushable Wipes
between July 1, 2011, and May 31, 2017
Potential Award
$55.90
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Claim Form Deadline
8/9/2024
Case Name
Kurtz v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:14-cv-01142-PKC-RML, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York
Final Hearing
08/30/2024
Settlement Website
CostcoFlushableWipesSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Kurtz v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. Claims Administrator
P.O. Box 301134
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1134
info@CostcoFlushableWipesSettlement.com
Tel: (877) 514-0201
Class Counsel
Vincent M Serra
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 S Service Rd
Melville, NY 11747
Tel: (631) 367-7100
Fax: (631) 367-1173
Defense Counsel
Karl A Bekeny
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
Cleveland, OH 44113-7213
Tel: (216) 592-5000 [GN]
DAVID ALLEN: Fabricant Bid for Default Judgment Nixed w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRY FABRICANT, v. DAVID
ALLEN CAPITAL, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-11111-MFL-EAS (E.D. Mich.),
the Hon. Judge Matthew Leitman entered an order denying without
prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment and the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The Court further ordered that Plaintiff shall serve the Court's
order dated November 20, 2023, titled "Order (1) Granting
Plaintiff's Motion to Strike), (2) Striking Defendant's Motion To
Dismiss, and (3) Directing Defendant To Obtain Counsel", on
Defendant at the following addresses:
David Rutz, Registered Agent for David Allen Capital, Inc., 1015
Troon, Highland, MI 48357
David Allen Capital, Inc., 510 Highland Ave, #411, Milford, MI
48381
David Allen is a provider of capital services catering to business
owners.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JdRDSn at no extra
charge.[CC]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Narrows Claims in Clark Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICARDO CLARK, on behalf
of himself and all similarly situated individuals, et al., v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01564-RDM (D.D.C.),
the Hon. Judge Randolph D. Moss entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for "an immediate injunction."
-- The Defendants' motion to dismiss, is granted as to Counts
I–XV
and denied as to Counts XVI–XX.
-- Counts I–XV are dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiffs
may
file a third amended complaint on or before July 15, 2024.
-- The Defendants' motion in the alternative for partial summary
judgment, is denied as moot.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for discovery, is also denied as moot.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion to strike, is denied.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for an enlargement of time to move for
class certification, is granted, and Plaintiffs shall move for
class certification within 90 days of the filing of a third
amended complaint, if any.
The Court, accordingly, concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to
carry their burden of demonstrating that they are likely to suffer
irreparable injury (under the preliminary injunction standard) or
that the undisputed evidence shows that they will suffer
irreparable injury (under the permanent injunction/summary judgment
standard) absent issuance of an injunction.
The Plaintiffs, eight D.C. firefighters who previously served as
paramedics and emergency medical technicians ("EMTs"), seek
declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief from the District of
Columbia and the District of Columbia Retirement Board ("DCRB"), on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals.
The Plaintiffs challenge the District's failure to include their
prior service as EMTs in the calculation of their FRRF benefits.
They claim that by failing to provide them with this credit, the
District violated two D.C. statutes, D.C. contract and tort law,
and federal antidiscrimination law, 42 U.S.C. section 1981. They
bring thirteen claims (Counts I–XIII) on behalf of all eight
named plaintiffs and a putative class, and they bring a "collective
claim" of disparate treatment under Section 1981 (Count XIV) on
behalf of all plaintiffs, except Mark Baker. The Plaintiffs Michael
Timmons and Melissa Turner also bring individual discrimination
claims pursuant to Section 1981, Title VII, and the D.C. Human
Rights Act (Counts XV–XX).
District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River,
bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mI22ne at no extra
charge.[CC]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Briefing
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAKEL BARNES et al., v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00750-RCL (D.D.C.),
the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order to stay briefing on
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification pending resolution of
the Bureau's forthcoming motion to dismiss.
Should the Court decline to stay the Bureau's response deadline,
alternatively it moves for an extension of time until Sept. 26,
2024, to file its opposition, the Defendants said.
The Bureau intends to move to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), grounds that would
dispose of the entirety of claims against the Bureau. As such, in
the interest of judicial economy and to avoid the expenditure of
resources, the Bureau moves to stay its response deadline to
Plaintiffs' motion pending a ruling on the Bureau’s motion to
dismiss.
The Bureau intends to move to dismiss this action against it in
whole, believing that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their
claims, which would render this Court without subject matter
jurisdiction
District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River,
bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TVwMzr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew M. Graves, Esq.
Brian P. Hudak, Esq.
Brenda Gonzalez Horowitz, Esq.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS' OFFICES
Assistant United States Attorney
601 D Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 252-2512
DREAMLAND BABY: Faces Muse Suit Over Weighted Sleep Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Haley Muse, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dreamland Baby Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-03763-AGT (
N.D. Cal., June 24, 2024) sues the Defendant for unfair, deceptive
and/or fraudulent business practices relating to weighted sleep
products.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other consumers who
purchased the Products have suffered an injury in fact,
ascertainable loss of money and/or property and/or loss in value.
The alleged unfair and deceptive trade practices committed by
Defendant were conducted in a manner giving rise to substantial
aggravating circumstances. But for Defendant's many
misrepresentations and omissions concerning the Products' safety,
Plaintiff and Class members would not have purchased the Products.
The Dreamland Baby Company manufactures, markets, and sells
weighted sleep products for infants and toddlers, including
blankets, swaddles, and "sleep sacks." Dreamland's Products were
unique when first brought to market. The Products are significantly
heavier than traditional infant bedding and sleep aids (for
example, the weighted blanket weighs 4 pounds) due to beads sewn
into the Products’ fabric and purportedly distributed evenly
throughout. Dreamland began to mass-market its weighted sleep sack
in 2020, and introduced the weighted blanket and weighted swaddle
not long thereafter, though copycats soon followed, says the suit.
Dreamland claims on product packaging and in product marketing that
the Products reduce infants' stress and increase their relaxation,
thereby inducing longer and deeper sleep, because the Products'
added weight provides "deep touch stimulation" that relaxes the
nervous system by simulating the feeling of being embraced.
Dreamland contends it "enlisted the help of professionals in the
field of sleep, medicine, infant care, and occupational therapy to
provide us with their expert guidance and ensure that we continue
to deliver safe, effective products that meet the highest quality
standards!" It leverages its safety claims, which are material to
any reasonable purchaser, across marketing channels and on product
packaging, on which Dreamland uniformly claims the Products are
"Safety Certified” and "Doctor Approved."
Despite Dreamland's claims, however, the medical community has for
some time expressed concern over the use of the Products. Beyond
doubts concerning the Products' efficacy and performance, many
medical experts assert the Products and others like them are
downright dangerous, the suit alleges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arthur Bryant, Esq.
Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 272-8000
Facsimile: (510) 463-0291
E-mail: abryant@baileyglasser.com
bcohen@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Nyran R. Rasche, Esq.
Alex Lee, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
& SPRENGEL LLP
135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
E-mail: nrasche@caffertyclobes.com
alee@caffertyclobes.com
EXPRESS WASH: Curry Faces Over Deceptive Automatic Renewal Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH CURRY, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons v. EXPRESS WASH OPERATIONS, LLC, d/b/a WHISTLE
EXPRESS CAR WASH, Case No. 1:24-cv-00178 (W.D.N.C., June 24, 2024)
is a putative class action filed against the Defendant for engaging
in an illegal and deceptive "automatic renewal" scheme with regards
to the sale of car washes and subscriptions to a monthly "Wash
Club" at its location in Murphy, North Carolina.
According to the complaint, unbeknownst to customers, to purchase a
car wash, the touchscreen kiosk first requires them to choose a
wash that automatically signs them up for the Defendant's monthly
"Wash Club" but does not disclose the enrollment. Consumers cannot
purchase a single wash without first choosing a monthly
subscription plan, and then opting out on a subsequent kiosk
screen. Further, the way subscriptions to the Defendant's monthly
"Wash Club" are sold at its Murphy location violates North Carolina
consumer protection laws governing contracts with automatic renewal
clauses, says the suit.
The Defendant fails to make disclosures and notices required for
automatic renewals under North Carolina law, including, but not
limited to, clear and conspicuous notices of the renewal,
directions to consumers as to how to cancel the automatic renewal
and notice that the automatic renewal is twice the price of the
initial wash. No terms and conditions of any automatic renewal are
adequately communicated to consumers at the time of purchase, as
required by North Carolina law, the suit added.
Plaintiff, Kenneth Curry, while traveling in the State of North
Carolina, purchased a single car wash at the Whistle Express Car
Wash in Murphy, Cherokee County, North Carolina, and was later
subjected to multiple additional double monthly charges on his
credit card following his visit to the business in the following
months. He files this class action complaint on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated North Carolina consumers of the
Whistle Express in Murphy, North Carolina for violations of North
Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The Defendant operates a facility doing business as Whistle Express
Car Wash in Murphy, North Carolina where consumers can purchase a
wash to clean the exterior, and in some cases, the interior of
their vehicle.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelly A. Stevens, Esq.
Aaron C. Hemmings, Esq.
HEMMINGS & STEVENS, P.L.L.C
5540 McNeely Drive, Suite 202
Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone: (919) 277-0161
Facsimile: (919) 277-0162
E-mail: kstevens@hemmingsandstevens.com
ahemmings@hemmingsandstevens.com
FACEBOOK INC: Class Cert Hearings Continued to Sept. 26
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Klein, et al., v.
Facebook, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-08570 (N.D. Cal., Filed Dec. 3,
2020), Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order continuing class
certification hearings set for July 25, 2024, to Sept. 26, 2024, at
10:00 a.m.
The nature of suit states antitrust litigation.
Meta Platforms, Inc., doing business as Meta, and formerly named
Facebook, Inc., and The Facebook, Inc., is an American
multinational technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park,
California.[CC]
FCA US: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Maugain
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ETIENNE MAUGAIN, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FCA
US LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00116-JLH (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge
Jennifer Hall entered an order modifying as the Scheduling Order as
follows:
Event Current New
Deadline Deadline
(D.I. 88)
Fact Discovery Closes Aug. 1, 2024 Jan. 31, 2025
Expert disclosures due from Oct. 30, 2024 April 30,
2025
party w/ initial BOP on subj
matter
Rebuttal Expert disclosures due Jan. 31, 2025 July 31, 2025
Reply Expert disclosures due, Mar. 28, 2025 Sept. 29,
2025
and deadline for any motion for
class certification
Expert discovery cutoff Apr. 25, 2025 Oct. 27, 2025
Deadline for any opposition May 30, 2025 Dec. 1, 2025
to a motion for class
certification
Deadline for case dispositive May 30, 2025 Dec. 1, 2025
motions (other than motions
for summary judgment) and
Daubert motions
Deadline for any reply in June 30, 2025 Dec. 30,
2025
support of a motion for
class certification
FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q4Bl9A at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kelly A. Green, Esq.
Jason Z. Miller, Esq.
SMITH, KATZENSTEIN &
JENKINS, LLP
1000 N. West Street, Suite 1501
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 504-1656
Facsimile: (302) 652-8405
E-mail: kag@skjlaw.com
jzm@skjlaw.com
- and -
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
Abigail Gertner, Esq.
Amey J. Park, Esq.
Natalie Lesser, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: rpaul@bm.net
agertner@bm.net
apark@bm.net
nlesser@bm.net
- and -
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Laura Goolsby, Esq.
Nathan N. Kiyam, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
Nate.Kiyam@capstonelawyers.com
- and -
Steven Calamusa, Esq.
Geoff Stahl, Esq.
Rachel Bentley, Esq.
GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A.
4114 Northlake Blvd.,
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Telephone: (561) 799-5070
Facsimile: (561) 799-4050
E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com
gstahl@fortheinjured.com
rbentley@fortheinjured.com
- and -
Theodore Leopold, Esq.
Blake R. Miller, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
11780 U.S. Highway One, Suite N500
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408
Telephone: (561) 515-1400
Facsimile: (561) 515-1401
E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com
brmiller@cohenmilstein.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Patrick M. Brannigan, Esq.
Jessica L. Reno, Esq.
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN &
MELLOTT, LLC
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 700
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 574-7400
E-mail: pbrannigan@eckertseamans.com
jreno@eckertseamans.com
- and -
Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq.
Scott H. Morgan, Esq.
KLEIN THOMAS LEE AND FRESARD
100 N. Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 888-2970
E-mail: steve.daunoy@kleinthomaslaw.com
scott.morgan@kleinthomaslaw.com
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: MacDermott Class Status Bid Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Troy Nicholas MacDermott,
v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al., Case No.
0:24-cv-01984-JMB-DTS (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge David T. Schultz
entered an order:
1. Each defendant upon whom service of process is properly
effected
will be required to file an answer or other responsive
pleading,
notwithstanding the provisions of 42 U.S.C. section 1997e(g).
2. Plaintiff Troy Nicholas MacDermott is responsible for
effecting
service of process in this matter.
3. To the extent that Plaintiff MacDermott requests appointment
of
counsel, that request is denied without prejudice.
The court recommends that:
1. Plaintiff Troy Nicholas MacDermott's Motion to Certify Class
is
denied without prejudice as premature.
2. Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Class Counsel is denied without
prejudice as premature.
Accordingly, to the extent MacDermott requests that this Court
appoint him counsel, that request is denied at this time.
MacDermott may submit a motion for appointment of counsel should
circumstances change.
The Plaintiff MacDermott, a federal prisoner, contends that the
policy of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to provide video visitation
services to female prisoners but not to similarly situated male
prisoners constitutes unconstitutional gender discrimination.
Federal Bureau of Prisons provides for the care, custody, and
control of federal prisoners.
A copy of the Court's order and report and recommendation dated
June 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lTxMjF at no extra charge.[CC]
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Macci Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
-------------------------------------------------------------
PETER MACCI, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
the Class, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-04325 (E.D.N.Y., June 18, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that he and FLSA Collective Members are
entitled to recover damages from Defendants based on the following
violations: (1) unpaid overtime wages due to commonly-applicable
policies of time-shaving and unpaid off-the-clock work, (2) unpaid
regular and overtime wages due to commonly-applicable policies of
time-shaving and unpaid off-the-clock work, (3) statutory penalties
for failing to provide wage notices, (4) statutory penalties for
failing to provide wage statements, (5) liquidated damages, and (6)
attorney's fees and costs.
The Plaintiff further alleges that, in violation of the New York
State Human Rights Law, FedEx Express (1) subjected Plaintiff to
discrimination and a hostile work environment based on Plaintiff's
actual and/or perceived disability status, (2) failed to
accommodate Plaintiff's disability, (3) retaliated against
Plaintiff for engaging in protected activity, and (4) wrongfully
terminated Plaintiff from his position due to unlawful
discriminatory and retaliatory animus.
The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Nassau County, New York. From
1997 until his unlawful discharge in approximately June 2022, he
was employed by FedEx Express in exclusively driving roles.
Federal Express Corporation is an express transportation company
with headquarters in Memphis, TN.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Taimur Alamgir, Esq.
TA LEGAL GROUP PLLC
315 Main Street, Second Floor
Huntington, NY 11743
Telephone: (914) 552-2669
E-mail: tim@talegalgroup.com
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Pratt Sues Over Unauthorized Info Access
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES PRATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS PARENT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01516-K (N.D. Tex., June 18, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of
fiduciary duty, and intrusion upon seclusion/invasion of privacy.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its
computer systems following a data breach on April 14, 2024. The
Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the
private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Frontier Communications Parent, Inc. is a telecommunication company
based in Austin, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
FUTUREFUEL CORP: Faces Wilkinson Class Suit Stock Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------
KAMIL WILKINSON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FUTUREFUEL CORP., TOM MCKINLAY, and ROSE M. SPARKS,
Case No. 4:24-cv-00881-SPM (E.D. Mo., June 24, 2024) is a class
action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded FutureFuel
securities between August 10, 2023, and May 10, 2024, inclusive,
seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendant's
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On March 14, 2024, the Company filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission its annual report on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2023. Attached to the 2023 Annual Report were
certifications pursuant to SOX signed by Defendants McKinlay and
Sparks attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the
disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal
control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud.
The statement was materially false and misleading at the time it
was made because the Company lacked effective internal controls.
On this news, the price of FutureFuel stock declined by $0.09, or
1.6%, to close at $5.50 on May 10, 2024. It then fell a further
$0.47, or 8.54%, to close at $5.03 on May 13, 2024. It declined by
a further $0.06, or 1.19%, to close at $4.97 on May 14. 2024, says
the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
common shares, Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
The Defendant FutureFuel describes itself as "a Delaware
corporation, and, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, FutureFuel
Chemical Company, manufactures diversified chemical products,
bio-based fuel products, and bio-based specialty chemical
products."
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: philkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
- and -
J. Christopher Wehrle, Esq.
WEHRLE LAW LLC
2601 S. Hanley Rd.
St. Louis, MO 63144
Telephone: (314) 272-4113
Facsimile: (314) 272-4107
E-mail: chris@wehrlelaw.com
G.A.T. AIRLINE: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against G.A.T. AIRLINE GROUND
SUPPORT, INC., et al. The case is styled as Jesus Herrera Gonzalez,
on behalf of himself and, all others similarly situated, and the
general public v. G.A.T. AIRLINE GROUND SUPPORT, INC., Does 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. CGC24614549 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., May 9, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
GAT Airline Ground Support -- https://wearegat.net/ -- has been
providing quality airline ground, passenger, and cargo support
services for more than 40 Years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David G. Spivak, Esq.
THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
16530 Ventura Blvd, Ste. 203
Encino, CA 91436-4535
Phone: 818-582-3086
Fax: 818-582-2561
Email: david@spivaklaw.com
GN TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Filing in Lee Continued to August 19
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCAS LEE, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. GN TRANSPORTATION
LLC, a Wisconsin corporation; CJ LOGISTICS AMERICA, LLC, a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
2:23-cv-04704-FMO-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin
entered an order continuing the deadline to file class
certification and granting preliminary approval of settlement
agreement and defendants' supporting brief the court:
-- The deadline to file the Motion for Class Certification and
Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement, Defendants'
optional
Brief in Support of the Motion for Preliminary Approval, and
all
corresponding deadlines shall be continued approximately 60
days
to: August 19, 2024, in order to allow the Parties time to file
the amended complaint and execute the long-form settlement
agreement.
GN provides a wide range of transportation and logistics services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BPtroU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Isandra Y. Fernandez, Esq.
Anthony L. Draper, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
anthony@jameshawkinsaplc.com
isandra@jameshawkinsaplc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Elaine Kim, Esq.
Emma Luevano, Esq.
Te'Aira Law, Esq.
MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (312) 222-0800
Facsimile: (312) 222-0818
E-mail: ekk@msk.com
eyl@msk.com
tla@msk.com
GOBRANDS INC: Silva Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gobrands, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Ashley Silva, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as
aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act
v. Apple, Inc., Case No. CGC24614662 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., May 14, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
GoBrands Inc., doing business as GoPuff -- https://www.gopuff.com/
-- is a provider of online retail and delivery services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
THE BAINER LAW FIRM
1999 Harrison St., Suite 1800
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: 510-922-1802
Email: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com
GOLDEN STATE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Continued to July 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leticia Romero v. Golden
State Supply LLC et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-10578-MCS-AS (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Mark Scarsi entered an order that:
-- The deadline to move for class certification is continued to
July
1, 2024.
-- The deadline to oppose the motion is continued to July 15,
2024.
-- The deadline to file a reply in support of the motion is
continued
to July 29, 2024.
-- The balance of the case schedule remains in place, and no
further
extensions will be granted absent an extraordinary showing of
good
cause Golden State is an automotive parts retailer.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g4t6Wj at no extra
charge.[CC]
GROUP 2029: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Williams Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Williams v. Group 2029
Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01146-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
entered an order Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing
order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DUDDw1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
GROUP HEALTH: Jenich Suit Removed to W.D. Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gabriella Jenich and Margaret Hetzler,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Case No. 2024
CV 001081 was removed from the Dane County Circuit Court, State of
Wisconsin, to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin on May 10, 2024, and assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-00312-jdp.
The Complaint alleges the following counts: Negligence (Class
Members against GHC); Negligence Per Se (Class Members against
GHC); Breach of Implied Contract (Class Members against GHC);
Unjust Enrichment (Class Members against GHC); and Invasion of
Privacy (Class Members against GHC).[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Thomas P. Heneghan, Esq.
Jacob B. Harris, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
33 East Main Street, Suite 300
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: 608.255.4440
Fax: 608.258.7138
Email: Tom.Heneghan@huschblackwell.com
jacob.harris@huschblackwell.com
H & R ACCOUNTS: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Daniels Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniels v. H & R Accounts
Inc, Case No. 4:24-cv-04076-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
entered an order Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing
order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
H & R provides financial services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aze8C8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
HCA HEALTHCARE: Wingo Suit Removed From State Court to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAN WINGO and DEVON WINGO, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. HCA HEALTHCARE MARKETING AND CORPORATE
AFFAIRS, LLC d/b/a HCA HEALTHCARE, a Florida limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2304180
(Filed Aug. 13, 2023) was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, Riverside County, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on June 24,
2024.
The C.D. Cal. Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01317 to the
proceeding.
The Complaint alleges a proposed class whose numbers far exceed
100. According to the Complaint, the proposed class is defined as
"all patients of [HCA] who received treatment at one of [HCA]'s
hospital, satellite, or urgent care locations and whose personal
medical information were released to third parties without
authorization."
The proposed class does not contain any geographic limits and
expressly encompasses "millions of persons." The data breach
"includes information for approximately 11 million HCA Healthcare
patients."
The Defendant is represented by:
Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 391-0600
Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
E-mail: melanie.blunschi@lw.com
HENRY FORD: Class Settlement in Pelt Suit Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pelt v. Henry Ford Health
System (RE: HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM DATA SECURITY LITIGATION),
Case No. 2:23-cv-11736-GAD-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge
Gershwin Drain entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement and providing
notice.
The Court conditionally certifies the following class pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3:
"All natural persons who are residents of the United States and
who
were mailed written notification by Henry Ford that their
Personal
Information was accessed, viewed, and/or obtained by an
unauthorized party as a result of the Data Security Incident
which
occurred on or about March 30, 2023."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Defendant and its
respective officers and directors; (ii) all Settlement Class
Members who timely and validly request exclusion from the
Settlement Class; (iii) the Judge assigned to evaluate the
fairness
of this settlement; and (iv) any other Person found by a court
of
competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of
initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity
occurrence of the Data Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to
any such charge.
The Court provisionally appoints The Miller Law Firm P.C. as
Settlement Class Counsel, having determined that the requirements
of Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are fully
satisfied by this appointment.
The Court appoints Briana Tabbs, Latricia Pelt, Brandi McKenzie,
and David King as the Class Representatives for settlement purposes
only on behalf of the Settlement Class.
Henry Ford is a leading health care and medical services provider.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=miFZEA at no extra
charge.[CC]
HIGHCAPE CAPITAL: Farzad Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HIGHCAPE CAPITAL, LP,
et al. case is styled as Michael Farzad, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. HIGHCAPE CAPITAL, LP, HIGHCAPE
CAPITAL ACQUISITION LLC, KEVIN RAKIN, MATT ZUGA, DAVID COLPMAN,
ROBERT TAUB, ANTONY LOEBEL, JONATHAN M. ROTHBERG, and FORESITE
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2024-0524-LWW (Del. Chancery Ct.,
May 16, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."
HighCape Partners Management, L.P. -- https://www.highcape.com/ --
provides financial services. The Company offers investment
advisory, retirement planning, estate planning, tax management, and
account consolidation services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Barry, Esq.
Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
123 S. Justison Street, 7th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 622-7000
HOLIDAY INN CLUB: Lingard Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELIQUE L. LINGARD and
SUDARIEN D. SMITH, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. HOLIDAY INN CLUB VACATIONS, INC. f/k/a
ORANGE LAKE COUNTRY CLUB, INC. and WILSON RESORT FINANCE, LLC, Case
No. 6:23-cv-00323-JSS-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order granting the motion for class certification and
appointing class counsel.
The Court said that granting certification will ensure that the
rights of all affected servicemembers are protected, and that
justice is served in a manner befitting the sacrifices made by
those who serve our country.
-- First, Plaintiff's address the class claims advanced in this
lawsuit.
-- Second, Plaintiffs propose class definitions and show that
membership is ascertainable.
-- Finally, Plaintiffs demonstrate that the requirements for
certification under Rule 23(a) and 23(b) are met.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they can identify
the total amounts paid on each timeshare loan within the Class as
these are tracked by HICV.
Thus, damages for each Covered Borrower can be easily calculated
after liability has been determined. While this may require
individual calculations taken from Excell spreadsheets, such
calculations can be made through the use of readily available
software. Thus, there are no manageability issues that would
preclude trial on a classwide basis.
The Plaintiffs Lingard and Smith, are active-duty members of the
United States Air Force seeking to represent a class of
servicemembers and their dependents under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.
The Plaintiffs allege continuing harms flowing from outstanding
predatory timeshare loans reported as delinquent, but which were
void from inception under the Military Lending Act ("MLA").
The Defendants have systematically violated the MLA by extending
loans which include statutorily prohibited provisions, reporting
those unlawful debts as valid, and jeopardizing the financial
stability and security clearances of our nation's servicemembers as
well as our nation’s military readiness. This motion seeks to
address these widespread violations through a unified, efficient
class action challenging the agreements to end the threats which
the Class faces as a result of the statutorily void agreements.
Both Plaintiffs suffer from great anxiety and stress due to their
inability to pay these debts and live in constant fear that these
debts will cause them to lose their security clearances and/or to
be terminated from the military.
The Plaintiffs propose certification of the following Class and
Subclass:
-- MLA Class:
"All persons who have entered into Timeshare Purchase
Agreements
to purchase one or more timeshare interests in the Orange Lake
Revocable Trust, in substantially the same form as Exhibit C,
after Feb. 24, 2018 and who were identified as an active duty
servicemember or a dependent within a DoD ManPower database on
the
contract date."
-- Default Subclass:
"All members of the MLA Class whose accounts are or were
delinquent as evidenced by HICV imposing a "use restriction" on
their timeshare interest for nonpayment."
Holiday Inn provides leisure club services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 26, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UC1DdA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
Christopher J. Brochu, Esq.
Pamela G. Levinson, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Newsome, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
E-mail: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
cbrochu@vandwlaw.com
IGN ENTERTAINMENT: Joseph Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE JOSEPH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IGN ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-11579 (D. Mass., June 18, 2024) is a class action suit
brought against the Defendant for violations of the Video Privacy
Protection Act.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and members of the Class, the Defendant
allegedly discloses the titles and URLs of the videos that
Plaintiff and Class Members view on Defendant's platform, along
with consumers' e-mail addresses and user IDs, to piano.io, an
unrelated third party.
In addition, the Defendant discloses a user's unique user ID, which
Defendant calls a "uid," to Piano. The user's "uid" is a unique
string of letters, numbers, and hyphens that helps Defendant and
Piano identify a specific user, says the suit.
IGN Entertainment, Inc. owns and operates a website entitled
ign.com which provides reviews of and news about video games,
television shows, comics, movies, and technology.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Reardon, Jr.
REARDON SCANLON LLP
45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 955-9455
Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com
- and -
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Victoria 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: ykopel@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
vzhou@bursor.com
INDIAN HILL: RLK Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Students
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as R.L.K., by her next
friends, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. INDIAN HILL EXEMPTED VILLAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Case No.
1:23-cv-00171-JPH (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying the civil action as a Class Action under
Civil Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2).
The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following Class:
"Defendant's current and former students within the four years
preceding the filing of this Complaint: (a) between the ages of
five and twenty-two years old; (b) who suffer[] or suffered from
one more qualifying disability that substantially affects or
affected one or more major life activity; (c) who are or were
entitled to one or more accommodations; and (d) to whom
Defendant
has denied accommodations pursuant to a uniformly applied
official
policy or policies, an unofficial yet well-defined practice or
practices, or a common mode of exercising discretion to deny the
same."
In Aug. 2020, the Plaintiff's Parents attempted to persuade the
Defendant to restart the 504 Plan assessment process to no avail,
despite Plaintiff's worsening anxiety, and by the spring of 2021,
the Plaintiff was skipping math class to the point that they opted
to hold her out of state-wide testing.
In September 2021, Plaintiff's ADD symptoms worsened and her math
scores declined further.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has acted under a common
mode, policy, or procedure to deprive her and the class of their
rights under Section 504 and Title II.
The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant deliberately
withholds accommodations when Ms. Leppert doesn't "suspect
disability" because it simply doesn't want to grant
accommodations.
The Plaintiff filed her Class Action Complaint against Indian Hill
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated on March 26,
2023. At the Clerk’s instruction, Plaintiff filed a redacted
Complaint on August 2, 2023.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ylsxmi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Whittaker, Esq.
WHITTAKER LAW, LLC
2055 Reading Road, Suite 260
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 457-5545
Facsimile: (513) 457-5544
E-mail: ustin@WhittakerLawFirm.com
IONIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Venegas Sues Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Venegas, individually, and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees v. IONIS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; INSIGHT GLOBAL,
LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV12702 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 16, 2024), is brought to recover
damages on behalf of Plaintiff and all current and former
hourly-paid and/or non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants
in the State of California at any time during the period from four
years prior to the date of the filing of this Complaint through
final judgment.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants hired Plaintiff and Class
Members but, among other things, failed to properly pay them all
wages owed for all time worked (including minimum wages, straight
time wages, and overtime wages), failed to provide them with all
meal periods and rest periods and associated premium wages to which
they were entitled, failed to timely pay them all wages due during
their employment, failed to timely pay them all wages due upon
termination of their employment, failed to provide them with
accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to reimburse them for
necessary business expenses. As a result, Defendants violated,
inter alia, California Labor Code and the applicable Industrial
Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order. Through this action,
Plaintiff seeks to recover all available remedies including but not
limited to actual and liquidated damages and attorney's fees and
costs, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from September 2023 through
February 2024 as a Facility Technician.
IONIS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. was and is, an employer who does
business in California, with locations throughout the State of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
Barbara DuVan-Clarke, Esq.
Alexander K. Spellman, Esq.
P.J. Van Ert, Esq.
Annabel F. Blanchard, Esq.
BLACKSTONE LAW, APC
8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 622-4278
Facsimile: (855) 786-6356
Email: BDC@blackstonepc.com
aspellman@blackstonepc.com
pjvanert@blackstonepc.com
ablanchard@blackstonepc.com
JACKSON HEWITT: Court Likely to Initially Approve Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jessica Robinson, et al.,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Jackson
Hewitt, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-09066-MEF-JRA (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Michael Farbiarz will likely grant motion for
preliminary approval of a proposed settlement and preliminary
certification of a settlement class.
Soon after the motion was made, the Court posed certain questions,
at a status conference. Following the status conference, the
Plaintiffs submitted revised materials. These address the Court's
main questions in a satisfactory manner.
The motion is therefore likely to be granted, pending the
Plaintiffs addressing a loose end.
Jackson Hewitt provides legal services.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated June 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=65XQIA at no extra
charge.[CC]
JAMES JUSTICE: Plaintiffs' Request for Admission Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS SHEPPHEARD, TYLER
RANDALL, and ADAM PERRY, next friend and guardian of Minor child
J.P., on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. JAMES C. JUSTICE, his official capacity as Governor of
the State of West Virginia, and MARK SORSAIA, in his official
capacity as The Cabinet Secretary of the West Virginia Department
of Homeland Security, Case No. 5:23-cv-00530 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon.
Judge Cheryl Eifert entered an order:
-- granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Motions to
Compel;
-- denying the Plaintiffs' Motions to Deem Requests for Admission
Admitted; and
-- granting Defendant Sorsaia's Motion for Protective Order.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion
and Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
The Court finds that these discovery requests are premature and
disproportional to the needs of the case. Therefore, Plaintiffs'
motion to compel additional responses is DENIED at this time.
As the Court explained at the discovery hearings, the requests for
admission posed by Plaintiffs contain numerous requests for legal
opinions independent of any factual context. These requests for
admission did not achieve that goal. Therefore, the Court DENIES
Plaintiffs' Motions to Deem Admitted Defendants' Responses to
Requests for Admission.
The case is a putative class action filed by Plaintiffs, who were
inmates housed in facilities owned and operated by the West
Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Plaintiffs complain that West Virginia's correctional
facilities—including its prisons, jails, and juvenile centers—
have been chronically overcrowded, understaffed, and improperly
maintained for more than a decade.
On January 25, 2024, Plaintiffs served Defendants with nearly
identical interrogatories, requests for production of documents,
and requests for admission.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KVcJRc at no extra
charge.[CC]
JEWISH GENERAL: Faces Class Suit Over Sexual Assaults in Children
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Serebrin of Montreal Gazette reports that two workers at the
Jewish General Hospital are alleged to have sexually abused a young
child in the early 1980s and probably harmed others, according to a
proposed class action lawsuit filed against the hospital in June.
The proposed suit alleges the boy, identified as C.K., suffered
violent sexual assaults while he was between the ages of six and
eight and attended a day program in the hospital's child psychiatry
division.
Jessica Lelievre, the lawyer representing C.K., said because of the
number of children who attended child psychiatry programs, it's
likely the two men, Gino Londei and Steve Trowbridge, had other
victims.
"It's unclear at this stage how many people might have suffered
such abuse, but we do know that the two workers that abused C.K.
abused him on multiple occasions and we know that there was a large
pool of young children available to those men. In all likelihood,
we believe that there are more victims," Lelievre, who is with the
firm Trudel Johnston & Lespérance, said in an interview.
C.K. was six in 1981 when he began attending the day program,
according to the application to have the class action authorized.
He alleges the two men sexually assaulted him in a room where toys
used as motivational prizes were stored and in a "timeout" room
where children would be locked if one of the workers decided they
were misbehaving.
The alleged abuse involved incidents of both physical and sexual
violence.
On one occasion, Trowbridge is alleged to have told C.K. he could
have a rubber ball if he touched his penis, according to the court
document.
"C.K. had already seen Trowbridge's penis at this point. He went to
touch it quickly, but the adult took C.K.'s hand and forced him to
stroke his penis," the application reads. "C.K. remembers that
after this assault, he felt guilty and disgusted about having the
rubber ball."
Londei is alleged to have sexually assaulted C.K. in a "timeout"
room on multiple occasions. On one of those occasions, Londei is
alleged to have violently forced the child into the room before
assaulting him.
"He applied a forceful blow to C.K.'s abdomen. The blow was so
intense that it caused C.K. to stop breathing momentarily. While
the child was startled and out of breath, Londei pushed C.K. down
onto a mat, pulled his pants down and forced anal intercourse upon
him," the court document alleges. "To this day, C.K. remembers
vividly the pain he experienced. He remembers that he was
breathless, terrified and could not scream for help."
According to the filing, C.K. threw out his bloody underwear after
the alleged rape so his parents wouldn't see it.
The proposed suit states C.K. "developed low self-esteem, anxiety,
depression and an inability to trust people" as a result of the
alleged abuse.
While C.K. didn't see other children being assaulted, according to
the court document, he did see the men take other children to the
rooms where he was abused.
Lelievre said the lawsuit -- which must be approved by a judge
before it can move forward -- is being brought against the hospital
because the workers took advantage of the authority it gave them
and because she understands that the two men alleged to have
committed the abuse have since died.
"The hospital has a responsibility and can be held liable in such a
case. They were the employer of those two men. They also created
the environment through which it was possible for this to happen,"
Lelievre said.
The regional health authority that administers the hospital, the
CIUSSS West-Central Montreal, declined to comment on the
allegations or whether it will fight the application to have the
class action authorized because the matter is before the courts.
Lelievre said the hospital has been aware of the allegations for
almost a year.
The suit seeks $250,000 in damages for psychological consequences
of abuse, as well as further damages -- to be determined later --
for financial consequences, such as lost earning potential and
therapy expenses.
It will also seek punitive damages.
Lelievre said she hopes other alleged victims of the two men will
come forward, adding that any communications with her office about
allegations of sexual abuse are confidential and protected by
attorney-client privilege.
"It's very hard to come forward and denounce abuses suffered, and I
think that for someone to know that you're not alone is just an
incredible tool to help heal from that, and to help bring justice,"
she said. [GN]
JM SMUCKER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jeruchim Due Oct. 29
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA JERUCHIM and
MELISSA VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY and POST CONSUMER BRANDS,
LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-06913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William
Orrick entered an order extending litigation schedule:
1. The Parties' joint case management statement will remain due
by
Oct. 8, 2024.
2. The Case Management Conference will remain set for Oct. 15,
2024
at 2:00 p.m.
3. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification will be due by
Oct.
29, 2024.
4. Defendants' Opposition will be due by Jan. 7, 2025.
5. Plaintiffs' Reply will be due by Feb. 20, 2025.
6. The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
will
be reset to March 17, 2025 at 2:00 p.m.
7. Fact discovery cutoff will be April 22, 2025.
8. Expert disclosure will be May 19, 2025.
9. Expert rebuttal will be July 8, 2025.
10. Expert discovery cutoff will be August 5, 2025.
J.M. Smucker is an American manufacturer of food and beverage
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uYIGex at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Emily A. Horne, Esq.
Jonathan L. Wolloch, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
ehorne@bursor.com
jwolloch@bursor.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael J. Ruttinger, Esq.
Ethan W. Weber, Esq.
Bart L. Kessel, Esq.
Anna-Sophie Tirre, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 592-5000
E-mail: michael.ruttinger@tuckerellis.com
ethan.weber@tuckerellis.com
bart.kessel@tuckerellis.com
anna-sophie.tirre@tuckerellis.com
JOHN DOE: Must File Bids Contesting Subpoena
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, v.
JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP address 74.71.233.196, Case No.
1:24-cv-04126-AKH-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Cave entered
an order that:
1. Strike 3 may serve the Subpoena immediately on Spectrum, the
Internet Service Provider ("ISP") identified in the Request,
to
obtain the name and current and/or permanent address of the
John
Doe subscriber associated with the IP address 74.71.233.196.
Strike 3 shall not request any additional information,
including, but not limited to, email address or telephone
number.
2. Spectrum will have 60 days from the date of service of the
Subpoena to serve John Doe with a copy of the Subpoena,
copies
of this Order and the June 24 Order, and a copy of the
"Notice
to Defendant."
3. John Doe shall have 60 days from the date of service of the
Subpoena to file any motions with this Court contesting the
subpoena (including a motion to quash or modify the
Subpoena),
as well as any request to litigate the subpoena anonymously.
This action has been referred, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A), to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave for general
pretrial management, including scheduling discovery,
non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uvHIRR at no extra
charge.[CC]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Castle Sues Over Deceptive Conduct
-----------------------------------------------------
Mary Jane Castle and Brandi Baldwin-Jones, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and
KENVUE INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-06090-MAS-RLS (D.N.J., May 13, 2024),
is brought against Defendants on behalf of similarly situated
consumers who have purchased the Products which contains
misrepresentations, omissions, and deceptive conduct.
The Defendants' Band-Aid products ("Band-Aid" or "Products") were
invented over a century ago and treat cuts, scrapes, burns, and
other abrasions on the skin. The Defendants' Products' packaging
states that they are made with "stretchable, comfortable fabric"
are "designed to wick away fluids and keep your wound clean" and
that "[f]or best results, apply bandage to clean dry skin. Change
bandage daily, when wet, or more often if needed." The Defendants'
Products' packaging further states that the Products provide
"trusted protected for healing wounds."
However, unbeknownst to consumers, certain Products sold by
Defendants are dangerous, unmerchantable, and unfit for their
intended purpose because they contain per- and polyfluorinated
substances referred to as "PFAS," which epidemiologic and
laboratory studies have shown present dangers to human health, even
when exposure occurs at very low levels.
PFAS exposure has been associated with many serious health
problems, including increased risk of cancer, thyroid disease, high
cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, immunological abnormalities,
developmental and reproductive effects, as well as a number of
other toxicological effects. PFAS chemicals bio accumulate in the
tissue of living organisms, including humans, and once they enter
the human body, it takes a very long time to get rid of them. The
half-life of long-chain PFAS chemicals ranges from three to seven
years.
At no point did Defendants warn or disclose to the Plaintiff that
the Product contained PFAS chemicals. If Defendants had disclosed
that the Product contained PFAS chemicals, she either would not
have bought the Product or would have paid less for the Product. As
a result of Defendants' misrepresentations, omissions, and
deceptive conduct, the Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to
suffer, economic harm. In addition to overpaying for the Product,
the Plaintiff has now had to purchase different bandages. The
Plaintiff would consider purchasing Defendants' Products in the
future if Defendants manufactured the Products to ensure there were
no PFAS chemicals, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has purchased Band-Aid Flexible Fabric Comfortable
Protection Bandages from a retail location in Michigan.
The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell adhesive bandages, in
a variety of shapes, sizes and designs, under the tradename
"Band-Aid" to consumers across the United States, including
Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
Phone: (973) 994-1700
Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
- and -
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Phone: (248) 841-2200
Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
JOY CONE: Class Settlement in Currie Suit Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VINCIEN CURRIE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JOY
CONE CO., Case No. 2:23-cv-00764-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order:
(1) preliminarily approving the settlement;
(2) provisionally certifying the class for settlement purposes
only;
(3) directing notice to be given consistent with Mr. Currie's
notice plan;
(4) appointing Raina C. Borrelli as class counsel;
(5) adopting the opt-out and objections procedures set forth in
the
settlement; and
(6) setting a fairness hearing and associated deadlines.
The Court concludes that the settlement appears to fall within the
range of possible approval. In sum, there being "no obvious
deficiencies" and the settlement "falling within the range of
reason."
On May 9, 2023, Mr. Currie filed a class action complaint asserting
claims of negligence, negligence per se, breach of confidence,
breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, publicity given to
private life, and declaratory judgment. The claims center around a
data breach that occurred on Feb. 27, 2023 at Joy Cone, Mr.
Currie's former employer.
Joy Cone makes ice cream cones and ice cream cone bowls.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated June 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P9UXfk at no extra
charge.[CC]
KATIEJNYC INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Espinal Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. KATIEJNYC, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-04839
(S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://katiejnyc.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant’s corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant’s Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website
available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader
programs, the Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired
individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services
-- all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby, says
the suit.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and
a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA. The
Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to
all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of
blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less
than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this
definition have limited vision. Others have no vision.
The Defendant operates the KatieJNYC online retail store, as well
as the KatieJNYC interactive Website and advertises, markets, and
operates in the State of New York and throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
KROME PLAZA: Faces Pardo Suit Over Inaccessible Parking Spaces
--------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. KROME PLAZA, CORPORATION; TUBA
HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a AGABE FOODS; CATALANA BAKERY CORP d/b/a LA
CATALANA BAKERY & PIZZA; and TARIACURI INC. d/b/a TARIACURU, Case
No. 1:24-cv-22442 (S.D. Fla., June 25, 2024) is brought by the
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals seeking injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 12181 of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Defendant owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property,
its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the
businesses therein, located in Miami Dade County, Florida.
The subject Commercial Property is open to the public. The
individual Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and businesses
located within the commercial property, to include visits to the
Commercial Property and business located within the Commercial
Property on or about April 16, 2024, and encountered multiple
violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and
enjoy the Commercial Property, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff often visits the Commercial Property in order to
avail himself of the goods and services offered there, and because
it is approximately ten miles from his residence and is near other
businesses and restaurants he frequents as a patron. He plans to
return to the Commercial Property within two (2) months of the
filing of this Complaint, in order to avail himself of the goods
and services offered at the place of public accommodation and check
if it has been remediated of the ADA violations he encountered.
The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. He has very limited
use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require
tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. He has lower paraplegia,
inhibits him from walking or otherwise ambulating without the use
of a wheelchair. He is limited in his major life activities by
such, including but not limited to walking, standing, grabbing,
grasping and/or pinching.
The Plaintiff is an individual over 18 years of age, with a
residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise sui
juris.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, Fl 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
E-Mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com
amejias@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
E-Mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com
ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
KRONOS SOLAR: Bird Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kronos Solar, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Daniel Bird, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Kronos Solar, LLC, Packronos,
LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00513-XR (W.D. Tex., May 17, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Kronos Solar -- https://kronos-solar.com/en -- is a leading solar
PV development platform in Germany, France, the Netherlands, and
the United Kingdom.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq.
PERRONG LAW LLC
2657 Mt. Carmel Ave
Glenside, PA 19038
Phone: (215) 225-5529
Fax: (888) 329-0305
Email: a@perronglaw.com
- and -
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW PC
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (617) 485-0018
Fax: (508) 318-8100
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
LASKO PRODUCTS: Completion of Expert Discovery Due Sept. 20
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Velez v. Lasko Products,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08581-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer
Rochon entered an order that Plaintiff must ensure that the heater
is delivered for inspection no later than July 10, 2024.
-- These deadlines will not be extended further absent
particularly
good cause shown. Defendant's deadline to complete expert
disclosures under Rule 26(a)(2) is extended until August 23,
2024.
-- All expert discovery, including expert reports and depositions,
must be completed no later than September 20, 2024. The Court
will
hold a post-discovery conference on October 29, 2024, at 10:00
a.m.
The current deadline to complete expert discovery is June 28, 2024.
Lasko manufactures and distributes ventilating and home comfort
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mffMng at no extra
charge.[CC]
LENOVO INC: Court Dismisses Class Action Over Computer Performance
------------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that the gaming industry is increasingly becoming a
target for consumer class actions, as plaintiffs' attorneys are
scrutinizing the marketing and performance claims of gaming PCs and
accessories. However, gaming companies are not without recourse.
Recent legal decisions demonstrate that courts are willing to
dismiss cases where plaintiffs fail to provide specific facts that
support their allegations. For instance, Judge Paul L. Maloney of
the Western District of Michigan dismissed a putative class action
lawsuit against Lenovo which alleged the computers do not live up
to their advertised performance capabilities for resource-intensive
uses like gaming and graphic design. In dismissing plaintiff's
complaint, Judge Maloney found the plaintiff had "[i]n essence, . .
. strung together some marketing language . . . [to] plead[] fraud
in a deficient manner." Dinwiddie v. Lenovo, Case No. 2:22-cv-00218
(W.D. Mich. March 27, 2024).
Plaintiff alleged the computer had been marketed as having advanced
features like an "Intel Core i5 2.90 GHz processor [that] provides
[a] solid performance" and "a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Super
discrete graphic card for gaming and graphic designing, [to deliver
an] optimal visual experience." Plaintiff alleged these
representations communicated that the computer would "function
reliably, not freeze or crash, and run smoothly during operation
subject to normal use." Plaintiff alleged Lenovo's advertising was
misleading, because he and other users frequently experienced
freezing and crashes when using their computers. He included in his
complaint a handful of anonymous internet posts claiming to be from
people who owned this computer and experienced similar problems.
The Court was unconvinced. Critically, the Court noted that nowhere
did defendant actually promise that the product would "not freeze
or crash," "function reliably," or "run smoothly"; those takeaways
were based on plaintiff's own assumptions. The Court also found
that Lenovo's "solid performance" advertising claim was too general
and vague to maintain a misrepresentation claim. The court
analogized the Plaintiff's claims to those previously dismissed in
Vivar v. Apple Inc., No. 22 Civ. 0347 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2022), a
similar case brought by the same Plaintiff's counsel. There, the
Court dismissed fraud claims that were similarly predicated on
"general advertisements." In Vivar, the Court similarly noted that
while Apple advertised its earbuds as having "up to 9 hours of
listening time," and "powered by the Apple H1 Chip" with "dual
audio control," it never represented that the earbuds would be
defect-free.
This decision serves as an important reminder that theories of
deception grounded only in a plaintiff's unsupported assumptions
are ripe for dismissal. A complaint alleging injury as a result of
purported advertising misrepresentations must be grounded in the
text of the advertising itself. Companies in the gaming industry
facing similar legal challenges can rely on Proskauer's deep
expertise in this sector. Our class action defense team has
significant experience defending gaming companies against claims
related to performance advertising, under both consumer protection
laws and the Lanham Act. We understand the unique challenges of the
gaming market and provide tailored legal strategies to effectively
counter unfounded allegations, ensuring the protection of your
business interests and brand reputation. [GN]
LINCARE HOLDINGS: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Lincare Holdings Inc. Data Breach
Litigation, Case No. 8:22-cv-01472-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Amanda Sansone entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of class action settlement and attorneys' fees and
costs and entering final judgment.
-- The Court certifies class for settlement purposes:
"All individuals in the United States whose PII was stored by
Lincare and potentially disclosed, compromised, or accessed as
result of the cyber-breach or data incident experienced by
Lincare
in Sept. 2021."
-- The Court appoints Plaintiffs Marth Chang, B.B., Ronald Fudge,
Victor Juarez, Cherry Merrell, George Miller, and Lisa Torres
as
class Representatives of the Class.
-- The Court appoints Morgan & Morgan, Strauss Borrelli PLLC, et
al.,
as class counsel.
Lincare is a supplier of respiratory-therapy products and services
for patients in the home.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z2Sao3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
LION STUDIOS: Beveridge Sues Over Unlawful Advertising Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Beveridge, and Anthony Sondergaard, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. LION STUDIOS LLC, Case No.
24CV438995 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., May 14, 2024), is
brought arising from the Defendant's advertising practices on those
games.
The Defendant and its advertising partners target users like
Plaintiffs with advertisements based on their gender and age when
users play Defendant's games. The Unruh Civil Rights Act, however,
prohibits discrimination based on age and gender generally. And
that prohibition applies to platforms—like Defendant—that allow
advertisers to target their customers with ads based on those
customers' gender and age, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff have played Lion Studios' mobile games.
Lion Studios develops mobile video games that its customers play on
their phones and tablets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan K. Weir, Esq.
Thomas R. McCarthy, Esq.
David L. Rosenthal, Esq.
CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC
1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
Arlington, VA 22209
Phone: (703) 243-9423
Email: bryan@consovoymccarthy.com
tom@consovoymccarthy.com
david@consovoymccarthy.com
- and -
Bradley A. Benbrook, Esq.
Stephen M. Duvernay, Esq.
BENBROOK LAW GROUP PC
701 University Avenue, Suite 106
Sacramento, CA 95825
Phone: (916) 447-4900
Email: brad@benbrooklawgroup.com
steve@benbrooklawgroup.com
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to July 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMMY NEWMAN and ANTONIO
RINCON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al. Case No. 2:22-cv-03467-CAS-PD (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Christina Synder entered an order amending
class scheduling order as follows:
-- Last day to file motion for class July 29,
2024
certification:
-- Deadline to file oppositions to Aug. 19,
2024
Motion for class certification:
-- Deadline to file reply papers in Aug. 26,
2024
Support of motion for class
Certification:
-- Class certification hearing: Sept.
9,2024a
A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aHoIyY at no extra
charge.[CC]
LOS ANGELES, CA: Plaintiffs Seek Relief to File Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BREONNAH FITZPATRICK, and
CHRISTOPHER OFFICER, individuals and as class representatives, v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-06841-JGB-SP (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on July 22, 2024, for an
order granting the Plaintiffs relief to file Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification on grounds of excusable neglect and decide on
the merits Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
In its June 14, 2024 Order the Court denied Plaintiffs' class
certification motion as untimely because it was filed two weeks
after the cut-off date for filing dispositive motions for hearing
no later than June 3, 2024. Under F.R.Cv.P. 6(b)(1)(B), the
Plaintiffs request that the Court excuse the motion's untimely
filing as due to Plaintiffs' counsel's excusable neglect and
instead, rule upon the merits of the motion for class
certification.
Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center
of the nation’s film and television industry.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eXvzNX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Donald W. Cook, Esq.
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 252-9444
Facsimile: (213) 252-0091
E-mail: manncooklaw@gmail.com
LTF CLUB: Class Cert Denial Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice to Refiling
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL TURNER, v. LTF CLUB
MANAGEMENT CO, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00046-DAD-JDP (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale Drozd entered an order denying
defendants' motion to deny class certification without prejudice to
its refiling.
The court declines to decide the issue of class certification on
the basis of an incomplete record, especially when discovery has
since been completed. The court will therefore deny the pending
motion without prejudice to defendants refiling it in order to
allow plaintiff to present any and all relevant evidence in support
of their opposition
Defendants argue in the pending motion that plaintiff is not an
adequate and typical representative for the more than 1,000
putative class members who are allegedly subject to the Agreement,
because plaintiff is not himself subject to the Agreement. (Doc.
No. 58 at 6–7, 10– 12.) Plaintiff argues that the pending
motion is premature because discovery is not complete and that
plaintiff is an adequate and typical representative. (Doc. No. 60.)
Because the court concludes that the pending motion is premature,
the court does not decide whether or not plaintiff is an adequate
and typical representative at this time.
On April 25, 2022, plaintiff Samuel Turner filed the operative
second amended complaint ("SAC") in this putative class action
against defendants, alleging that they had violated various
California wage and hour laws.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9urqEL at no extra
charge.[CC]
MADELYNE BEAUTY: Underpays Beauty Store Staff, Quezada Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON QUEZADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MADELYNE BEAUTY SUPPLIES, INC., MADELINE
FERNANDEZ, and MARTIN PEREZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04657
(S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide wage notices, and failure to
provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a stacker, cashier, and
assistant at their 3576 Broadway, New York, NY 10031 facility from
approximately April 2023 to this day.
Madelyne Beauty Supplies, Inc. is a beauty supply store in New
York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
MANDYTODDCO INC: Dobbins Seeks to Recover Unpaid Tip & BackPay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mackenzie L. Green and Victoria M. Dobbins, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Mandytoddco, Inc.; PRHG
Williamsburg LLC; and Todd Rowley, individually, Case No.
4:24-cv-00887 (E.D. Mo., June 25, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid tip
compensation, unpaid back pay, liquidated and/or other damages and
related penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs bring this Complaint as a collective action pursuant
to Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf
of all hourly-paid kennel workers who are or were employed by
Defendants for the period of three years prior to the commencement
of this action to the present, and who were not paid fully for the
tips their employer received for the services they provided the
employer's clients.
Mandytoddco maintained and operated Williamsburg Pet Hotel &
Suites, a pet boarding/grooming/training/daycamp facility in
Manchester, Missouri, under its previous names Williamsburg Kennel,
Inc. and Williamsburg Pet Hotel & Suites, Inc., from approximately
1986 until approximately November 2023.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Rolwes, Esq.
Philip E. Oliphant, Esq.
THE ROLWES LAW FIRM, LLC
1951 Mignon Avenue
Memphis, TN 38107
Telephone: (901) 830-4663
E-mail: poliphant@rolweslaw.com
erolwes@rolweslaw.com
MAXEON SOLAR: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set August 26
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of Maxeon
Solar Technologies, Ltd. (the "Company" or "Maxeon") (NASDAQ:
MAXN).
The class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities between November 15, 2023 and May 29,
2024. Investors have until August 26, 2024, to move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff in this action.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to investors:
(1) that Maxeon relied on the exclusive sales of certain
products to SunPower;
(2) that, following the termination of the Master Supply
Agreement, the Company was unable to "aggressively ramp sales";
(3) that, as a result, revenue substantially declined;
(4) that, as a result, the Company suffered a "serious cash
flow" crisis; and
(5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Investor Action Steps: Shareholders who incurred losses during the
class period, have until August 26, 2024, to move the court to
become a lead plaintiff in this action. A lead plaintiff will act
on behalf of all other class members in directing the class-action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share
any potential future recovery of the class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
About Johnson Fistel, LLP | Top Law Firm, Securities Fraud,
Investors Rights:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York, Georgia, and
Colorado. The firm represents individual and institutional
investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action
lawsuits. We also extend our services to foreign investors who have
purchased on US exchanges. Stay updated with news on stock drops
and learn how Johnson Fistel, LLP can help you recover your losses.
For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Johnson Fistel, LLP has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Frank J. Johnson is the attorney
responsible for its content.
Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
501 W. Broadway, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101
James Baker, Investor Relations or
Frank J. Johnson, Esq., (619) 814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com or fjohnson@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA: Rohan Files Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mazda Motor of
America, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Denise Rohan, Nathan
Rohan, Meshullam Wallace, Sandra Yankow, Calen Regnier, Tiffany
Regnier, Ryan Kaufman, Melody Kaufman, individually, and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Mazda Motor of
America, Inc., Mazda Motor Corporation, Case No.
8:24-cv-01071-JWH-KES (C.D. Cal., May 16, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Mazda Motor of America, Inc. -- http://www.mazdausa.com/-- doing
business as Mazda North American Operations Inc., retails
automobile vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cody Robert Padgett, Esq.
Laura Ellen Goolsby, Esq.
Nathan N. Kiyam, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 556-4811
Fax: (310) 943-0396
Email: cody.padgett@capstonelawyers.com
laura.goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
Nate.Kiyam@capstonelawyers.com
MCLANE CO: McGowan Suit Removed From State Court to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
PARIS MCGOWAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. McLANE COMPANY, INC., a Texas
corporation; McLANE BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Texas
corporation; McLANE FOODSERVICE DISTRIBUTION, INC., a North
Carolina corporation; McLANE FOODSERVICE, INC., a Texas
corporation; McLANE INTERSTATE WAREHOUSE, INC., a Texas
corporation; McLANE/SUNEAST, INC., a Texas corporation;
McLANE/Western, INC., a Colorado corporation; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2416393 (Filed May 9, 2024), was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the
County of San Bernadino to the United States District Court for the
Central District Of California.
The Clerk of the Court of Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-05302 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants failed to compensate
aggrieved current and former employees for all hours worked,
resulting in a failure to pay all minimum wages and overtime wages,
where applicable." He alleges that Defendants violated Labor Code
sections 510, 1194, 1197 and 1198.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
Talia E. Lux, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
statavos@justicelawcorp.com
tlux@justicelawcorp.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq.
Sylvia J. Kim, SBN 258363
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 820-8800
Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
E-mails: mkane@bakerlaw.com
abeverlin@bakerlaw.com
ksakaue@bakerlaw.com
sjkim@bakerlaw.com
MCLAREN OAKLAND: Williams Seek to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JANE WILLIAMS, individually and for others similarly situated v.
MCLAREN OAKLAND and MCLAREN HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, Case No.
2:24-cv-11644-SDK-CI (E.D. Mich., June 25, 2024) is a collective
action to recover unpaid overtime and other damages from the
Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Like the Putative Class Members, Williams regularly worked more
than 40 hours a workweek. But Defendants do not pay these employees
for all the hours they work. Instead, the Defendants automatically
deduct 30 minutes a day from these employees' work time for
so-called "meal breaks," the lawsuit says.
Williams and the Putative Class Members are thus not paid for this
time. But Defendants fail to provide Williams and the Putative
Class Members with bona fide meal breaks. Williams and the Putative
Class Members do not actually receive bona fide meal breaks.
Instead, Defendants require Williams and the Putative Class Members
to remain on-duty and perform compensable work throughout their
shifts and continuously subject them to interruptions during their
unpaid "meal breaks," the lawsuit adds.
The Defendants' automatic meal break deduction policy allegedly
violates the FLSA by depriving Williams and the Putative Class
Members of overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 each
workweek.
McLaren and Oakland jointly employed Williams as a Registered Nurse
at McLaren's Oakland facility.
McLaren Oakland is a 318-bed hospital that provides primary and
specialty healthcare services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
FAGAN MCMANUS, PC
25892 Woodward Avenue
Royal Oak, MI 58067-0910
Telephone: (248) 542-6300
E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Olivia R. Beale, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
obeale@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
ME&I CONSTRUCTION: Court Holds Action for Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STOCK v. ME&I CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES USA, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00064 (W.D. Pa., Filed Jan.
13, 2023), Hon. Judge Mark R. Hornak entered an order accepting
joint status report.
-- The Court will hold action on motion for class certification
without prejudice to any party.
-- A Telephonic Status Conference is scheduled for Aug. 6, 2024,
at
2:30 PM.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment.
Me&I is a specialty contractor.[CC]
MERCEDES-BENZ: Court Junks Hamm Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRY HAMM, et al., v.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-03370-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Edward Davila entered an order:
-- granting in part and denying in part MBUSA's motion to dismiss,
-- granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Chan's
claims, and
-- denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
The Court agrees with Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have pled facts
alleging how the Subject Vehicle failed and the mileage and age of
the Subject Vehicle at the time of failure—whether these
circumstances may be considered a “premature failure” is a
factual question that would be established through the course of
discovery.
Because Chan purchased the Subject Vehicle equipped with a VGS3
conductor plate, and Plaintiffs have failed to put forward any
evidence that the VGS3 is defective, the Court GRANTS MBUSA’s
motion for summary judgment as to Chan's CLRA claim. The Court
finds it unnecessary to address MBUSA’s remaining arguments
regarding reasonable reliance and the damages model.
The Plaintiff Terry Hamm individually and the Plaintiff Steven Chan
individually and on behalf of a putative class bring this suit
under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") alleging
that the knew of and actively concealed defects in vehicle
transmission systems.
Thie case is a class action suit alleging that MBUSA failed to
inform consumers about a defect in the 722.9 transmission's
conductor plate that causes the transmission to prematurely fail
before the end of its useful life. This case has an extensive
procedural history spanning nearly eight years, and the Court has
issued numerous orders summarizing the essential allegations. In
light of this history, the Court will only summarize the procedural
background and new facts relevant to this Order.
The FAC defines that class as:
"All California owners and lessees of Mercedes-Benz vehicles
equipped with the 722.9 7G Tronic transmission who have not
received any free repairs to or free replacement of their 722.9
transmission by Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC or its
agents."
Excluded from this Class definition are all employees, officers, or
agents of MBUSA. Also excluded from this Class definition are all
judicial officers assigned to this case as well as their staff and
immediate families.
Chan purchased the Subject Vehicle from his neighbors in 2020 for
$7,000.
The Subject Vehicle had approximately 100,000 miles and was
approximately fourteen years old at the time of purchase. Chan
learned that the Subject Vehicle was for sale from his neighbors
who were complaining to him about the Subject Vehicle. The
neighbors indicated that they were "fed up" with the Subject
Vehicle because they spent too much money on various issues and
asked if Chan wanted to take it
Mercedes-Benz is the distributor for Mercedes-Benz passenger cars.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RqOkFE at no extra
charge.[CC]
METROHEALTH SYSTEM: Bid to Supplement Instanter Granted
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK SAVEL et al., v. THE
METROHEALTH SYSTEM, Case No. 1:22-cv-02154-JG (N.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge James Gwin entered an order :
-- granting Defendant MetroHealth's motion to supplement instanter
its response to Plaintiff Crockett's motion to dismiss;
-- denying Plaintiff Crockett's motion to dismiss without
prejudice;
and
-- directing the Plaintiff Crockett must file a notice by July 2,
2024 that indicates whether she intends to have her claims
dismissed with prejudice, or whether she intends to proceed
with
the case, conditioned on her compliance with remaining
discovery
requirements.
The Court finds that Defendant MetroHealth would be prejudiced by
Plaintiff Crockett's claims being dismissed without prejudice.
On Dec. 1, 2022, and over one and a half-year ago, the Plaintiff
Crockett, along with forty-five other named plaintiffs, filed the
current lawsuit.
With their complaint, the Plaintiffs brought a proposed class
action lawsuit. The Plaintiffs alleged various federal and state
constitutional violations after losing their jobs with Defendant
MetroHealth and after they refused to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
On April 28, 2023, the Court entered its trial order establishing
an initial discovery cutoff date of Sept. 25, 2023, and trial date
of Oct. 16, 2023.
MetroHealth is a non-profit, public health care system.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sUX98X at no extra
charge.[CC]
MINT JULEP: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Murray Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
WARNER MURRAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE MINT JULEP BOUTIQUE, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-04637 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law, and for declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.shopthemint.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading
hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing
of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on
graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard
access for some interactive elements, redundant links where
adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that
transactions be performed solely with a mouse, the suit says.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
The Mint Julep Boutique, LLC is a company that sells online goods
and services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, PC
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ramey v. Molina Healthcare
Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-05768 (D. Wash., Filed Aug 24, 2023), Hon.
Judge entered an order granting joint motion to continue case
deadlines by 90 days.
-- Deadline for Disclosure of Expert Reports Sept. 23, 2024
by the party with the burden of proof on
an issue is:
-- Deadline for Disclosure of Rebuttal Reports Nov. 4, 2024
by the party without the burden of proof
on an issue is:
-- Discovery Deadline is: Dec. 19, 2024
-- Class Certification Motion Deadline is: Dec. 31, 2024
-- Class Certification Opposition Deadline Jan. 21, 2025
is:
-- Class Certification Reply Deadline is: Feb. 4, 2024
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
Molina is a managed care company headquartered in Long Beach,
California, United States. The company provides health insurance to
individuals through government programs such as Medicaid and
Medicare.[CC]
MONTREAL, QC: Court Authorizes Suit Against Former Principal, EMSB
------------------------------------------------------------------
Henia Ould-Hammou, writing for CBC Canada, reports that a Quebec
Superior Court judge approved a class-action lawsuit against a
former Montreal school principal over sexual assault allegations by
former students.
The legal action, which seeks $16.2 million in damages and
interest, also targets the English Montreal School Board (EMSB),
which was established in 1998.
Former students allege they were sexually abused by Phillip Hart
Baugniet, while he was a principal or a teacher between the 1960s
and the 1990s at three EMSB schools -- FACE, Victoria School and
Lachine High School. Baugniet now lives in British Columbia.
Last year, a class-action lawsuit application was filed by lawyers
representing the former students.
Pierre Boivin, the lawyer representing the lead plaintiff in the
class action, said his client is relieved.
The alleged victim was "destroyed by the sexual abuse" and that his
life was "totally affected by it," according to Boivin.
His client filed "not only on his behalf, but to help other victims
so he's proud," said Boivin, calling the situation stressful. "He
should be proud. He knows that we would all go forward to the
trial, if needed, for justice to be rendered."
The lead plaintiff is a man in his early 40s who was allegedly
sexually assaulted by Baugniet when he was a student at FACE. He is
referred to as "C." in the lawsuit.
Teacher accused of sexually assaulting 6 students dating back to
'70s
The class-action application mentions that, during the 1988-89
school year, C. was allegedly sexually assaulted during a trip
organized by Baugniet at his farm in Cornwall, Ont.
The trip was part of FACE's school activities, and the plaintiff
was seven years old at the time.
None of these allegations have been proven in court.
A spokesperson for the EMSB that the board would not be commenting
on the case since it is before the courts.
Quebec prosecutor confirms 2 Montreal charges
Quebec prosecutors confirm Baugniet faces two charges in connection
to a Montreal case with offences allegedly committed between 1969
and 1971.
According to Quebec's Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecution,
Baugniet is accused of committing an act of gross indecency as well
as indecent assault with intent to commit buggery, both which were
charges under the Criminal Code at the time.
Last October, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) said Baugniet had
been accused of sexually assaulting six students in the 1970s, '80s
and '90s in South Stormont Township, Ont.
He was charged with numerous offences, including:
-- Seven counts of indecently assaulting a male.
-- Two counts of sexual assault.
-- Three counts of sexual interference.
-- Buggery.
-- Sexually assaulting a person under 16 years of age.
The investigation began in May of last year after Montreal police
contacted the OPP.
Baugniet was later arrested by the OPP at a police station in
Victoria, B.C., and was released from custody after a bail
hearing.
CBC News contacted Baugniet's lawyer for the criminal case. He was
not available to provide a response in time for this article's
publication. [GN]
NERDWALLET INC: Jurdi Sues Over Unlawful De-Anonymization
---------------------------------------------------------
Lillian Jurdi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NERDWALLET, INC., a California corporation; DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV11780 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., May 9, 2024), is brought against the Defedants'
violation of thr California's Trap and Trace Law, codified at
California Penal Code as a result of an unlawful de-anonymization
process.
As part of Defendant's marketing regime, Nerdwallet has partnered
with TikTok to install sophisticated software on its landing page
to learn the location, source, and identity of consumers who happen
to land on their website. Without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent,
Defendant deployed a de-anonymization process to identify Plaintiff
using electronic impulses generated from Plaintiff's device, as
further described herein. The Defendant did not obtain Class
Members' express or implied consent to be subjected to data sharing
with TikTok for the purposes of fingerprinting and
de-anonymization. Defendant's installation of the TikTok tracing
process violates California's Trap and Trace Law, codified at
California Penal Code, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff visited Defendant's website on February 4, 2024.
Nerdwallet, Inc. is a finance company that compares banking and
monetary options for their consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tauler, Esq.
Matthew J. Smith, Esq.
TAULER SMITH LLP
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 927-9270
Email: robert@taulersmith.com
matthew@taulersmith.com
NEW DIRECTION: Suit Seeks TRO from Adopting 2024 Custodial Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH THERIAULT and
WILLIAM WEIGEL, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, v. NEW DIRECTION IRA, INC., NEW DIRECTION TRUST COMPANY,
and MAINSTAR TRUST, Case No. 2:23-cv-02477-JWB-ADM (D. Kan.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting an emergency
temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against
the New Directions, as follows:
-- prohibiting New Direction from adopting the 2024 Custodial
Agreement on July 1, 2024;
-- invalidating any and all releases, waivers, and similar
agreements
signed by any member of the putative class in response to
receiving notice of the 2024 Custodial Agreement; and,
-- if New Direction wishes to adopt the 2024 Custodial Agreement,
prohibiting New Direction from requiring that the adoption of
the
2024 Custodial Agreement include any limitations upon or have
any
impact upon the present lawsuit or any of the putative class
members' claims in this lawsuit, and requiring New Direction to
send a new, court-approved notice to customers containing
details
about this lawsuit, their membership in the putative class, how
the new custodial agreement would impact their membership in
the
putative class and any independent claims they may have, and
providing customers with a new, less cumbersome way to opt out
of
the 2024 Custodial Agreement without waiving all claims they
could
or do have against New Direction, and would not require
putative
class members to pay any fee or surrender any paid for
benefits.
In this communication, the New Direction Defendants announced that
the Plaintiffs must, by no later than July 1, 2024, either transfer
their accounts elsewhere (by signing a form releasing their claims
against New Direction) or have unilaterally imposed upon them a new
custodial agreement with an arbitration provision and claims
limitations.
This Court should put a stop to this, just as other courts have
done. In support of their Motion, Plaintiffs submit the
accompanying and contemporaneouslyfiled Memorandum in Support.
New Direction is a provider of self-directed individual retirement
accounts (IRAs) and health savings accounts (HSAs).
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nrnwUn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott C. Nehrbass, Esq.
Jeff P. DeGraffenreid, Esq.
Alexandra N.C. Rose, Esq.
FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
7500 College Blvd. Suite 1400
Overland Park, KS 66210-4041
Telephone: (913) 253-2144
Facsimile: (913) 498-2101
E-mail: snehrbass@foulston.com
jdegraffenreid@foulston.com
nrose@foulston.com
NEW YORK, NY: Court Extends Stay of Discovery in Capobianco
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Capobianco, et al., v. The
City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06125 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Nov. 3, 2021), 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]
NEWREZ LLC: CWELT 2008 Files Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NEWREZ LLC. The case
is styled as CWELT 2008 SERIES 4343, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. NEWREZ LLC doing business as: Shellpoint Mortgage
Servicing, Case No. 0:24-cv-60811-AHS (S.D. Fla., May 14, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Newrez LLC -- https://www.newrez.com/ -- is a leading nationwide
mortgage lender and servicer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Hirsch, Esq.
SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP, PLLC
6810 North State Road 7
Coconut Creek, FL 33073
Phone: (561) 569-7062
Email: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com
NORTH CAROLINA: Court Dismisses ACLU-NC Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF NORTH CAROLINA ("ACLU-NC"), v. JOSHUA STEIN, in his
official capacity as Attorney General of the State of North
Carolina, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00302-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the
Hon. Judge Loretta Biggs entered an order:
-- granting Defendants' motions to dismiss,
-- dismissing each of Plaintiff's claims, and
-- denying as moot Plaintiff's amended motion to Certify Class,
and
Plaintiff's amended motion for preliminary injunction.
The Court declines to dismiss the Plaintiff's state law claims
based on sovereign immunity as argued by Defendants, but grants
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss concluding that Plaintiff has failed
to state a claim under each of its claims that the Anti-Riot Act is
overly broad or void for vagueness in violation of the United
States Constitution or the North Carolina Constitution.
Accordingly, the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss each of Plaintiff's
claims will be granted.
As a result, Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Certify Class will be
denied as moot, and Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Preliminary
Injunction will likewise be denied as moot.
The Plaintiff brings this action for declaratory and injunctive
relief against the Defendants, in the official capacities of their
respective offices, challenging the constitutionality of N.C. Gen.
Stat. section 14-288.2.
On July 6, 2023, the Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint,
challenging the Anti-Riot Act as "facially unconstitutional" and
alleging that the Anti-Riot Act's definition of "riot" is "vague
and overbroad in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution and article I, sections 12, 14,
and 19 of the North Carolina Constitution."
On July 20, 2023, the Defendant Stein filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and all of Plaintiff's claims
pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
The Plaintiff ACLU-NC is a statewide, 501(c)(4) nonprofit,
nonpartisan organization affiliate of the ACLU, having
approximately 21,000 members in North Carolina.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SSC5rf at no extra
charge.[CC]
NORTHERN TRUST: Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Opposition
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHANDLER EMERSON,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. THE
NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order sealing portions of its
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, the
identified portions of the Singer Declaration, and Exhibits 1,
4−5, 7, and 10−22 to the Singer Declaration.
The Court has compelling to seal the referenced documents given
both the risk of competitive harm to Northern Trust and the
potential harm to non-parties.
Northern Trust seeks to seal the referenced documents and portions
of documents to preserve the confidentiality of personally
identifying information ("PII") and other sensitive financial
information of Plaintiff and non-party individuals, as well as
Northern Trust’s sensitive and proprietary business information
contained in those documents.
Compelling reason exists to grant this sealing request, including
because the documents for which Northern Trust seeks sealing
contain confidential information, the disclosure of which would
create a substantial risk of competitive harm to Northern Trust
and, at least as important, personal harm to Plaintiff and each of
her dozens of non-party co-beneficiaries.
Northern Trust provides investment banking services.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3yGATh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Laurie Edelstein, Esq.
Caroline Hirst, Esq.
Rachael M. Trummel, Esq.
Daniel J. Weiss, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
525 Market Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (628) 267-6800
E-mail: ledelstein@jenner.com
chirst@jenner.com
rtrummel@jenner.com
dweiss@jenner.com
NOVA SOUTHEASTERN: Plan Participant Class Certified in Rzepkoski
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. TERRY RZEPKOSKI AND
KRISTEN ASSELTA, ON BEHALF OF THE NOVA UNIVERSITY DEFINED
CONTRIBUTION PLAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS
OF PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES, v. NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY,
INC., Case No. 0:22-cv-61147-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
William Dimitrouleas entered an order approving joint stipulation
regarding class certification:
"All persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
Plan, at any time between June 15, 2016, and the present (the
"Class Period")."
The Court further entered an order that the Plaintiffs Dr. Terry
Rzepkoski and Kristen Asselta are appointed as Class
representatives and Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A. and McKay Law, LLC
are appointed as Class counsel.
Nova Southeastern offers undergraduate, graduate, and professional
degree programs.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rKPiJh at no extra
charge.[CC]
NUTRICOST: Faces Kurtz Suit Over Dietary Supplements' False Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anastasia Kurtz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Nutricost, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-01020-JZ (N.D. Ohio, June 18, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's false misrepresentations regarding its Magnesium
Glycinate Supplements in violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales
Practices Act.
According to the complaint, Defendant Nutricost formulated,
manufactured, advertised and sold magnesium dietary supplements
throughout the United States that purport to contain 420 mg of
"Magnesium Glycinate" per one serving. However, it is impossible to
fit 420 mg of magnesium derived from magnesium glycinate in two of
the sized capsules Nutricost uses for a single serving; magnesium
glycinate simply possesses far too low a concentration of magnesium
to do so. Instead, the supplements contain significantly less
magnesium glycinate than what is claimed and displayed or zero
magnesium derived from magnesium glycinate, says the suit.
In misstating the actual magnesium content of the Supplements,
Nutricost violates federal law and regulations designed to prevent
deceptive supplement labeling and breaches the express warranty
created by its labeling, the suit alleges.
Plaintiff Kurtz has purchased Nutricost's "Magnesium Glycinate
Supplements" within the last four years, including from Walmart's
online store on April 24, 2023.
Nutricost is a business entity with a principal place of business
in Vineyard, Utah.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW, LLC
43 Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: (203) 653-2250
Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
OGILVY HOLDINGS: Chestnut Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Chestnut and Antionette Staniewicz,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. OGILVY HOLDINGS LLC, a California limited
liability company; OGILVY PUBLIC RELATIONS WORLDWIDE LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; THE OGILVY GROUP, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; EXTREME REACH PAYROLL
SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; EXTREME REACH PRODUCTION
PAYROLL, INC, a Delaware corporation; EXTREME REACH TALENT INC., a
Delaware corporation; EXTREME REACH INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24CV071898 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on May 16, 2024, and assigned Case No.
5:24-cv-01294.
The Plaintiffs Complaint alleges the following causes of action
against all defendants: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period
Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Final
Wages Not Timely Paid; Non-Compliant Wage Statements; Unreimbursed
Business Expenses; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephen A Rossi, Esq.
MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3120
Phone: (310) 312-2000
Email: sar@msk.com
PANDA RESTAURANT: Sarfo Sues Over Failure to Secure Information
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Sarfo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-03953
(C.D. Cal., May 11, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other
similarly situated Defendant employees' sensitive information,
including full names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers and
financial account numbers ("Private Information").
Former and current Defendant employees are required to entrust
Defendant with Private Information in order to obtain employment
from Defendant. Defendant retains this information for at least
many years and even after the employment relationship has ended.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant
assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect
and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and
intrusion. By letter dated April 29, 2024, sent to Plaintiff and
Class Members, Defendant claims it was alerted to activity
indicating that an unknown third party had obtained unauthorized
access to Defendant's data between March 7-11, 2024. (the "Data
Breach").
The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class
Members' Private Information. This Private Information was
compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and
omissions and their utter failure to protect employees' sensitive
data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members'
Private Information because of its value in making fraudulent
purchases and exploiting or stealing the identities of Plaintiff
and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of
the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a current the Defendant employees.
The Defendant is the parent company of Panda Inn, Panda Express and
Hibachi-San which are each chains of Asian restaurants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen Lake Cardoso (SBN 338762)
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-525-4100
Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com
PANERA LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hollis Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sydney Hollis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Panera, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-4103 (W.D. Mo., June 24,
2024) arises out of the recent data breach involving Defendant for
its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part
of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class
Members' names and Social Security numbers.
According to the complaint, current and former Panera employees are
required to entrust the Defendant with sensitive, non-public PII,
without which Defendant could not perform its regular business
activities, in order to obtain employment or certain employment
benefits at Defendant. The Defendant retains this information for
at least many years and even after the employee-employer
relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and
deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members,
Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals
to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access
and intrusion.
The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class
Members PII -- and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly
sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was
compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and
omissions and its utter failure to protect employees' sensitive
data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members'
PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities
of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk of
identity theft and fraud to victims of the Data Breach will remain
for their respective lifetimes. In breaching its duties to properly
safeguard employees' PII and give employees timely, adequate notice
of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to
negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state
statutes, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future
data compromise on behalf of herself 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.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of
Defendant.
The Defendant is a chain store of bakery-cafe fast food restaurants
with over 2,000 locations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John F. Garvey, Esq.
Colleen Garvey, Esq.
Ellen A. Thomas, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
701 Market Street, Suite 1510
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 390-6750
E-mail: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com
cgarvey@stranchlaw.com
ethomas@stranchlaw.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
PEORIA COUNTY, IL: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Zeiler
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zeiler, et al., v. Peoria
County et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01139-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=ZEv8oy at no extra
charge.[CC]
PHILIPS NORTH: Faces Miller Suit Over Mislabeled Baby Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
TULIISA MILLER, ADRIANNA CORTEZ, and BRIAN MAGADAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PHILIPS NORTH
AMERICA LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-03781 (N.D. Cal., June 25, 2024) is a
class action complaint brought by the Plaintiffs, individually and
on behalf of similarly situated consumers who purchased the Philips
Avent-brand Products during the relevant Class Period, with two
primary objectives:
-- One, the Plaintiffs seek, on Plaintiffs' individual behalf and
on behalf of the Class/Subclass, a monetary recovery for the
price premium they have overpaid for Products as a result of
the Material Omission, as consistent with permissible law
(including, for example, damages, restitution, disgorgement,
and any applicable penalties/punitive damages solely as to
those causes of action so permitted).
-- Two, Plaintiffs seek, on Plaintiffs' individual behalf and on
behalf of the Class/Subclass, injunctive relief to stop
Defendant's unlawful manufacture, marketing, and sale of the
Products with the Material Omission to avoid or mitigate the
risk of deceiving the public into believing that the Products
do not pose the Material Danger, by requiring Defendant to
change its business practices, which may include one or more of
the following: disclosure of the Material Omission on the
Products' labels and/or packaging; disclosure of the Material
Omission in the Products' advertising; modification of the
Products so that they no longer pose a risk of the Material
Danger to babies and infants; and/or discontinuance of the
Products' manufacture, marketing, and/or sale.
The Products at issue are Philips Avent-brand baby bottles, trainer
cups, and spout/sippy cups sold to consumers in the United States
and the state of California, that contain the Material Omission on
their labels and/or packaging, in all sizes, variations, packs,
sets, and bundles.
The Products include the following: Philips Avent Anti-Colic Baby
Bottle, Philips Avent Anti-Colic Baby Bottle with AirFree Vent,
Philips Avent Natural Response Baby Bottle, Philips Avent Natural
Trainer Cup, and Philips Avent Spout Cup.
To increase profits and gain an unfair advantage over its lawfully
acting competitors, the Defendant allegedly misleadingly markets,
advertises, labels, and packages certain of its baby and infant
bottles and cups. Specifically, the Defendant allegedly fails to
inform consumers that when the Products are heated as intended for
ordinary use, they leach harmful microplastics that cause long-term
health complications for children -- including damaging children's
digestive tract, immune system, and reproductive systems (the
"Material Omission"), says the suit.
In addition to the reasonable expectation that the Products are
suitable for babies and infants, consumers are further deceived and
misled by Defendant's "BPA FREE" claim on the Products' front
labels. "BPA" refers to Bisphenol A, a chemical used to manufacture
polycarbonate plastics that leaches into food and beverages,
especially when heated. BPA can cause negative health effects on
the reproductive system, child development, metabolic disorders,
obesity, endocrine disorders, and the nervous system. BPA can also
damage one's DNA, cause oxidative stress, and promote certain
breast cancers. Bottles made with BPA present a similar danger as
bottles made from polypropylene since both bottles leach harmful
substances when heated and thus negatively impact the human
digestive system, immune system, and reproductive system, the suit
asserts.
Plaintiff Miller is a resident of the County of Contra Costa, in
the State of California. In or around early 2022, Plaintiff Miller
purchased the Philips Anti-Colic Baby Bottle in the County of
Contra Costa from a Target store for approximately $20.00.
The Defendant is the owner, manufacturer, and/or distributor of the
Products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
Kelsey J. Elling, Esq.
Alan Gudino, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com
kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com
agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com
PRESTIGE CARE: Discovery Completion Due Jan. 9, 2026
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA BRIM, v. PRESTIGE
CARE INC, Case No. 3:24-cv-05133-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge
Benjamin Settle entered an order setting jury trial and pretrial
dates as follows:
10 DAY JURY TRIAL set for 09:00 AM: June 23, 2026
Deadline for filing motion to join parties: Nov. 22, 2024
Deadline for amending pleadings: Nov. 22, 2024
Disclosure of expert testimony under Oct. 28, 2025
FRCP 26(a)(2):
Disclosure of rebuttal expert testimony Jan. 14, 2026
under FRCP 26(a)(2:)
All motions related to discovery must Dec. 4, 2026
be filed by
Discovery completed by: Jan. 9, 2026
All dispositive motions must be filed by: Feb. 26, 2026
Motions in limine should be filed pursuant April 3, 2026
to Local Rule CR 7(d)(4) by:
Agreed pretrial order filed with the Court by: April 24, 2026
Pretrial conference: June 8, 2026
Prestige Care operates assisted living, skilled nursing and
rehabilitation, memory care, and retirement communities.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tz1L78 at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROFESSIONAL COMPOUNDING: Mills Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional
Compounding Centers of America Inc. The case is styled as Mills
Cashway Pharmacy Inc., Individually & as representative of a class
of similarly-situated persons & entities v. Professional
Compounding Centers of America Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-00654-RRS-DJA
(W.D. La., May 16, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Professional Compounding Centers of America --
https://www.pccarx.com/ -- was incorporated to provide compounded
medications to patients, when the medicine became unavailable
commercially.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake Rossi David, Esq.
BROUSSARD & DAVID
P O Box 3524
Lafayette, LA 70502-3524
Phone: (337) 233-2323
Fax: (337) 233-2353
Email: blake@bdm.law
The Defendants are represented by:
George D Fagan, Esq.
LEAKE & ANDERSSON (NO)
1100 Poydras St Ste 1700
New Orleans, LA 70163-1701
Phone: (504) 585-7500
Fax: (504) 585-7775
Email: gfagan@leakeandersson.com
- and -
Cranay D. Murphy, Esq.
Joshua K. Trahan, Esq.
LEAKE & ANDERSSON (LAF)
P.O. Drawer Z.
Lafayette, LA 70502-6618
Phone: (337) 233-7430
Fax: (337) 233-8403
Email: cdmurphy@leakeandersson.com
jtrahan@leakeandersson.com
- and -
Walter F Wolf, III, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDRA MORA
322 Lafayette St 2nd Fl
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 566-0233
Fax: (504) 566-8997
Email: wwolf@alexmora.com
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Bid to Take Silva Deposition OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Parmenter v. The
Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-10079 (D. Mass., Filed Jan. 20, 2022), Hon. Judge entered
an order granting motion to take deposition of joseph silva.
Parmenter may depose Silva on July 10, 2024.
The court notes, however, that Parmenter's motion for class
certification is due July 22, 2024, and the court is not inclined
to grant extensions to the briefing deadlines.
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).[CC]
QUAKER OATS: Kessler Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND KESSLER, HARTENCE
HILL, LAZARO RODRIGUEZ, TERESA HERENDEEN, and BARBARA ABREU
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
QUAKER OATS COMPANY, Case No. 7:24-cv-00526-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(e):
1) preliminarily approving the proposed class action settlement;
2) preliminarily certifying the class for settlement purposes;
and
3) granting approval of the proposed notice plan.
Quaker is an American food conglomerate based in Chicago,
Illinois.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OmVLNf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
Jeremy Francis, Esq.
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12061
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Paul Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN WILLEY ANASTAPOULO
32 Ann St,
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (800) 313-2546
E-mail: pauld@akimlawfirm.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Joshua Arisohn, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 A venue of the Americas, 32 Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7103
E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8297
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Andrew Costello
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
QUICK STOP: Faces Padilla Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
JORGE PADILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUICK STOP DELI AND CONVENIENCE INC. (D/B/A
QUICK STOP DELI), SADIQALI CHANDRANI, and HARJINDER SINGH,
Defendants, Case No. 7:24-cv-04642 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to provide spread-of-hours pay, failure
to provide wage notices, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at Quick Stop Deli from
approximately 2018 until on or about May 17, 2024.
Quick Stop Deli and Convenience Inc., doing business as Quick Stop
Deli, is a deli owner and operator located 266 Central Avenue,
White Plains, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
Email: catalina@csmlegal.com
QUINCY EXACT: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Squellati Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Squellati v. Quincy Exact
Solutions LLC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01150-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge entered an order Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley
entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
Quincy provides packaging, warehousing, and assembly services to
companies.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v7Ah3z at no extra
charge.[CC]
R&R PIZZA: Leisten Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------
COLBY LEISTEN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. R&R PIZZA GROUP, LLC, and JAIR REYES,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05068 (N.D. Ill., June 18, 2024) is a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to Plaintiff and
similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its
Domino's stores.
The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.
They employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to
deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However,
instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably
approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the
Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the suit.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately March
2020 to May 2024 as a delivery driver at Domino's store located in
Grayslake, Illinois.[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
RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY: Court OKs Settlement in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo!Finance presents a notice of settlement approval
Reconnaissance Energy Africa Ltd. Canadian securities class
action.
This Notice is directed to all persons and entities, excluding
certain persons associated with the defendant, Reconnaissance
Energy Africa Ltd. ("ReconAfrica") wherever they may reside or be
domiciled, who purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of
ReconAfrica listed on the TSX Venture Exchange and Frankfurt Stock
Exchange, on or after May 30, 2020 (the "ReconAfrica Securities"),
and held some or all of those securities until after the close of
trading on September 7, 2021 ("Canadian Settlement Class Members"
and the "Canadian Class Period").
PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE
A proposed class action (the "Canadian Action") brought on behalf
of the Canadian Settlement Class Members has been settled. The
Canadian Settlement has been approved by the British Columbia
Supreme Court (the "Canadian Court"). This Notice provides Canadian
Settlement Class Members with information about how to submit a
Claim Form to the Canadian Claims Administrator in order to
participate in the distribution of the Canadian Net Settlement
Fund.
THE ACTION
The plaintiff in the Canadian Action (the "Canadian Plaintiff")
alleges that commencing May 2020, ReconAfrica negligently signaled
planned fracking by referencing "unconventional" resources and
"shale" deposits within Namibia. In industry parlance,
"unconventional" resources and/or "shale" deposits refer to oil and
gas deposits requiring extraction by fracking. The Canadian
Plaintiff alleges that ReconAfrica was made these statements
negligently because it failed to disclose to investors that:
(1) ReconAfrica had not determined whether Namibia would allow
fracking, which had never been done in Namibia, and which was
central to ReconAfrica's business plans; and
(2) ReconAfrica possessed data from its test wells that
revealed poor prospects for achieving oil and gas production that
would be commercially viable. These alleged omitted material facts
undermined ReconAfrica's public statements made during the Canadian
Class Period, rendering them misleading. When publicly corrected,
the markets' reaction was allegedly immediate and harsh.
ReconAfrica denies all such allegations.
The settlement of the Canadian Action, without an admission of
liability on the part of ReconAfrica, was approved by The
Honourable Justice Francis on June 20, 2024. This notice provides a
summary of the settlement.
SUMMARY OF THE SETTLEMENT TERMS
ReconAfrica will pay CAD $5,075,000 million (the "Canadian
Settlement Amount"), in full and final settlement of all claims
against it in the Canadian Action. Canadian Class Counsel Fees,
including out-of-pocket expenses and taxes, were fixed by the Court
as a first charge on the Canadian Settlement Amount in the amount
of thirty (30) percent of CAD $5,075,000 million, plus
disbursements, plus taxes. The Canadian Settlement Amount for the
Class, less the Canadian Class Counsel Fees and disbursements,
administrator's expenses, and taxes, (the "Canadian Net Settlement
Amount") will be distributed to the Canadian Settlement Class in
accordance with the Court-approved Canadian Plan of Allocation. The
Global Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated February 27,
2024 (the "Settlement Agreement") and Canadian Plan of Allocation
may be viewed at
https://bergermontague.ca/cases/reconnaissance-energy-africa-ltd/.
HOW TO MAKE A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION:
CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION MUST BE RECEIVED BY OCTOBER 28, 2024
Each Canadian Settlement Class Member must submit a completed Claim
Form on or before October 28, 2024 in order to participate in the
settlement. The Claim Form can be accessed or downloaded at
https://bergermontague.ca/cases/reconnaissance-energy-africa-ltd/
or obtained by calling the Canadian Claims Administrator at
647.598.8772 extension 6. If you do not submit a completed Claim
Form by October 28, 2024 2024, you will not receive any part of the
Canadian Net Settlement Amount.
The Canadian Court appointed Berger Montague (Canada) PC as the
Administrator of the settlement to, among other things: (i) receive
and process Claim Forms; (ii) decide eligibility for compensation;
and (iii) distribute the net Canadian Settlement Amount to eligible
Class Members. The Claim Form should be submitted to the
Administrator by using the secure Online Claims System at
https://bergermontague.ca/cases/reconnaissance-energy-africa-ltd/.
You may submit a paper Claim Form only if you do not have internet
access. The paper Claim Form may be sent by mail or courier to:
ReconAfrica Claims Administrator
330 Bay Street, Suite 505
Toronto, ON M5H 2S8
Email: info@bergermontague.ca
INTERPRETATION
If there is a conflict between the provisions of this Notice and
the Settlement Agreement, the terms of the Settlement Agreement
will prevail.
This notice has been approved by the Court. Questions about matters
This notice should NOT be directed to the Canadian Court. [GN]
REDFIN CORP: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, Mata Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
GUILLERMO MATA, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. REDFIN CORPORATION, Case No. 3:24-cv-01094-L-DEB
(S.D. Cal., June 25, 2024) is a class action complaint against the
Defendant Redfin, on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of other
subscribers to Defendant's online real estate brokerage, to obtain
relief for Defendant's knowing disclosure of their personally
identifiable information and prerecorded video viewing activity to
third parties in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act and
California Invasion of Privacy Act.
Specifically, the Defendant uses third-party code to track
prerecorded videos its subscribers watch and sends that data to its
third-party code vendors along with subscribers' PII, all without
its subscribers' valid consent. The Defendant owns and operates one
of the largest online real estate brokerages in the nation. As
such, a key element of Defendant's business model is to showcase
for sale residential properties on its website, redfin.com, using
photographic and video content. For instance, Defendant offers
"video tours" of many properties. These tours consist of
prerecorded video productions with an accompanying audio track,
says the suit.
In addition, the Defendant has knowingly installed pixels and other
tracking technologies developed by third party advertisers. These
tracking technologies capture the PII of Defendant’s subscribers
relating to specific videos that the subscribers have viewed and
disclose such PII to the third-party developers, all without the
subscribers' informed, written consent. In direct contravention of
the protections afforded by the VPPA, Defendant discloses to
third-party companies its consumers’ PII without first obtaining
their written consent. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action on
behalf of himself and other of Defendant's registered users whose
PII Defendant unlawfully disclosed, the suit added.
The Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining Defendant from further
unauthorized disclosure of consumers’ PII, awarding damages
consistent with the VPPA and CIPA, and awarding reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ani Nazaryan, Esq.
KERKONIAN DAJANI, LLP
15915 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 203
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (312) 416-6180
E-mail: anazaryan@kerkoniandajani.com
- and -
Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
KINGSBURY LAW LLC
8 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 2600
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 291-1960
E-mail: tim@kingsburylawllc.com
REGENTS OF UCLA: Nitka Sues Over Negligence and Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------------------
Liana Nitka, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Regents of THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
("UCLA"), a public nonprofit corporation; DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV11971 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
May 13, 2024), is brought violation of The Bane Act, violation of
The Unruh Act, violation of The Ralph Act, negligence, breach of
contract, assault, battery, declaratory relief, injunctive relief
In short, Defendant University has permitted endemic antisemitism
to exclude Jewish Students and Faculty members from full and equal
participation in, and to deprive them of the full and equal
benefits of, their educational experience at Defendant University,
and has invidiously discriminated against them by, among other
things, failing to protect them in the same way Defendant
University has protected other groups all based on their race,
ethnicity, religion, citizenship, and/or national origin. That
Defendant University has done so for many years and continues to do
so to this day further confirms that it has responded to
anti-Semitism with at best deliberate indifference, that Defendant
University cannot be left to its own devices, and that its response
has been clearly ineffective and clearly unreasonable, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Jewish-Israeli Senior University Student
expecting graduate in May 2024.
University is a California state-owned University, public nonprofit
corporation controlled by its Board of Regents, known as the
Regents of the University of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael E. Reznick, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAELE. REZNICK
A Professional Corporationsta
283 Ocho Rios Way
Oak Park, CA 91377-5540
Phone: (818) 437-5630
Email: reznagoura@aol.com
RIVERSIDE, CA: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 15
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIVERSIDE ALL OF US OR
NONE, ET AL., v. CITY OF RIVERSIDE, LARRY GONZALEZ, Case No.
5:23-cv-01536-SPG-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace
Garnett entered an order extending the time for Plaintiffs to file
a motion for class certification to Oct. 15, 2024.
The Plaintiffs filed a request for the Court extend the time for
filing a motion for class certification in this action. Pursuant to
the Court’s Standing Order, a motion for class certification is
due to be filed within 120 days of the issuance of the Scheduling
Order. Standing Order at “Other Matters: K (1): A ‘motion for
class certification must be filed not later than 120 days from the
date initially set for the scheduling conference, unless the Court
orders otherwise.’” The scheduling conference in this action
was originally set for March 27, 2024.
The Plaintiffs have acted diligently to obtain discovery to prepare
their class certification motion. Because the Defendants have not
produced a considerable number of documents, Plaintiffs have shown
good cause for the requested relief.
Riverside is a city in and the county seat of Riverside County,
California.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nq48rA at no extra
charge.[CC]
ROCKWELL COLLINS: Leeman Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ryan Leeman, individually, and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. Rockwell Collins Inc., Does 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV04172 was removed from the Los
Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on May 15, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04047-PSG-KS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt.
Relations.
Rockwell Collins -- https://portal.rockwellcollins.com/ -- was a
multinational corporation headquartered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa,
providing avionics and information technology systems and services
to government agencies and aircraft manufacturers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
Christina Mirzaie, Esq.
Melissa Rae Robinson, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 1-818-696-2306
Fax: 1-818-696-2307
Email: haig@hbklawyers.com
cathy@hbklawyers.com
christina@hbklawyers.com
melissa@hbklawyers.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael Alexander Sigall, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Phone: (310) 277-7200
Fax: (310) 201-5219
Email: msigall@seyfart
- and -
Justin T. Curley, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 397-2823
Fax: (415) 397-8549
Email: jcurley@seyfarth.com
RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Parties Seek August 9 Class Cert Bid Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY WANEK, JUAN DUARTE,
RICK RUBERTON, and LINDA RUBERTON, as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Caesars
Entertainment Corporation Savings & Retirement Plan, v. RUSSELL
INVESTMENTS TRUST COMPANY, CAESARS HOLDINGS, INC., THE PLAN
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and THE 401(K) PLAN COMMITTEE, Case No.
2:21-cv-00961-CDS-BNW (D. Nev.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order that:
(1) The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their renewed Motion for
Class Certification shall be Aug. 9, 2024;
(2) The deadline for the Defendants to oppose Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification shall be Aug. 30, 2024; and
(3) The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a reply in support
of
their Motion for Class Certification shall be Sept. 13,
2024.
The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on Oct.
17, 2023. The Court stayed Defendants' deadline to respond to thje
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Plaintiffs' reply
deadline pending resolution of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File
a Fourth Amended Complaint
Russell is a global investment management partner.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oKb99M at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paul S. Padda, Esq.
PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC
4560 South Decatur Blvd., Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89103
Telephone: (702) 366-1888
- and -
Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
Brock J. Specht, Esq.
Benjamin J. Bauer, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 S 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: lukas@nka.com
bspecht@nka.com
bbauer@nka.com
The Defendants are represented by:
D. Matthew Moscon
Nancy G. Ross
MAYER BROWN LLP
201 South Main Street, Suite 1100
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 907-2703
E-mail: mmoscon@mayerbrown.com
nross@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Patrick H. Hicks, Esq.
Diana G. Dickinson, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937
Telephone: (702) 862-8800
E-mail: phicks@littler.com
ddickinson@littler.com
- and -
Rew R. Goodenow, Esq.
Michael R. Kealy, Esq.
PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
50 West Liberty Street, Suite 750
Reno, NV 89501
Telephone: (775) 323-1601
E-mail: rgoodenow@parsonsbehle.com
mkealy@parsonsbehle.com
- and -
Sean M. Murphy, Esq.
Robert C. Hora, Esq.
MILBANK LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 530-5688
E-mail: smurphy@milbank.com
rhora@milbank.com
SALVATION ARMY: Henderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Salvation Army,
et al. The case is styled as Michaela Henderson, an Individual, on
behalf of herself and on behalf all persons similarly v. The
Salvation Army, Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC24614669
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 14, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
The Salvation Army -- https://www.salvationarmy.org/ -- is a
Protestant Christian church and an international charitable
organization headquartered in London, England.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas B. Blumenthal, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
Phone: 858-952-0354
Fax: 858-551-1232
Email: DeBlouw@bamlawca.com
SARATOGA COUNTY, NY: Parties Must File Status Report by Oct. 4
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Steele, et al., v.
Saratoga County et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01615-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Therese Wiley Dancks entered an uniform pretrial
scheduling order as follows:
-- Any motion to join any person as a party to Aug. 2,
2024
this action shall be made on or before:
-- Any motion to amend any pleading in this Sept. 3,
2024
action shall be made on or before:
-- The parties are directed to file a status Oct. 4,
2024
report on or before:
-- Class Certification Motion due: Dec. 2, 2024
A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d0kGSz at no extra
charge.[CC]
SELENE FINANCE: Whitfield Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SELENE FINANCE LP.
The case is styled as Lequita R. Whitfield, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. SELENE FINANCE LP, Case No.
2:24-cv-01465-DMF (M.D. Ga., May 16, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Selene Finance -- https://selenefinance.com/ -- provides
full-service capabilities supporting all aspects of residential
mortgage servicing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Harris, Esq.
900 W Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: sharris@milberg.com
SOUTHSTATE BANK: Class Settlement in Fludd Suit Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LATOYA LASHAY FLUDD and
WANDA SUE BUTCHER, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. SOUTHSTATE BANK, N.A., and DOES 1-100, Case
No. 2:20-cv-01959-BHH (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Bruce Hendricks
entered an order granting final approval of class action
settlement.
1. The Court finds that the classes, as defined in the
Settlement
Agreement, meet all requirements for certification of a
settlement under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure
and applicable case law. Accordingly, the Court certifies the
following two settlement classes, composed of the following
Class Members:
Regulation E Settlement Class – those customers who have or
have
had accounts with Defendant who incurred an overdraft fee(s)
for
ATM or nonrecurring debit card transaction(s) during the
period
beginning Jan. 12, 2020, and ending on July 18, 2023.
Repeat Fee Settlement Class – those customers who have or
have
had accounts with Defendant who incurred more than one NSF
fee,
or an NSF fee followed by an overdraft fee, for the same item
during the period beginning May 20, 2017, and ending on July
18,
2023.
2. The Court appoints Latoya Lashay Fludd and Wanda Sue Butcher
as
Class Representatives and approves a service award to each of
them in the amount of $10,000.00 for their substantial and
pro-
active role in this litigation.
3. The Court appoints Simpluris as the Claims Administrator
under
the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
4. For purposes of the Settlement Agreement, the Court finds
that
Richard D. McCune and Emily J. Kirk of the McCune Law Group,
APC, Mark C. Tanenbaum of Mark C. Tanenbaum, P.A., and
Richard
A. Harpootlian of Richard A. Harpootlian, P.A., are
qualified,
experienced, and skilled attorneys capable of adequately
representing the settlement classes, and the Court approves
them
as Class Counsel. Further, the Court approves Class Counsel's
reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,386,310.75
(twenty-five percent of the value of the Settlement), as well
as
reasonable costs up to $95,000.00. If full costs do not
amount
to $95,000.00, then the remainder will be returned to the
Settlement Fund.
SouthState is an American bank based in Florida and a subsidiary of
SouthState Corporation.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ERw2dD at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Class Cert Bid Adjourned to July 1
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOAQUIN ORELLANA CASTANEDA
and GERMAN HERNANDEZ ARGUETA, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, STEVEN BELLONE
: County Executive, County of Suffolk, in his Official : Capacity,
SUFFOLK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, : VINCENT F. DEMARCO Sheriff,
Suffolk County Sheriff's : Office, in his Official Capacity, OTHER
INDIVIDUALS : IN CHARGE TO BE IDENTIFIED and : ERROL TOULON, JR.
Sheriff, Suffolk County : Sheriff’s Office, in his Official
Capacity, : Case No. 2:17-cv-04267-WFK-ARL (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge William Kuntz, II entered an order adjourning the oral
argument on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification scheduled
for Wednesday, June 26, 2024 at 3:00 P.M. until Monday, July 1,
2024 at 3:00 P.M.
Suffolk County is the easternmost county in the U.S. state of New
York, constituting the eastern two-thirds of Long Island.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F6byu3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUN NONG DAN: Ojeda Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Lamberto Ojeda, an individual v. SUN NONG DAN CORPORATION, a
California Corporation; LISA H. LEE, an individual; CHRIS KI, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive; Case No. 24STCV12361
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 16, 2024), is brought as a
result of the Defendants' violation OF The Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA"); failure to pay minimum wage; failure to
compensate for all hours worked; failure to pay overtime
compensation; failure to pay rest period compensation; failure to
pay meal period compensation; failure furnish accurate wage and
hour statements; failure to pay wages upon discharge; statutory
penalties; failure to indemnify and illegal deductions from wages;
unfair competition.
The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges,
that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff was
entitled to receive certain wages for oveltime compensation and
that Plaintiff was not receiving wages for overtime compensation.
The 44. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon
alleges, that Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff the required
rest and meal periods during the relevant time period as required
under the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and thus
Plaintiff was entitled to any and all applicable penalties, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants.
SUN NONG DAN CORPORATION is a restaurant business operating in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarkis Sirmabekian [SBN 278588]
SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, California 90010
Phone: (818) 473-5003
Facsimile: (818) 476-5619
Email: contact@slawla.com
SUNDANCE HOLDINGS: Sued Over Selling of Personal Information
------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Arnsten, Dana Bassett, Debra Macklin, and Elizabeth
Wuebker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SUNDANCE HOLDINGS GROUP, L.L.C., Case No. 2:24-cv-00344
(D. Utah, May 14, 2024), is brought against Sundance for its
intentional, systematic, and unlawful conduct in violation of
Utah's Notice of Intent to Sell Nonpublic Personal Information Act
(the "NISNPIA").
The Defendant rented, sold, and/or otherwise disclosed for
compensation detailed information about Plaintiffs' purchases of
Sundance products--including their full names, home addresses, the
fact that they are Sundance customers, and the products and the
dollar amount of the products they purchased (collectively "Private
Purchase data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, list
brokers, aggressive advertisers, direct-marketing companies,
political organizations, non-profit companies, and various other
third parties.
As a result, Plaintiffs have received a barrage of unwanted junk
mail. By renting, selling, and/or otherwise disclosing for
compensation Plaintiffs' Private Purchase Information, without
providing Plaintiffs prior notice of these disclosures, Sundance
violated the NISNPIA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased consumer products from Sundance on its
website.
Sundance is a specialty retailer that sells a variety of clothing
and other household products to consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
Elliot O. Jackson, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131-3302
Phone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
Email: fhedin@hedinllp.com
ejackson@hedinllp.com
- and -
David W. Scofield, Esq.
PETERS | SCOFIELD
A Professional Corporation
7430 Creek Road, Suite 303
Sandy, Utah 84093-6160
Phone: (801) 322-2002
Facsimile: (801) 912-0320
Email: dws@psplavvyers.com
SUSAN DESKI: Court Tosses Fund Texas Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FUND TEXAS CHOICE, et al.,
v. SUSAN R. DESKI, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00859-RP (W.D. Tex.),
the Hon. Judge Robert Pitman entered an order:
-- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
-- mooting the Defendant Putman's motion to stay;
-- dissolving the administrative stay of June 18, 2024; and
-- granting Defendant Putman's motion to defer.
The Prosecutor Defendants, with the exception of Defendant Putman,
shall file their responses to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment on or before July 9, 2024.
The Plaintiffs have not acted or refused to act on grounds
generally applicable to the defendant class, and the injunction
sought is not against the Plaintiffs. Although the Fifth Circuit
has not addressed the issue, the plain language of 23(b)(2) appears
not to apply to Defendant class actions. Therefore, the motion to
certify cannot be granted under 23(b)(2).
Accordingly, the Court will grant Putman's motion to defer and
allow Putman 90 days to take limited discovery on the requested
information in his motion to defer and to respond to Plaintiffs'
summary judgment motion. Having resolved class certification, the
Court will separately enter a scheduling order under Rule 16.
This case concerns several Texas abortion advocacy groups that seek
to fund or support abortion for Texans in states where it remains
legal. Plaintiffs are comprised of several non-profit Texas
abortion funds and one physician. As part of their mission to
support reproductive rights, they hope to fund and facilitate
travel and lodging for Texans who seek abortions outside the
state.
The Plaintiffs claim that Articles 1191 to 1195 of Texas's Penal
Code arguably criminalize the ability to facilitate out-of-state
abortions, and therefore infringe their constitutional rights. To
rectify this injury.
The Plaintiffs filed suit against fourteen local Texas prosecutors
who are charged with enforcing the pre-Roe laws in their respective
counties.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QhAW7U at no extra
charge.[CC]
TANDYM GROUP: Marte Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cierra Marte, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Tandym Group, LLC, Case No.
50-02024-CA-003622-XXXA-MB was removed from the Fifteenth Judicial
Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on May 15, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:24-cv-80629-AMC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Tandym Group -- https://tandymgroup.com/ -- is a recruitment,
temporary staffing, and workforce management solutions firm with
offices throughout the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO PA
401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
Phone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Jibrael Jarallah Said Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th St., 17th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 907-1136
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Alex W. Karasik, Esq.
Christian Palacios, Esq.
Ryan T. Garippo, Esq.
Duane Morris LLP
190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 499-6700
Email: AWKarasik@duanemorris.com
CPalacios@duanemorris.com
RGarippo@duanemorris.com
- and -
Justin D. D'Elia, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
1540 Broadway
New York City, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 692-1069
Email: jjdelia@duanemorris.com
- and -
Kevin Eugene Vance, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
5100 Town Center Circle
Boca Center Tower II, Suite 400
Boca Raton, FL 33486-1008
Phone: (561) 962-2100
Fax: (561) 962-2101
Email: kevance@duanemorris.com
TARO PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Settlement in Lee Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jae Lee, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. Taro Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-03834-CS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Cathy Seibel entered an order granting final judgment and approving
class action settlement.
-- Service Award Payment of the Settlement Class Rep. is $1500.
-- Strauss Borrelli PLLC is appointed as class counsel.
-- Combined attys' fee is #67,679.75.
Taro is a research-based international pharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QXEtxb at no extra
charge.[CC]
TECO ENERGY: Bid to File Reply Brief Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roche v. TECO Energy, Inc.
et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-01571 (M.D. Fla., Filed Jul 14, 2023),
Hon. Judge entered an order granting in part and denying in part
motion for leave to file reply brief.
The suit alleges Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).[CC]
THIRDLOVE INC: Montgomery Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thirdlove, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Joann Montgomery, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Thirdlove, Inc., Case
No. CGC24614701 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 15,
2024).
The case type is stated as "Business Tort."
ThirdLove -- https://www.thirdlove.com/ -- is an American lingerie
company founded by Heidi Zak and her husband, David Specto.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Phone: (916) 239-4778
Fax: (916) 924-1829
Email: aberry@iustice4you com
- and -
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN
280 S. Beverly Dr.
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: 858-209-6941
- and -
Jason M. Wucetich, Esq.
WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP
222 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 2000
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: (310) 335-2001
TOYOTA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit, Issues Product Recalls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that consumers recently
targeted Toyota with a class action lawsuit. The automaker also
recently issued several recalls and apologized for cheating on
certification tests.
Why: The class action lawsuit alleges Toyota failed to disclose a
coolant bypass defect. The recalls involve defective camera
displays, loss of motive power and doors that could open while a
vehicle is in motion.
Where: The Toyota recalls affect vehicle owners across the United
States and in Japan, Europe and the rest of North America.
Toyota issued several recalls lately over concerns involving
defective camera displays, loss of motive power and doors that
could open while a vehicle is in motion. It also apologized earlier
June after an investigation by the Japanese government found it
cheated on certification tests.
Consumers also recently targeted the automaker with a class action
lawsuit claiming it failed to disclose a vehicle defect.
Toyota recalls 2023 Crown vehicles over camera display defect
Toyota issued a recall for about 13,000 of its model year 2023
Toyota Crown vehicles earlier June over concerns the image on their
camera displays could fail to work properly.
The automaker says it is concerned the camera cases on the recalled
Toyota Crown vehicles could allow water to enter, potentially
causing a short circuit that could affect the image display.
"If the rearview image does not display, there can be an increased
risk of striking and injuring a pedestrian while backing the
vehicle," the Toyota Crown recall says.
Toyota plans to remedy the issue by having its dealers inspect the
serial number for the affected cameras and, if necessary, repair
them at no cost.
Toyota recalls vehicles over motive power loss concerns
Toyota issued a recall in May for approximately 102,000 model year
2022-2023 Toyota Tundra and Lexus LX vehicles over concerns they
could suffer a loss of motive power.
The automaker says it is concerned the Toyota Tundra and Lexus LX
vehicles could suffer a loss of motive power due to machining
debris being left in their engines when they were produced.
"In the involved vehicles, this can lead to potential engine
knocking, engine rough running, engine no start and/or a loss of
motive power," the Toyota Tundra and Lexus LX recall says.
Toyota says it is developing a remedy to resolve the issue.
Toyota recalls Prius, Prius Prime vehicles over door-opening
defect
Toyota issued a recall for 211,000 of its model year 2023-2024
Prius and Prius Prime vehicles in April over concerns their doors
could open while the vehicle is in motion.
The automaker says it is concerned water could enter the electronic
rear door latches and cause unlocked doors on the recalled Prius
and Prius Prime vehicles to open while the vehicle is in motion.
The recall impacts 55,000 Prius and Prius Prime vehicles in the
United States, while the rest of the affected vehicles are in
Japan, Europe and the rest of North America.
Toyota says it will remedy the issue by replacing the door opener
switches for the left and right rear doors with improved ones at no
cost to vehicle owners.
Toyota fails to disclose defect in certain RAV4, Corolla vehicles,
class action claims
A pair of consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Toyota
late May over claims the automaker failed to disclose a coolant
bypass defect affecting its model year 2019-2023 RAV4 and Corolla
vehicles.
The class action lawsuit argues Toyota actively concealed material
facts about the vehicles’ defect from consumers, including that
they were prone to suffering from the alleged issue and would
require costly repairs.
The consumers argue Toyota has also been unable or unwilling to
adequately repair the RAV4 and Corolla vehicles affected by the
defect despite the automaker allegedly being obligated to do so by
warranty.
"Despite the existence of the warranties, Toyota failed to inform
plaintiffs and class members of the defect and failed to adequately
repair the defect," the Toyota class action says.
Toyota apologizes for cheating on certification tests for 7 of its
vehicle models
Toyota Chairman Akio Toyoda apologized earlier June for cheating on
certification tests for seven of its vehicle models.
A Japanese government investigation into Toyota in January
discovered the apparent wrongdoing. The automaker has since
disclosed it used inadequate or outdated data during collision
tests.
Toyota says the automaker suspended production of three of the
vehicle models, including the Corolla Fielder, Corolla Axio and
Yaris Cross.
The investigation exposed several other automakers, including Honda
Motor Co. and Mazda Motor Corp., with both halting production of
certain vehicle models in the wake of the discovery. [GN]
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Davis Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems,
Inc. The case is styled as Caron Davis, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated v. Transworld Systems, Inc., Case
No. 9:24-cv-80604-AMC (S.D. Fla., May 10, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Transworld Systems, Inc. (TSI) -- https://tsico.com/ -- is a
market-leading provider of accounts receivable management and
student loan servicing solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq.
Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq.
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
jibrael@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Rachel Megan Fleishman, Esq.
SESSIONS, ISRAEL AND SHARTLE, LLC
3350 Buschwood Park Drive, Suite 195
Tampa, FL 33618
Phone: (813) 775-2170
Fax: (877) 334-0661
Email: rfleishman@sessions.legal
TREASURY WINE: Faces Labor-Related Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Kerana Todorov, writing for Wine Business, reports that a former
employee has filed a class-action lawsuit against Treasury Wine
Estates Americas Co. in Napa for alleged labor violations,
including failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, according to
court records.
The court filing is among a number of class action lawsuits filed
against Napa Valley wine companies this year over alleged
California labor code violations.
The most recent case was filed by Refugio Arreola, a former hourly
worker for Treasury Wine Estates employee in Napa County from 2017
through January 2024. Arreola filed his civil complaint against his
former employer in Napa County Superior Court.
Australia-based Treasury Wine Estates manages a number of wineries
and vineyards in the Napa Valley. The wineries include Beaulieu
Vineyard, Beringer, Stags' Leap, Etude and Sterling Vineyards.
The class-action lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, also
involves an unspecified number of other employees.
The complaint alleges that Treasury Wine Estates did not allow
Arreola and other employees to take uninterrupted rest and meal
periods and did not reimburse for "necessary business expenses" as
required under state law, according to the lawsuit.
Under the California Labor Code, employees must have an unpaid meal
break of at least 30 minutes every five hours, according to the
lawsuit.
The plaintiff alleged Treasury required him and other workers to
work "off the clock and uncompensated," according to the
complaint.
Besides failing to pay for all "hours worked," including minimum
and overtime wages as required under state law, the company also
did not "timely" pay the Arreola all his final wages when he was
terminated, according to the complaint.
In addition, Treasury allegedly did not provide Arreola "accurate
wage statements," according to the court filing.
A Treasury Wine Estates representative could not be immediately
reached to comment on the lawsuit.
Earlier this month, an hourly employee filed another class action
lawsuit in Napa County Superior Court against V. Sattui Winery, a
privately owned company.
The lawsuit accused the St. Helena winery of alleged California's
labor code violations, according to the lawsuit filed June 14 in
Napa County Superior Court.
Edwin Quisenberry, a former hourly employee at V. Sattui, alleges
V. Sattui failed to pay him and other employees minimum wages for
"all hours worked," according to the court filing.
Quisenberry also alleges V. Sattui "failed to provide legally
mandated meal and rest breaks," as well as overtime pay, according
to the lawsuit.
In addition, V. Sattui allegedly did not provide "timely and proper
meal periods" or required payment of "one additional hour of pay"
at the employee's pay rate when a meal period was missed, according
to the court filing.
The company also did not provide "timely rest periods without
interruption" -- or pay for an additional hour at the worker's pay
rate for each missed, late or interrupted rest period, according to
the lawsuit.
Quisenberry also alleges V. Sattui did not receive all the wages
owed to them when their employment ended, according to the court
filing.
A representative for V. Sattui could not be immediately reached to
comment on the lawsuit.
In April, another class-action lawsuit alleging labor violations
was filed against yet another Napa Valley wine company, Fior Di
Sole LLC, according to court filings.
Jose Juan Castillo. jr., who worked for Fio Di Sole from July 2023
to December, alleges Fior Di Sole violated minimum and overtime
wages rules, according to the complaint.
In addition, the company allegedly did not provide meal and rest
periods as required under state law - or pay an additional hour at
the regular rate for each meal or rest period missed or
interrupted, the lawsuit alleges.
Other allegations include Fior Di Sole's failure to provide
"accurate itemized wage statements" and to reimburse employees for
expenses incurred on the job, according to the court filing.
In addition, Fior Di Sole allegedly did not timely pay employees
their due wages when they left the company, according to the
complaint. These wages were due immediately under state law,
according to the lawsuit.
Fior Di Sole could not be immediately reached to comment. [GN]
TRUIST BANK: Ruffin Files Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Stephen
Ruffin is suing Truist Bank.
Why: Ruffin claims he and other customers of the bank had their
private information exposed in a Truist Bank cyberattack that could
have been avoided.
Where: The Truist Bank data breach class action lawsuit was filed
in a North Carolina federal court.
A Georgia man is suing Truist Bank, saying a cyberattack on the
bank's systems caused his private information to get into the hands
of cybercriminals, causing him anxiety and leaving him open to
becoming the victim of multiple crimes.
Plaintiff Stephen Ruffin filed the class action lawsuit against
Truist Bank on June 21 in a North Carolina federal court, alleging
negligence.
According to the lawsuit, the bank failed to properly secure and
safeguard the sensitive information of its customers, which was
then targeted by cybercriminals in an October 2023 data breach.
"The Data Breach was a direct result of [Truist Bank's] failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect consumers' [personal identifiable
information] from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack,"
Ruffin alleges.
Bank didn't give customers enough information about hack, lawsuit
says
Truist Bank collected personally identifiable information of Ruffin
and other customers, including their full names, dates of birth,
Social Security numbers, and account information, the lawsuit says.
All of this information was exposed to cybercriminals when the
bank's system was hacked in 2023, according to the lawsuit.
Ruffin says he learned of the Oct. 27, 2023, cyber attack through a
letter he received in May this year. He says the letter advised him
that his personal information had been exposed in a data breach of
Truist Bank, however he says the letter didn't tell him enough to
protect himself.
"This 'disclosure' amounts to no real disclosure at all, as it
fails to inform, with any degree of specificity, Plaintiff and
Class Members of the data breach's critical facts," the lawsuit
says.
"Without these details, Plaintiff's and Class Members' ability to
mitigate the harms resulting from the Data Breach is severely
diminished."
Truist Bank should have strengthened its cybersecurity, lawsuit
says
Ruffin says Truist Bank should have known it was at risk of a data
breach due to a number of other, recent high profile data breaches
at other industry leading companies, including T-Mobile, USA (37
million records, February-March 2023) and 23andMe Inc. (20 million
records, October 2023).
"Defendant knew or should have known that the [information] that
they collected and maintained would be targeted by cybercriminals,
Ruffin says.
Instead, it used its customers' information in a "reckless" manner,
by transmitting it in conditions that were vulnerable to
cyberattack, he says.
Ruffin says he and other customers will now face years of constant
surveillance of their financial and personal records. Not only will
they suffer fear, anxiety and stress, they are also now targets for
crime including cybercriminals opening new financial accounts in
their names, using their information to obtain government benefits,
or giving false information to police during an arrest.
As a result, Ruffin is looking to represent anyone in the United
States whose private information was accessed by an unauthorized
party as a result of the data breach reported by Truist Bank in
June 2024. He is suing for negligence, breach of implied contract
and unjust enrichment and is seeking certification of the class
action, damages, fees, costs and an injunction forcing the bank to
improve its cybersecurity practices.
In a similar case, a pair of customers filed separate Centennial
Bank class action lawsuits after a company data breach compromised
the information of current and former customers. The Centennial
Bank data breach occurred in April 2023, but the company allegedly
did not begin to notify the individuals who had their information
compromised until April 19, 2024, the class actions claim.
The plaintiff is represented by Scott C. Harris and David K. Lietz
of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC.
The Truist Bank Class Action Lawsuit is Stephen Ruffin v. Truist
Bank, Case No. 3:24-cv-00582 in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina. [GN]
TYSON FOODS: McBride Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard McBride, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TYSON FOODS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00117-ACL (E.D.
Mo., May 10, 2024), is brought under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C.
§§ 251-262 (collectively, the "FLSA"), and the wage laws of the
Missouri Revised Statutes ("RSMo"), for the Defendant's failure to
pay all due and owing overtime wages to the Plaintiff.
This lawsuit seeks to recover overtime compensation for Plaintiff
and his similarly situated co-workers--salaried production
supervisors--who have worked for Defendant companywide in the
United States. The Plaintiff frequently worked over forty hours per
week. The Defendant uniformly classified the production supervisor
position as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA and
corresponding state wage and hour laws, regardless of location
worked. Even though Plaintiff should have been paid an hourly rate
as a non-exempt employee pursuant to his job duties, and received
overtime premium pay when he worked in excess of forty hours in a
workweek, Defendant at all times paid Plaintiff on a salary basis.
As a result, Plaintiff did not receive all overtime pay to which he
was entitled. This misclassification, and the resulting
underpayment of wages, was in violation of the FLSA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a production supervisor.
The Defendant is a meat processor and operates a meat
processing/packing plant in Missouri, where Plaintiff worked.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Colby Qualls, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 210-2100 phone
Email: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com
UMPQUA BANK: Bid for Partial Decertification Tossed
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHELA CAMENISCH, et al.,
v. UMPQUA BANK, Case No. 3:20-cv-05905-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order denying:
(1) motion for determination that California law cannot be
applied
to the claims of at least some of the plaintiff class
members
who currently reside in other states or in foreign
countries,
and that therefore partial decertification is warranted, and
(2) summary judgment that plaintiffs will not be entitled to
prejudgment interest even if they prevail on the merits of
their claims.
In contrast, California's compelling interest in regulating the
conduct at issue here (of PFI and of Umpqua) is manifest, even to
the extent a few of the class members may have been residing
elsewhere when they sent their investments to California, and the
wrongs occurred. Umpqua's motion for partial decertification must
be denied.
Umpqua's basic argument is the bankruptcy settlement must be seen
as denying interest to all investors. It is more appropriate to
characterize it merely as requiring that all investors receive
return of their principal in full before recovering interest from
the bankruptcy estate. While the estate proved too small to pay all
principal and interest, plaintiffs are not estopped from pursuing
prejudgment interest claims in this action.
Umpqua is a financial holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jsPoK3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
UMPQUA BANK: Court Defers Final Ruling on Standing
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER A BAGATELOS, et al.,
v. UMPQUA BANK, Case No. 3:23-cv-02759-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order permitting further
submission to address standing.
The Court said that a final ruling on standing is deferred pending
receipt of those submissions, and a ruling on the merits will not
issue until and unless there is a determination that standing
exists.
While Umpqua cannot be held derivatively liable to these plaintiffs
under an "aiding and abetting" theory, that is not because
plaintiffs were not damaged by PFI's alleged wrongdoing. PFI's
promise was that it would contribute to the TICs and manage the
investments. Its alleged diversions of funds and intermingling of
profits, and failure to make promised contributions, potentially
caused damage to plaintiffs, even though they received ownership in
the properties. Umpqua's argument that plaintiffs suffered no
cognizable damages exist is not tenable, even though it has shown
it does not face liability for such damages.
The case arises from the same underlying facts alleged in Camenisch
v. Umpqua Bank, Case No. 3:20-CV-05905-RS. The Plaintiffs contend
they were members of the putative class proposed in the original
Camenisch complaint, which was filed by the same plaintiffs'
counsel.
The Camenisch plaintiffs allege they were victims of an alleged
real estate investment Ponzi scheme carried out by Kenneth Casey
through two companies he founded and controlled— Professional
Investors Security Fund, Inc. and Professional Financial Investors,
Inc.
Casey is deceased, and PFI filed bankruptcy. Investors recovered
only a portion of their investments in the bankruptcy. The
Camenisch plaintiffs therefore seek to recover damages from Umpqua
Bank, the financial institution that handled all of PFI’s
accounts.
The Plaintiffs contend the percentage interests they received in
each property did not reflect the actual percentage that the funds
they contributed bore to the total sales price, because under the
investment agreements, PFI also took a percentage ownership, in
exchange for the expectation that it was managing the investment
over the longer term.
The Plaintiffs assert PFI's alleged financial improprieties mean it
never actually contributed the sums it was required to provide as
consideration for its percentage ownership in the TICs.
The Plaintiffs also argue the monies they should have received from
PFI as returns on their investments (prior to the sale of any of
the TIC properties) were commingled with other investor funds as
part of the overall fraudulent Ponzi scheme.
Umpqua is a financial holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9S7M7a at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Velasquez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
ZION M. VELASQUEZ and RISHMA ANOOP, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION
SERVICE, LLC, d/b/a ALLIED UNIVERSAL, Case No. 1:24-cv-04795
(S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid wages, including
overtime, due to time-shaving, unpaid overtime wages due to a
failure to compensate at a blended overtime rate, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs, potential collective members, and putative class
members are current and former security guard employees of
Defendant, who were victims of Defendant's alleged schemes to
underpay employees. Specifically, despite requiring employees to
work hours beyond their shift each day, Defendant would only
compensate employees based on their schedules. The Defendant's
system resulted in both pre-and-post shift time shaving, the
Plaintiffs say.
The Defendant operates a security and private investigation company
under the name "Allied Universal," which provides services to both
commercial and residential sites. Such sites include construction
sites, schools and higher education, retail stores, grocers, and
hospitality security, throughout New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
UPMC BENEFIT: Faces Livingston Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID LIVINGSTON, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. UPMC BENEFIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC. d/b/a WORK
PARTNERS f/k/a UPMC WORK PARTNERS, Case No. 2:24-cv-00914 (W.D.
Pa., June 25, 2024) is an individual and collective/class action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act to recover damages for non-payment of wages.
The Plaintiff regularly performed work within the state of
Pennsylvania and reported directly to Defendant at their
headquarter location of 600 Grant Street, 55th Floor, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
The Defendant is a Third-Party Administrator who processes various
types of leave of absence from work claims which includes; Family
and Medical Leave Act claims, Reasonable Accommodation Claims under
the Americans with Disabilities Act claims, other work leave of
absence claims, and Short-Term Disability Insurance claims.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David V. Barszcz, Esq.
LYTLE & BARSZCZ, P.A.
533 Versailles Drive, Suite 100
Maitland, FL 32751
Telephone: (407) 622-6544
Facsimile: (407) 622-6545
E-mail: dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney
UROLOGY OF GREATER ATLANTA: Bland Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Urology of Greater
Atlanta, LLC. The case is styled as Michael Bland, Cathy Kreider,
individually and on behalf of all Those similarly situated v.
Urology of Greater Atlanta, LLC, Case No. SUCV2024001469 (Ga.
Super. Ct., Henry Cty., May 16, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other General Civil Filing."
Urology of Greater Atlanta -- https://ugatl.com/ -- offers the
residents of Atlanta a team of top quality Urologists and
surgeons.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zinns Sharon, Esq.
4243 Dunwoody Club Drive, Suite 104
Atlanta, GA 30350
Email: sharon@zinnslaw.com
US HEALTHWORKS: Parties Seek to Continue Class Hearing to July 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINA RAINES and
DARRICK FIGG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. U.S. HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP, a corporation, et al.,
et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-01539-DMS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order granting stipulation to continue
hearing on motion for class certification and motion to disqualify
Expert Dr. Timur Durrani., from June 28, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. to July
2, 2024, at 1:00 p.m.
U.S. Healthworks offers acupuncture, physical therapy, injury
treatment, and specialty care services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aKVfuU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
R. Scott Erlewine, Esq.
Kyle P. O'Malley, Esq.
PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP
39 Mesa Street, Suite 201 - The Presidio
San Francisco, CA 94129
Telephone: (415) 398-0900
Facsimile: (415) 398-0911
E-mail: rse@phillaw.com
kpo@phillaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Tim L. Johnson, Esq.
Cameron O. Flynn
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C.
4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (858) 652-3100
Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
E-mail: tim.johnson@ogletree.com
cameron.flynn@ogletree.com
VISA INC: Antitrust Suit Remanded to N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
1:19-cv-06555-MKB-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Margo Brodie
entered an order granting Grubhub Plaintiffs' motion and suggests
that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remand this
action to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.
The Plaintiffs in Grubhub Holdings, an action that was consolidated
with In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount
Antitrust Litigation, moved the Court to issue a suggestion of
remand to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. section 1407 and Rule 10.3 of the Rules of Procedure
of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
On April 10, 2024, Defendants Visa and Mastercard opposed Grubhub
Plaintiffs' motion.
Grubhub Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion.
The Court sees no basis for such a requirement prior to remand, and
Defendants offer none.
Moreover, the Court lacks the authority to "assign" Grubhub
Plaintiffs' case to itself for adjudication of these damages
claims.
Visa is an American multinational payment card services
corporation.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZDEgsg at no extra
charge.[CC]
VS CLIPPER: Clipper Hills Residents Sue Over Maryland's SLAPP Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fern Shen of Baltimore Brew reports that in 2020, Jeffrey K.
Pietrzak, Jessica Meyer, Jared Block and Dan Cashman had a grim
experience that, as they came to realize, was endured by others in
Baltimore and around the country -- a developer whose project they
had criticized at public meetings coming after them with lawyers.
"It was 9:30 at night. I was home with my wife and kids, and they
were knocking at the door to serve me," said Pietrzak, who owns a
townhome in Clipper Mill and spoke out at at city Planning
Commission meetings against developer Larry E. Jennings' projects
in their North Baltimore neighborhood.
For condominium owner Cashman, the late night visit by a process
server armed with a $25 million lawsuit naming him and several of
his neighbors was a horror.
"I had to tell my wife, 'Hey, you know that little thing I agreed
to do as a volunteer? Taking notes at some meetings? It's maybe
going to drastically change our whole financial situation. Sorry!'"
said Cashman, a board member of the Council of Unit Owners of the
Millrace Condominiums.
Jennings' lawsuit also named that condo council (representing 62
condominiums) and the Homes at Clipper Mill Homeowners' Association
(representing 71 homeowners).
What followed, as the four tell it, was a year and a half of angst
and fear as a complaint seeking an astronomical amount of money and
accusing them of being a "subversive" group hung over their heads.
As part of the lawsuit, Jennings' lawyer, David B. Applefeld, sent
"demand for preservation" letters, one of them 11 pages long,
warning they would be required to turn over emails, texts, memos,
audio recordings, voicemail messages, personal financial records
and more, and to provide access to cell phones and other electronic
devices as well as computer hard drives.
Tensions flared among neighbors and between spouses as the 133
owners suddenly found their properties encumbered by $187,000 each.
The individuals singled out by name weren't sure what they might
have to pay, should the legal action prevail.
Some Clipper Mill residents argued they should capitulate to the
politically connected Jennings, a former Baltimore Housing
Authority commissioner tapped by newly elected mayor Brandon Scott
to serve on his transition team. Could the lawsuit's claim be
correct, that the residents gave up their rights to object when
they signed the deed or lease to their residences?
"People were scared, they were afraid to come to meetings, they
were afraid to speak," Pietrzak recalled.
In the end, the defendants stuck it out and won decisive legal
victories.
First a Circuit Court judge, then an appeals court judge, declared
Jennings' lawsuit a "vexatious" and illegal SLAPP (Strategic
Lawsuit Against Public Participation) action, brought in bad faith
and designed to punish and intimidate. On December 16, 2021, the
suit was tossed out.
Now in a stunning twist, the individuals and entities that Jennings
attacked have filed a class action suit against him.
"Malicious use of process"
Coming before a Circuit Court judge on June 28, 2024, their
complaint names Jennings, Applefeld, his law firm, Shapiro Guinot
and Sandler, and two LLC's controlled by developer P. David
Bramble, MCB Woodberry Parent and MCB Woodberry Developer.
Accusing the parties of "malicious use of process" and infringing
on the residents' constitutional rights to free speech, the 21-page
complaint seeks a jury trial, $75,000 in compensatory damages and
undetermined punitive damages.
"The defendants sought to use the lawsuit as an improper means of
intimidation against all class members, to cause anxiety and
concern throughout the class, and to seek or threaten to seek
intrusive, abusive discovery of personal and confidential business
communication," the suit charges.
While the Jennings lawsuit was on the docket, property values were
diminished, insurance rates increased significantly and some sales
fell through as a result of what was "effectively a freeze on class
members' assets," the residents say.
To Pietrzak, what he and his co-plaintiffs really want from their
suit is for the court to send a message discouraging others from
filing SLAPP suits like the one they endured.
"We did nothing wrong. I went to a couple of meetings. I
represented my neighbors in a constructive way. And I got hammered
for it," Pietrzak said, speaking with The Brew earlier this month.
"Once you take this off the table -- the ability for peoples'
voices to be heard -- you're taking away what we're about as a
country," he continued. "It's horrible how things in this city and
state are set up -- deep pocketed people can intimidate you."
He and his neighbors had to turn to the courts, Block said,
"because these city boards and elected officials were being
absolutely no help to us."
"What was done to us was just so egregious. Just so far out there,"
he continued. "We don't think a developer should be able to do this
to any community.".
MCB: "Suit has no merit"
Pietrzak and others named in the original $25 million dollar suit
spoke with a reporter recently outside the 108-year-old Tractor
Building at 2001 Clipper Park Drive, which Jennings had wanted to
gut and convert to a multi-story structure with 98 residential
units, offices and a parking garage on a nearby lot.
Nearby was another location in the community where Jennings had
sought permission to build -- the Poole & Hunt lot, where a 30-unit
"stacked townhouse" development was envisioned
The residents had opposed both those proposals before the Planning
Commission and in court.
By jamming too many people and cars in the historic community, the
projects flew in the face of its Planned Unit Development
restrictions and should be rejected, they argued. (The commission's
approval of both projects was overturned by appellate court
decisions.)
A spokeswoman for Bramble, whose office is across the street from
the Tractor Building, said MCB has reviewed the class action
complaint "and believes it lacks any merit."
"MCB did not initiate the underlying lawsuit that is the focus of
plaintiffs' claims -- MCB was only included as a result of becoming
the record owner of the Clipper Mill development," her emailed
statement continued.
"MCB is committed to continuing to work as a partner with the
entire Clipper Mill community, including the plaintiffs, to
continue to build this community as an example of how great every
neighborhood in Baltimore can be."
Not addressed were The Brew's question as to Bramble's plans for
the property or the lawsuit's claim that his company "had an
opportunity to end the SLAPP suit voluntarily" while it was still
pending, but failed to do so.
Jennings: "Malice not shown"
Jennings has not returned several messages seeking comment on the
class action suit, but a filing by his lawyers seeking dismissal
outlines his arguments.
It argues the allegation of "malicious use of process" is not
backed up by evidence that Jennings acted with "malice" or without
probable cause.
Jennings' lawyers could not be expected to have known what they
were filing was a SLAPP suit, the defendants say, because at the
time "there was no meaningful legislative history" concerning the
scope of Maryland's anti-SLAPP law.
They say no evidence was offered for the plaintiffs' claims that
Jennings publicly stated on multiple occasions that he would "ruin"
them for challenging his plans, or their contention that he
personally "ordered the suit filed."
The plaintiffs" description of the anxiety and stress caused by the
$25 million suit is exaggerated, according to the filing, which
also disputes their claim it inflicted financial harm.
Whatever measures Applefeld undertook were "indisputably the
actions of a litigator carrying out ordinary litigation
responsibilities," the legal filing argued.
It points out that Applefeld agreed to suspend discovery and that
despite the demand for records, cell phones and computer hard
drives, no records were actually turned over.
Noting that Maryland's anti-SLAPP law provides a remedy -- legal
fees, which the Clipper Mill residents were awarded -- Jennings'
lawyers argue "that should be the end of the matter."
Nationwide Trend
To the Clipper Mill residents and their attorneys, much more public
push back is needed.
"What's the special harm here? The fact that you can be sued for
going to a zoning hearing! It's off the wall. Outrageous,"
exclaimed one of the attorneys representing the residents, John C.
Murphy.
Developers with multi-million-dollar projects can easily afford the
cost to hire a lawyer to write a letter threatening citizens with a
legal action, he pointed out. Even if the threat never escalates
into a lawsuit, such letters can achieve their true purpose of
scaring off critics.
While his clients were lucky enough to belong to homeowners'
associations with insurance coverage to pay for legal defense,
Murphy said, most small community associations in the city do not
have such resources.
"Mine probably has $100 in the bank and that's it," Murphy said,
pointing out recent cases in Baltimore where complaining residents
have received chilling letters from business owners.
In 2021, for example, more than a dozen Fells Point residents
scheduled to speak at a Liquor Board hearing about excessive noise
from The Choptank restaurant received threatening letters from a
lawyer for its owner, the Atlas Restaurant Group."
"The Choptank intends to take all necessary steps to protect its
legal rights, including filing suit against you," the letter said.
In the end, only three people showed up at the hearing, and the
liquor board ruled unanimously in favor of the restaurant, which
was seeking a license renewal.
Three months ago, an Atlas attorney sent a similar letter to
residents objecting to one of the company's other projects in Fells
Point.
In 2021, an attorney for La Cite Development threatened opponents
of the firm's plans for redeveloping the Poppleton neighborhood
with litigation for allegedly making false statements about the
project.
Across the country, retaliatory SLAPPs against activist groups,
media organizations and individuals have proliferated, prompting
efforts in state legislatures, including in Maryland, to pass and
strengthen anti-SLAPP laws.
A Basic Right
To Murphy, allowing such actions to be brought with impunity
undermines a basic right of citizens to speak out in a public forum
on matters of public interest.
In court, he plans to invoke principles dating back to medieval
jurisprudence that affirm a person's right to speak out in court
and before government zoning panels without fear of being sued for
it.
He pointed to the strongly worded Maryland Court of Special Appeals
opinion issued in the case by Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr.
Jennings' $25 million suit was "a killer asteroid" intended to
"make extinct the complaints and complainants" who had exercised
their right to speak out against his plans, Judge Harrell said, in
the first appellate case to address the state's anti-SLAPP law.
"The developer did not allege any facts showing that the residents
acted with malice in making any communications" and could not
plausibly claim they had violated a community association pact, he
wrote.
Class action plaintiff Jessica Meyer, who has lived in Clipper Mill
since 2007, said she is "incredibly hopeful" that the courts will
recognize what is at stake.
"I don't want anyone else to go through what we went through," she
said. "But look at Atlas, they're using the same tactics right
now."
The fact that lawyers continue to threaten Baltimore residents who
speak out, even after Harrell's opinion, convinces her their class
action efforts are needed.
"Other developers are going to attempt this until there is a major
judgment against them." [GN]
WALMART INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due June 6, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEARL MAGPAYO, v. WALMART
INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01350-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
William Orrick entered an order granting the following briefing
schedule and hearing date apply to any motion for class
certification and any related motions to exclude expert opinions:
Event/Deadline Proposed Date
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification June 6, 2025
due:
Plaintiff's Initial Expert Disclosures and June 6, 2025
Reports re: Class Certification due:
Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion Aug. 4, 2025
for Class Certification due:
Defendant's Expert Disclosures and Reports Aug. 4, 2025
re: Class Certification due:
Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Sept. 19, 2025
Class Certification due:
Plaintiff's Rebuttal Expert Reports due: Sept. 19, 2025
Plaintiff's and Defendant's Daubert motions Sept. 26, 2025
due (except as to Plaintiff's Rebuttal
Expert Reports):
Defendant's Daubert motions as to Oct. 1, 2025
Plaintiff's Rebuttal Experts due:
Oppositions to all Daubert motions due: Oct. 15, 2025
Replies to all Daubert motions due: Oct. 22, 2025
Hearing on Class Certification Motion and Nov. 5, 2025
Daubert Motions:
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=05owgP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP
2121 Avenue Of The Stars, Ste 2580
Los Angeles, CA 90067-5074
Telephone: (310) 751-5917
The Defendant is represented by:
William P. Cole, Esq.
Matthew R. Orr, Esq.
Richard L. Hyde, Esq.
Cole Kroshus, Esq.
AMIN WASSERMAN GURNANI, LLP
515 South Flower St., 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 933-2330
Facsimile: (312) 884-7352
E-mail: wcole@awglaw.com
morr@awglaw.com
rhyde@awglaw.com
ckroshus@awglaw.com
WELCH FOODS: Morris Sues Over Fruit & Yogurt Snacks' Misleading Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLENE MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WELCH FOODS INC., A COOPERATIVE, Defendant,
Case No. 6:24-cv-06385 (W.D.N.Y., June 18, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Sections 349 and 350 of the
New York General Business Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's false and misleading marketing
campaign for its Fruit and Yogurt product line. The Defendant
advertises its Fruit 'n Yogurt Snacks to contain "creamy yogurt"
and are healthy for consumers to eat. In reality, the Defendant's
product is covered in a candy-like coating designed to provide the
illusion of health while delivering the harms of an ultra-processed
food. Had the Plaintiff and similarly consumers known that the
product does not contain yogurt, they would not have purchased it
or would not have paid a premium price for it, says the suit.
Welch Foods Inc. is a food company based in Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Denlea, Esq.
Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
Craig M. Cepler, Esq.
Catherine H. Friesen, Esq.
DENLEA & CARTON LLP
2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410
White Plains, NY 10604
Telephone: (914) 331-0100
Facsimile: (914) 331-0105
Email: jdenlea@denleacarton.com
jcarton@denleacarton.com
ccepler@denleacarton.com
cfriesen@denleacarton.com
WELLS FARGO: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for May 9, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID A. KIRKPATRICK, v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., doing business as Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
and HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Case No. 5:24-cv-00169 (S.D.W. Va.), the
Hon. Judge Frank Volk entered an order setting the following case
events and dates:
Date Case Events Relating to Class Certification
Oct. 31, 2024 Deadline for written fact discovery related to
class certification.
Nov. 30, 2024 Deadline for fact witness depositions related
to
class certification.
Dec. 10, 2024 Deadline for plaintiffs to serve expert reports
supporting class certification.
Dec. 20, 2024 Deadline to serve motion for class
certification
May 9, 2025 Hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
Respecting the deadlines applicable to the remainder of the case,
the Court sets the following events and dates:
Deadline Date
Amending the pleadings or joining parties Nov. 1, 2024
Last date to serve discovery requests Feb. 17, 2025
Opening Rule 26 expert disclosures Jan. 31, 2025
Responsive Rule 26 expert disclosures Mar. 3, 2025
R
Discovery to close Apr. 1, 2025
Dispositive motions deadline Apr. 21, 2025
Settlement meeting June 23, 2025
Motion in limine deadline June 30, 2025
Pretrial conference July 11, 2025
Final settlement conference Aug. 15, 2025
Jury Trial Aug. 19, 2025
Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tMbzsj at no extra
charge.[CC]
WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: Patel Sues Over Uniform Policy Expenses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pujan Patel and Juan Barbosa, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Wendy's International, LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-03385-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, June 24, 2024) arises under the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA") for the
Defendant's failure to reimburse the Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated employees for all of the expenses associated
with complying with Wendy's uniform policy.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves, and all
similarly-situated current and former employees who worked for
Defendant at one of its Wendy's restaurants in Illinois between
January 1, 2019 and the final resolution of this matter.
Plaintiff Patel was employed by Wendy's as a crew member from
August 2018 through January, 2020 at its restaurant located at 3700
Touhy Ave., Skokie, Illinois.
Plaintiff Barbosa was employed by Wendy's as a crew member in 2022
at its restaurant located at 104 N. Center St., Joliet, Illinois.
Wendy's International, LLC operates as a restaurant. The Company
offers hamburgers, chicken, wraps, salads, french fries,
non-alcoholic beverages, and desserts. Wendy's International serves
customers worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
FRADIN LAW
8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon
SIMON LAW CO.
11 ½ N. Franklin St.
Chagrin Falls, OH
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com
WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due August 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEGGETT v. WEST VIRGINIA
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00882 (W.D. Pa.,
Filed May 26, 2023), Hon. Judge entered an order setting class
certification deadlines:
-- Plaintiff's filing of Motion for Class Aug. 1, 2024
Certification is due on or before:
-- Class Certification Discovery Deadline Sept. 20, 2024
shall be completed on or before:
-- Class Certification Expert Reports due Sept. 30, 2024
on or before:
-- Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition Oct. 18, 2024
to Class Certification due on or
before:
-- Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in Support Nov. 1, 2024
of Class Certification due on or
before:
The suit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).[CC]
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to July 15, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY PAPERNO and ROBERT
GIBBANY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-05114-RFL
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order that granting
this stipulated motion to set new discovery deadlines by extending
all case deadlines by 90 days from the dates contained in the prior
case schedule, as set forth below:
Event Current Proposed
Extended
Deadline Deadline
Close of Fact Discovery Oct. 30, 2024 Jan. 31,
2025
Plaintiffs' Initial Expert Reports Dec. 6, 2024 Mar. 6,
2025
Defendant's Initial Expert Report Jan. 17, 2025 Apr. 17,
2025
Rebuttal Expert Reports Feb.28, 2025 May 28,
2025
Close of Expert Discovery Mar. 28, 2025 June 30,
2025
Class Certification Motion Apr. 15, 2025 July 15,
2025
Opposition/Response May 27, 2025 Aug. 27,
2025
Class Certification Reply June 25, 2025 Sept. 25,
2025
Class Certification Motion Hearing July 15, 2025 Oct. 14,
2025
Whirlpool is an American multinational manufacturer and marketer of
home appliances
A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mcJFEV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Laura R. Gerber, Esq.
Michael Woerner, Esq.
Alison E. Chase, Esq.
Andrew N. Lindsay, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
601 Sw 2nd Ave Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
- and -
Michael J. Brickman, Esq.
James C. Bradley, Esq.
Nina Fields Britt, Esq.
Caleb M. Hodge, Esq.
ROGERS, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
174 East Bay Street.
Charleston, SC 29401
- and -
Kenneth Behrman, Esq.
KENNETH BEHRMAN LAW
1801 Peachtree St. N.E.Ste. 200
Atlanta, GA 30309
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew M. Unthank, Esq.
Galen D. Bellamy, Esq.
WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4500
Denver, CO 80202-5647
Telephone: (303) 244-1800
Facsimile: (303) 244-1879
E-mail: unthank@wtotrial.com
bellamy@wtotrial.com
- and -
Troy M. Yoshino, Esq.
Samantha K. Looker, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
101 California Street, 35th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-5840
Telephone: (415) 591-1000
E-mail: TYoshino@winston.com
SLooker@winston.com
WILLIAM WARREN: Failed to Pay Managers' OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN REVIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THE WILLIAM WARREN GROUP, INC., and WILLIAM WARREN
PROPERTIES, INC., together d/b/a STORQUEST SELF STORAGE, Case No.
4:24-cv-02371 (S.D. Tex., June 24, 2024) is a collective action
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to remedy the
Defendants' violations of federal law which have deprived Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees of earned overtime
compensation.
The Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff and the other
similarly situated hourly-paid Managers for all time worked,
including overtime hours, in violation of the FLSA. Specifically,
the Defendants have a common, uniform, and widespread policy and
practice which discourages Managers from reporting overtime hours,
that is, any hours over forty in an individual work week, says the
suit.
The Defendants operate over 250+ locations and growing in 17 states
across the country, which they operate under the
StorQuest/StorQuest Express brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
Gregg I. Shavitz (pro hac vice forthcoming)
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
WOODSTREAM CORPORATION: Maroney Suit Seeks to Certify Six Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY MARONEY AND HENRY
H. HEUMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. WOODSTREAM CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation,
Case No. 7:19-cv-08294-KMK-JCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move
the Court for an Order certifying the following six classes:
-- nationwide class asserting claims for fraud;
-- two nationwide subclasses asserting claims for fraud (to
address
statutes of limitations);
-- a multistate class asserting a claim for breach of express
warranty;
-- a multistate subclass asserting a claim for breach of express
warranty (to address statutes of limitations); and
-- a New York-only subclass asserting claims under New York
General
Business Law ("GBL") sections 349 and 350.
The proposed class definitions are as follows:
Nationwide Fraud Class:
"All persons who purchased one or more Victor PestChaser Rodent
Repellers in the United States from August 29, 2013, until the
date notice is provided to the Class."
Nationwide Fraud Subclass (3-year statute):
"all persons who purchased one or more Victor PestChaser Rodent
Repellers in the states of Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Idaho,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington
from Aug. 29, 2016, until the date notice is provided to the
Class."
Nationwide Fraud Subclass 2 (2-year statute):
"all persons who purchased one or more Victor PestChaser Rodent
Repellers in the states of Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, Montana,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia
from
Aug. 29, 2017, until the date notice is provided to the
Class."
Multistate Breach of Express Warranty Class (4 year statute):
"All persons who purchased one or more Victor PestChaser Rodent
Repellers in the states of Alaska, California, Delaware, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia, and Wyoming, from Aug. 29, 2015, until the date
notice
is provided to the Class."
Multistate Breach of Express Warranty Subclass (3-year
statute):
"all persons who purchased one or more Victor PestChaser Rodent
Repellers in the state of Colorado from August 29, 2016, until
the
date notice is provided to the Class."
New York Subclass:
"All persons who purchased one or more Victor PestChaser Rodent
Repellers in the United States from Aug. 29, 2015, until the
date
notice is provided to the Class."
Each proposed Class and Subclass is limited to the applicable
statutes of limitations for the various jurisdictions.
Excluded from each Class and Subclass are the Defendant, its
officers, directors, and employees, and those who made such
purchase for purpose of resale.
Woodstream manufactures and markets pest control and wildlife
caring and control products.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SW7MSU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
James M. Davis, Esq.
BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 338-1100
Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
jdavis@bholaw.com
- and -
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: scott@bursor.com
ykopel@bursor.com
sbeck@bursor.com
YODLEE INC: Clark Seeks to Seal Documents
-----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARIUS CLARK, ET AL.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
YODLEE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-05991-SK
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
granting the Plaintiffs' administrative motion to consider whether
another party's material Should be sealed.
Pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5(f), Plaintiffs have provisionally filed
under seal Exhibits 1-6 and have redacted all information derived
from these documents that remain under seal in Plaintiffs' Reply in
Support of Motion to Certify Classes.
The Plaintiffs have also provisionally filed under seal portions of
their Reply that cites to, references, or derives information from
materials designated by Yodlee as "CONFIDENTIAL," "HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY," or "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL --
SOURCE CODE."
Yodlee is a technology and applications platform for digital
financial services in the cloud.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 26, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7NSSaP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christian Levis, Esq.
Margaret MacLean, Esq.
Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
Rachel Kesten, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
afiorilla@lowey.com
- and -
Benjamin Steinberg, Esq.
Kellie Lerner, Esq.
Laura Song, Esq.
Li Zhu, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 980-7400
E-mail: bsteinberg@robinskaplan.com
klerner@robinskaplan.com
lsong@robinskaplan.com
lzhu@robinskaplan.com
- and -
Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
One Tower Bridge
100 Front St., Suite 520
West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (215) 399-4770
E-mail: achristina@lowey.com
- and -
Christopher Cormier, Esq.
Matthew Strauser, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
4724 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Ste. 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 577-3977
E-mail: ccormier@burnscharest.com
mstrauser@burnscharest.com
- and -
John Emerson, Esq.
EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300
Houston, TX 77042
Telephone: (800) 551-8649
E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com
- and -
Robert Kitchenoff, Esq.
WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
150 Monument Road, Suite 107
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (215) 545-7200
E-mail: kitchenoff@wka-law.com
- and -
Michele Carino, Esq.
GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES LLC
881 Lake Avenue
Greenwich, CT 06831
Telephone: (203) 622-6001
E-mail: mcarino@grwlegal.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Still Defends Personal Injury Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
GMS Inc. continues to have a number of active asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits that they vigorously defend against,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The building materials industry has been
subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising from
alleged exposure to raw materials contained in building products as
well as claims for incidents of catastrophic loss, such as building
fires. As a distributor of building materials, we face an inherent
risk of exposure to product liability claims if the use of the
products we have distributed in the past or may in the future
distribute is alleged to have resulted in economic loss, personal
injury or property damage or to have violated environmental, health
or safety or other laws. Such product liability claims have
included and may in the future include allegations of defects in
manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers
inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach
of warranties. Certain of our subsidiaries have been the subject of
claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
they distributed prior to 1979."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WsrtsZ
*********
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 ***