/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240709.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, July 9, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 137
Headlines
24 CAPITAL: Peters Broadcast Seeks to Certify Class Action
3M COMPANY: Brown Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Fleet Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Hall Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Merryman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Moran Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Newsome Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Nugent Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Ross Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Shipman & Wright Files 10 Lawsuits Over Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
ACADEMY MORTGAGE: Allen's Amended Bid to Consolidate Actions OK'd
ACADEMY MORTGAGE: Kucherry's Bid to Consolidate Actions Granted
ACADEMY MORTGAGE: Stern's Amended Bid to Consolidate Actions OK'd
ADVANCE AUTO: Fails to Properly Secure Info, Chaidez Suit Claims
ARGENT TRUST: Appeals Stay Order in Lysengen Suit to 7th Circuit
ASIAN HEALTH: Appeals Remand Order in Bradford Suit to 9th Circuit
BHP GROUP: Accuses Brazil Dam Suit Counsel of Losing Claimants
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: New Jersey Court Dismisses Armstrong Suit
BROOKLYN BEDDING: Products' Price Discounts "False," Wilkerson Says
BRUTLAG TRUCKE: BTD's Bid to Stay Discovery in Tjaden Suit Denied
CALIFORNIA: Class Suit Can Nullify Parental Secrecy Policies
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Underpays Call Center Employees, Stoot Alleges
CDK GLOBAL: Faces Cyberattack Class Action Lawsuit
CHARGE ENTERPRISES: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Files Cross Appeal in McMahon Suit to 3rd Cir.
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Controls Tire Price, Worldwide Says
DAK RESOURCES: Vigil Must Oppose Class Cert Denial Bid by July 10
DIAMOND PET: Court Certifies Grain-Free Dog Food Class Action
DRAFTKINGS INC: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss NFT Class Action
ECL GROUP: Judge Approves Class Settlement of Cyberattack Suit
EDUCATIONAL COMPUTER: Taylor Sues Over Unauthorized Info Access
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS: Texas Cable Files Petition to 6th Circuit
GAMESTOP CORP: Gill Sues Over Decline in Stock Prices
GEISINGER HEALTH: Wierbowski Sues Over Data Security Breach
GENENTECH INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Tulsa Suit Due Sept. 11
GLOCK INC: Bunce Has More Time to File Agreed Discovery Schedule
GOLDEN STATE SUPPLY: Romero Suit Seeks to Certify Class
GREAT LAKES: Case Management Deadlines in Besso Held in Abeyance
HASHICORP INC: M&S Investigates Proposed Merger With IBM
HOMEADVISOR INC: Airquip Appeals Denial of Reconsideration Bid
HONDA MOTOR: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
IDAHO: Court OK's Plaintiffs' Bid for Provisional Class Status
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by July 30
JHK JEWELRY: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Fernandez Suit Says
JOCKEY INTERNATIONAL: Dalton Sues Over Blind's Access to Website
KINGSUM INC: Faces Karim Suit Over Online Store's Access Barriers
KISS NAIL: Aids Meta to Collect Website Communications, Itzhak Says
LES SCHWAB: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Hill Due Oct. 30
LINKEDIN CORP: Class Cert. Filing in Jackson Due May 2, 2025
MASIMO CORP: Faces Class Action for Misleading Investors
MAYNE PHARMA: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Class Action for $38MM
MDL 2700: Class Cert Bid Filing in MOH Suit Due Sept. 11
MDL 2700: Class Cert Bid Filing in NCS Suit Due Sept. 11
MDL 2700: Class Cert Bid Filing in NSHOA Due Sept. 11
MDL 2700: Class Cert Bid Filing in OHACI Due Sept. 11
MDL 2700: Class Cert Bid Filing in OHASV Suit Due Sept. 11
MGM RESORTS: Lassoff Appeals Case Transfer Ruling to 3rd Circuit
MH CONSULTANTS: Court Grants Credco's Bid to Dismiss Olvera Suit
MIADONNA & COMPANY: Blind Can't Access Website, Karim Suit Alleges
MIDLAND FUNDING: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Extended
MIKE DEWINE: Court Tosses Simon Class Suit
MULTIPLAN INC: Shoshany Sues Over Control of OON Reimbursements
MYLAN NV: Judge Denies EpiPen Price-Gouging Class Certification
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Suit for Exploiting Student-Athletes
NEBRASKA: Seeks to Stay Filyaw Proceedings
NHK SPRING: BC Court of Appeals Upholds Class Certification
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court Certifies Classes in Behar Lawsuit
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Plaintiffs Must File Colette Forjone Declaration
PALOMAR HEALTH: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Security Breach
PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Baby Bottles Microplastics
PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE: Settles Undervalued Vehicle Suit for $48MM
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court OK's Torres Bid to Seal Exhibit
QUANTUM RESIDENTIAL: $150K Settlement OK'd; Dunne May Amend Suit
RON NEAL: Court Directs Opening Separate Cases
ROSS HARR: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Coyle Class Suit
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Bryant Must File Response by July 5
SAN DIEGO DIALYSIS: Court Continues Pre-Trial Deadlines in Watson
SAZERAC COMPANY: Court Narrows Claims in Puig Consumer Class Suit
SELENE FINANCE: July 22 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought
SERITAGE GROWTH: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
SPORTS RESEARCH: $1.6-Mil. Class Suit Settlement Gets Initial Nod
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Court OK's Castaneda Bid for Class Cert
SUPERIOR DRILLING: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Drilling Tools
TAZWOOD COMMUNITY: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Robinson
TD BANK: Mansaray Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
TEACHERS' RETIREMENT: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Oparaji Suit
UIPATH INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set August 19
VALVE CORP: Dark Catt Bid to Seal Limited Information OK'd
VITALS CONSUMER: Bid to Withdraw Document Granted in Sweeton Suit
WEBMD LLC: Janick Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
WEST VIRGINIA: Judge Dismisses Jail Conditions Class Suit
WICHITA, KS: Court Extends Deadline to Produce Expert Reports
YARDI SYSTEMS: Judge Dismisses Debt Collection Class Action
*********
24 CAPITAL: Peters Broadcast Seeks to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETERS BROADCAST
ENGINEERING, INC., v. 24 CAPITAL, LLC, ET AL., Case No.
1:22-cv-00236-HAB-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2)
and (b)(3):
-- certifying that this action may be maintained and proceed as a
class action against the Defendants;
-- appointing the Proposed Class Representative as class
representative;
-- appointing Percy Squire, as Counsel for the Class and as
Liaison
Counsel for the Class; and
-- for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
The Plaintiff brings this action as a Class Action on behalf of all
persons who were told by 24 Capital, LLC that their financing
agreement with 24 Capital was not subject to New York usury law
because it was not a loan, that their merchant cash advance was
against receivables only and that they would not misrepresent in
connection with collection efforts whether their borrowers had New
York contacts.
The Class consists of thousands of persons located throughout the
United States, thus, the members of the Class are so numerous that
joinder of all Class members is impracticable. The exact number of
Class members is not presently known to plaintiff, but can readily
be determined by appropriate discovery.
The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of
the members of the Class and has retained counsel competent and
experienced in class actions. Plaintiff has no interests that are
adverse or antagonistic to those of the Class.
24 Capital provides funds for merchants.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 3, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Cd4Mg0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Percy Squire, Esq.
PERCY SQUIRE CO., LLC
341 S. Third Street, Suite 10
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 224-6528
E-mail: psquire@sp-lawfirm.com
3M COMPANY: Brown Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Caymen Brown, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:24-cv-03163-RMG (D.S.C., May 22, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
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 used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
bladder cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary K. Shipman, Esq.
William G. Wright, Esq.
SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, LLP
575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: (910) 762-1990
3M COMPANY: Fleet Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asley Fleet, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:24-cv-03164-RMG (D.S.C., May 22, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
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 used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
bladder cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary K. Shipman, Esq.
William G. Wright, Esq.
SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, LLP
575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: (910) 762-1990
Email: wwright@shipmanlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Hall Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Hall, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:24-cv-03161-RMG (D.S.C., May 22, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
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 used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary K. Shipman, Esq.
William G. Wright, Esq.
SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, LLP
575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: (910) 762-1990
3M COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vonkeshia Johnson, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:24-cv-03165-RMG (D.S.C., May 22,
2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
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 used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
bladder cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary K. Shipman, Esq.
William G. Wright, Esq.
SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, LLP
575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: (910) 762-1990
Email: wwright@shipmanlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Merryman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
James Merryman, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:24-cv-03115-RMG (D.S.C., May 17, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Navy
and was diagnosed with bladder cancer as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tessa G. Cuneo, Esq.
Alexandra W. Robertson, Esq.
ASK LLP
2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 400
St. Paul, MN 55121
Phone: (651) 406-9665
Facsimile: (651) 406
Email: tcuneo@askllp.com
arobertson@askllp.com
3M COMPANY: Moran Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Moran, 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-02982-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: Newsome Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tammie Newsome, as Personal Representative/Executor/Administrator
of the Estate of George Bradford Newsome, deceased, and other
similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:24-cv-03014-RMG (D.S.C., May 20, 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 Tammie Newsome the Personal
Representative/Executor/Administrator of the Estate of George
Bradford
Newsome, who regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
malignant melanoma cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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: Nugent Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tex Nugent, 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-03221-RMG (D.S.C., May 28, 2024),
is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure
to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic
acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his
firefighting career and was diagnosed with Ulcerative Colitis as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
rlee@belllegalgroup.com
gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Ross Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Max Ross, 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-02983-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: Shipman & Wright Files 10 Lawsuits Over Toxic Chemicals
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipman & Wright, LLP filed 10 lawsuits seeking class action status
against the Defendants 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") 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.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
All of the complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina. The complaints were filed
in May 17, 2024.
The Plaintiffs are:
Derrick Lamonite Benson. Case No. 2:24-cv-03074-RMG.
Kenneth Johnson. Case No. 2:24-cv-03119-RMG.
Joshua Desean Wilkerson. Case No. 2:24-cv-03122-RMG.
Matthew Ryan Baxley. Case No. 2:24-cv-03111-RMG.
Lawrence John Meloling. Case No. 2:24-cv-03117-RMG.
Rona Murrell. Case No. 2:24-cv-03116-RMG.
Preston Lincoln Lane, Sr. Case No. 2:24-cv-03112-RMG.
Randall Tensen. Case No. 2:24-cv-03113-RMG.
Steven A. Kunzie. Case No. 2:24-cv-03121-RMG.
Valerie Thomas. Case No. 2:24-cv-03120-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 Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary K. Shipman, Esq.
William G. Wright, Esq.
SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, LLP
575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: (910) 762-1990
Email: wwright@shipmanlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Smith, 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-02993-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
ACADEMY MORTGAGE: Allen's Amended Bid to Consolidate Actions OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CELESTE ALLEN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACADEMY MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00067-DBB-DAO (D. Utah),
Judge David Barlow of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah issued a Memorandum Decision and Order granting the
Plaintiffs' amended motion to consolidate related actions.
Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Consolidate
Related Actions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42.
Plaintiffs Lazaro Stern, Celeste Allen, and Lisa Kucherry, in their
individual capacities and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, move the court to consolidate three putative class
actions ("Related Actions") (Stern v. Academy Mortg. Corp., No.
2:24-cv-00015 (D. Utah filed Jan. 5, 2024); Allen v. Academy Mortg.
Corp., No. 2:24-cv-00067 (D. Utah filed Jan. 25, 2024); Kucherry v.
Academy Mortg. Corp., No. 2:24-cv-00078 (D. Utah filed Jan. 29,
2024)).
The cases involve the same relevant background. Academy Mortgage
Corporation is an independent mortgage lender based in Utah. The
Complaint alleges that Academy Mortgage collects sensitive
personally identifiable information ("PII") from its customers. The
Plaintiffs assert that in collecting and maintaining putative class
members' PII, Academy Mortgage agreed it would safeguard the data
in accordance with its internal policies, as well as state law and
federal law.
The Class Action Complaint alleges that on March 21, 2023,
cybercriminals gained unauthorized access to the Plaintiffs and
putative class members personally identifiable information ("PII"),
including name and social security number. Academy Mortgage did not
begin notifying putative class members about the data breach until
Dec. 20, 2023. The notice stated that on March 21, 2023, Academy
Mortgage detected and stopped a network security incident in which
an unauthorized third party accessed and disabled some of its
systems. The notice also stated that "an unauthorized individual
may have accessed certain individual personal information during
this incident.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Academy Mortgage's delay in
notifying affected parties about the data breach exacerbated their
injuries by preventing them from taking measures to protect their
PII. The exposure of the Plaintiffs' data allegedly caused
disruptive and unlawful account hacking, unauthorized use of
financial accounts, and identity fraud.
At bottom, the Plaintiffs contend Academy Mortgage is liable
because it could have prevented the breach but for its negligence.
They seek monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief.
The Plaintiffs filed three putative class actions between Jan. 5,
2024, and Jan. 29, 2024. On Feb. 1, they filed their Motion to
Consolidate. On April 24, the Court requested that Academy Mortgage
address whether it opposed the Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate.
On May 6, 2024, Academy Mortgage filed its Notice of Non-Opposition
and Response, indicating that it did not oppose the Plaintiffs'
motion.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Related Actions all raise the same
questions of law, involve customers asserting claims against
Academy Mortgage, and arise out of the same event, the March 21,
2023 data breach.
Having reviewed the complaints, the Company Court finds that the
actions arise from a common set of alleged facts. The Plaintiffs
are current or former customers allegedly affected by a data breach
implicating Academy Mortgage on March 21, 2023. The same party,
Academy Mortgage, is the sole defendant in each of the Related
Actions.
The Plaintiffs argue that consolidation will avoid inconsistent
verdicts and serve the goals of judicial efficiency by eliminating
duplicative and overlapping litigation.
Judge Barlow finds the Related Actions are nearly identical and
consolidating them would simplify the litigation. The Court and the
parties would benefit by avoiding duplicative discovery for each
action. Further, consolidation will prevent any possible
inconsistent rulings on the same facts. In short, Judge Barlow
points out, consolidation would promote judicial efficiency and
convenience.
Only a negligible risk of delay, confusion, or prejudice weighs
against the benefits of consolidating the cases, Judge Barlow
opines. Each of the Related Actions are in the same procedural
posture -- Academy Mortgage has not filed a response in each of the
Related Actions, nor has discovery begun. Consolidation would,
therefore, not delay matters or confuse parties.
While Academy Mortgage has filed a Motion to Dismiss in each of the
Related Actions, it stated that it does not object to the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate. Judge Barlow opines that
prejudice is not likely result to either party, and consolidating
the three cases likely will save considerable time and expense.
The Court finds that the interest in consolidation far outweighs
any possible risk of delay, confusion, or prejudice.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Joint Amended Motion
to Consolidate Related Actions.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, the Court
consolidates the three related actions into the lowest-numbered
pending case, Case No. 2:24-cv-00015 (the "Consolidated Action").
No further filings will be made in Allen v. Academy Mortg. Corp.,
No. 2:24-cv-00067; and Kucherry v. Academy Mortg. Corp., No.
2:24-cv-00078. The Clerk of Court will administratively close these
two cases. All pleadings therein maintain their legal relevance
until the filing of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the
"Consolidated Complaint"). The pending motions to dismiss in all
three cases are denied as moot. The Defendant is granted leave to
file a motion to dismiss 30 days after the filing of the
Consolidated Complaint.
All papers previously filed and served to date in the Related
Actions are deemed part of the record in the Consolidated Action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated
June 18, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5n6j3dy from
PacerMonitor.com.
ACADEMY MORTGAGE: Kucherry's Bid to Consolidate Actions Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled LISA KUCHERRY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACADEMY MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00067-DBB-DAO (D. Utah),
Judge David Barlow of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah issued a Memorandum Decision and Order granting the
Plaintiffs' amended motion to consolidate related actions.
Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Consolidate
Related Actions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42.
Plaintiffs Lazaro Stern, Celeste Allen, and Lisa Kucherry, in their
individual capacities and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, move the court to consolidate three putative class
actions ("Related Actions") (Stern v. Academy Mortg. Corp., No.
2:24-cv-00015 (D. Utah filed Jan. 5, 2024); Allen v. Academy Mortg.
Corp., No. 2:24-cv-00067 (D. Utah filed Jan. 25, 2024); Kucherry v.
Academy Mortg. Corp., No. 2:24-cv-00078 (D. Utah filed Jan. 29,
2024)).
The cases involve the same relevant background. Academy Mortgage
Corporation is an independent mortgage lender based in Utah. The
Complaint alleges that Academy Mortgage collects sensitive
personally identifiable information ("PII") from its customers. The
Plaintiffs assert that in collecting and maintaining putative class
members' PII, Academy Mortgage agreed it would safeguard the data
in accordance with its internal policies, as well as state law and
federal law.
The Class Action Complaint alleges that on March 21, 2023,
cybercriminals gained unauthorized access to the Plaintiffs and
putative class members personally identifiable information ("PII"),
including name and social security number. Academy Mortgage did not
begin notifying putative class members about the data breach until
Dec. 20, 2023. The notice stated that on March 21, 2023, Academy
Mortgage detected and stopped a network security incident in which
an unauthorized third party accessed and disabled some of its
systems. The notice also stated that "an unauthorized individual
may have accessed certain individual personal information during
this incident.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Academy Mortgage's delay in
notifying affected parties about the data breach exacerbated their
injuries by preventing them from taking measures to protect their
PII. The exposure of the Plaintiffs' data allegedly caused
disruptive and unlawful account hacking, unauthorized use of
financial accounts, and identity fraud.
At bottom, the Plaintiffs contend Academy Mortgage is liable
because it could have prevented the breach but for its negligence.
They seek monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief.
The Plaintiffs filed three putative class actions between Jan. 5,
2024, and Jan. 29, 2024. On Feb. 1, they filed their Motion to
Consolidate. On April 24, the Court requested that Academy Mortgage
address whether it opposed the Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate.
On May 6, 2024, Academy Mortgage filed its Notice of Non-Opposition
and Response, indicating that it did not oppose the Plaintiffs'
motion.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Related Actions all raise the same
questions of law, involve customers asserting claims against
Academy Mortgage, and arise out of the same event, the March 21,
2023 data breach.
Having reviewed the complaints, the Company Court finds that the
actions arise from a common set of alleged facts. The Plaintiffs
are current or former customers allegedly affected by a data breach
implicating Academy Mortgage on March 21, 2023. The same party,
Academy Mortgage, is the sole defendant in each of the Related
Actions.
The Plaintiffs argue that consolidation will avoid inconsistent
verdicts and serve the goals of judicial efficiency by eliminating
duplicative and overlapping litigation.
Judge Barlow finds the Related Actions are nearly identical and
consolidating them would simplify the litigation. The Court and the
parties would benefit by avoiding duplicative discovery for each
action. Further, consolidation will prevent any possible
inconsistent rulings on the same facts. In short, Judge Barlow
points out, consolidation would promote judicial efficiency and
convenience.
Only a negligible risk of delay, confusion, or prejudice weighs
against the benefits of consolidating the cases, Judge Barlow
opines. Each of the Related Actions are in the same procedural
posture -- Academy Mortgage has not filed a response in each of the
Related Actions, nor has discovery begun. Consolidation would,
therefore, not delay matters or confuse parties.
While Academy Mortgage has filed a Motion to Dismiss in each of the
Related Actions, it stated that it does not object to the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate. Judge Barlow opines that
prejudice is not likely result to either party, and consolidating
the three cases likely will save considerable time and expense.
The Court finds that the interest in consolidation far outweighs
any possible risk of delay, confusion, or prejudice.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Joint Amended Motion
to Consolidate Related Actions.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, the Court
consolidates the three related actions into the lowest-numbered
pending case, Case No. 2:24-cv-00015 (the "Consolidated Action").
No further filings will be made in Allen v. Academy Mortg. Corp.,
No. 2:24-cv-00067; and Kucherry v. Academy Mortg. Corp., No.
2:24-cv-00078. The Clerk of Court will administratively close these
two cases. All pleadings therein maintain their legal relevance
until the filing of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the
"Consolidated Complaint"). The pending motions to dismiss in all
three cases are denied as moot. The Defendant is granted leave to
file a motion to dismiss 30 days after the filing of the
Consolidated Complaint.
All papers previously filed and served to date in the Related
Actions are deemed part of the record in the Consolidated Action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated
June 18, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/44zawxaz from
PacerMonitor.com.
ACADEMY MORTGAGE: Stern's Amended Bid to Consolidate Actions OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled LAZARO STERN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACADEMY MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00015-DBB-DAO (D. Utah),
Judge David Barlow of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah issued a Memorandum Decision and Order granting the
Plaintiffs' amended motion to consolidate related actions.
Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Consolidate
Related Actions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42.
Plaintiffs Lazaro Stern, Celeste Allen, and Lisa Kucherry, in their
individual capacities and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, move the court to consolidate three putative class
actions ("Related Actions") (Stern v. Academy Mortg. Corp., No.
2:24-cv-00015 (D. Utah filed Jan. 5, 2024); Allen v. Academy Mortg.
Corp., No. 2:24-cv-00067 (D. Utah filed Jan. 25, 2024); Kucherry v.
Academy Mortg. Corp., No. 2:24-cv-00078 (D. Utah filed Jan. 29,
2024)).
The cases involve the same relevant background. Academy Mortgage
Corporation is an independent mortgage lender based in Utah. The
Complaint alleges that Academy Mortgage collects sensitive
personally identifiable information ("PII") from its customers. The
Plaintiffs assert that in collecting and maintaining putative class
members' PII, Academy Mortgage agreed it would safeguard the data
in accordance with its internal policies, as well as state law and
federal law.
The Class Action Complaint alleges that on March 21, 2023,
cybercriminals gained unauthorized access to the Plaintiffs and
putative class members personally identifiable information ("PII"),
including name and social security number. Academy Mortgage did not
begin notifying putative class members about the data breach until
Dec. 20, 2023. The notice stated that on March 21, 2023, Academy
Mortgage detected and stopped a network security incident in which
an unauthorized third party accessed and disabled some of its
systems. The notice also stated that "an unauthorized individual
may have accessed certain individual personal information during
this incident.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Academy Mortgage's delay in
notifying affected parties about the data breach exacerbated their
injuries by preventing them from taking measures to protect their
PII. The exposure of the Plaintiffs' data allegedly caused
disruptive and unlawful account hacking, unauthorized use of
financial accounts, and identity fraud.
At bottom, the Plaintiffs contend Academy Mortgage is liable
because it could have prevented the breach but for its negligence.
They seek monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief.
The Plaintiffs filed three putative class actions between Jan. 5,
2024, and Jan. 29, 2024. On Feb. 1, they filed their Motion to
Consolidate. On April 24, the Court requested that Academy Mortgage
address whether it opposed the Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate.
On May 6, 2024, Academy Mortgage filed its Notice of Non-Opposition
and Response, indicating that it did not oppose the Plaintiffs'
motion.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Related Actions all raise the same
questions of law, involve customers asserting claims against
Academy Mortgage, and arise out of the same event, the March 21,
2023 data breach.
Having reviewed the complaints, the Company Court finds that the
actions arise from a common set of alleged facts. The Plaintiffs
are current or former customers allegedly affected by a data breach
implicating Academy Mortgage on March 21, 2023. The same party,
Academy Mortgage, is the sole defendant in each of the Related
Actions.
The Plaintiffs argue that consolidation will avoid inconsistent
verdicts and serve the goals of judicial efficiency by eliminating
duplicative and overlapping litigation.
Judge Barlow finds the Related Actions are nearly identical and
consolidating them would simplify the litigation. The Court and the
parties would benefit by avoiding duplicative discovery for each
action. Further, consolidation will prevent any possible
inconsistent rulings on the same facts. In short, Judge Barlow
points out, consolidation would promote judicial efficiency and
convenience.
Only a negligible risk of delay, confusion, or prejudice weighs
against the benefits of consolidating the cases, Judge Barlow
opines. Each of the Related Actions are in the same procedural
posture -- Academy Mortgage has not filed a response in each of the
Related Actions, nor has discovery begun. Consolidation would,
therefore, not delay matters or confuse parties.
While Academy Mortgage has filed a Motion to Dismiss in each of the
Related Actions, it stated that it does not object to the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate. Judge Barlow opines that
prejudice is not likely result to either party, and consolidating
the three cases likely will save considerable time and expense.
The Court finds that the interest in consolidation far outweighs
any possible risk of delay, confusion, or prejudice.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Joint Amended Motion
to Consolidate Related Actions.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, the Court
consolidates the three related actions into the lowest-numbered
pending case, Case No. 2:24-cv-00015 (the "Consolidated Action").
No further filings will be made in Allen v. Academy Mortg. Corp.,
No. 2:24-cv-00067; and Kucherry v. Academy Mortg. Corp., No.
2:24-cv-00078. The Clerk of Court will administratively close these
two cases. All pleadings therein maintain their legal relevance
until the filing of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the
"Consolidated Complaint"). The pending motions to dismiss in all
three cases are denied as moot. The Defendant is granted leave to
file a motion to dismiss 30 days after the filing of the
Consolidated Complaint.
All papers previously filed and served to date in the Related
Actions are deemed part of the record in the Consolidated Action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated
June 18, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/46k5wumy from
PacerMonitor.com.
ADVANCE AUTO: Fails to Properly Secure Info, Chaidez Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
EMMANUEL CHAIDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00354-BO (E.D.N.C., June 24, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of its current
and former employees, including the Plaintiff, stored within its
cloud storage vendor's computer systems following a data breach in
or about mid-April 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.
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. is an automobile shop, headquartered in
Raleigh, North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5003
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
Email: sharris@milberg.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
ARGENT TRUST: Appeals Stay Order in Lysengen Suit to 7th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARGENT TRUST COMPANY is taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled Jackie Lysengen, on behalf of the Morton
Buildings, Inc. Leveraged Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Plaintiff,
v. Argent Trust Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01177-MMM-JEH,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.
On Apr. 30, 2020, the Plaintiff brought this lawsuit under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 for losses suffered
by the Plan and its participants caused by Argent when it caused
the Plan to buy shares of Morton for more than fair market value in
2017.
On Sept. 26, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to certify order of
August 11, 2023 for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1292(B).
On Oct. 18, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to stay.
On Feb. 6, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to extend stay of
case.
On May 3, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to oppose the
Defendant's motion to certify order of August 11, 2023 for
Interlocutory Appeal.
On May 6, 2024, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to certify
order through an Order entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm.
Accordingly, the case is stayed to allow the question of law to
proceed on appeal before the Court will address the pending summary
judgment and proposed procedural safeguards.
The appellate case is captioned Jackie Lysengen v. Argent Trust
Company, Case No. 24-2030, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit, filed on June 17, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee JACKIE LYSENGEN, on behalf of the Morton
Buildings, Inc. Leveraged Employee Stock Ownership Plan, is
represented by:
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
- and -
Patrick O. Muench, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
318 W. Adams Street
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 500-8680
Defendant-Appellant ARGENT TRUST COMPANY is represented by:
Jeffrey Scott Russell, Esq.
Jacob Simon, Esq.
Barbara A. Smith, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
211 N. Broadway
One Metropolitan Square
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 259-2000
ASIAN HEALTH: Appeals Remand Order in Bradford Suit to 9th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
ASIAN HEALTH SERVICES is taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled
Ira Bradford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Asian Health Services, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-01060-TLT, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, seeks damages and other remedies based on claims of
both negligence and negligence per se, breach of implied contract,
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information
Act, the California Customer Records Act and California's Unfair
Competition Law.
On Mar. 22, 2024, the Plaintiff and non-party United States of
America filed motions to remand the case to state court, which the
Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Trina L. Thompson
on June 7, 2024.
The Court finds that the motion to remand and request to stay
suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local
Rule 7-1(b).
The appellate case is Bradford v. Asian Health Services, Case No.
24-3702, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on June 13, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 18,
2024;
-- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 23, 2024; and
-- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on August 22, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee IRA BRADFORD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Defendant-Appellant ASIAN HEALTH SERVICES is represented by:
Matthew Sidney Freedus, Esq.
FELDESMAN LEIFER LLP
1129 20th Street, NW Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
BHP GROUP: Accuses Brazil Dam Suit Counsel of Losing Claimants
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Mizen and Kylar Loussikian of Financial Review report that
BHP has accused the law firm behind a GBP36 billion ($68 billion)
class action relating to the 2015 Mariana dam disaster in Brazil of
lacking candour about the number of people it claims to represent
in the bitter dispute.
The class action was filed by London law firm Pogust Goodhead in
2018 on behalf of 200,000 claimants affected by the collapse of the
Fundao tailings dam at the Germano iron ore mine in Brazil.
The disaster killed 19 people and left hundreds homeless and huge
swaths of the countryside covered in mud and mining waste. The
class action is one of the largest pursued in the British courts.
The number of claimants in the case swelled to "more than 700,000",
which included individuals, businesses, churches and
municipalities, but just three months out from trial the figure
slipped to "more than 600,000."
"So there were 100,000 claimants that were lost somewhere?" asked
BHP's counsel Shaheed Fatima, KC, in a hearing in the UK's High
Court.
Ms Fatima argued there was a need for greater "transparency and
candour" about claimants from Pogust Goodhead.
BHP was also seeking to strike out a further 33,000 claimants added
in September 2023, which it argued the firm did not have authority
to represent.
This was rejected by the court in a judgment delivered last week,
though Justice David Waksman said some claimants still required
ratification and gave Pogust Goodhead until October 31 to rectify
the situation or have them struck out.
The long-running case has been hard fought, with BHP initially
succeeding in having it struck out as an abuse of process; a
decision later overturned by the Court of Appeal, paving the way
for a trial in October this year.
A spokesperson for BHP said the interlocutory hearing was "a
necessary step to address difficulties in obtaining information and
clarity" about the claimants added in September 2023.
"To date, more than 100,000 claimants have already been
discontinued from the UK case for procedural reasons," the
spokesperson said. "The court has ruled that PG has until October
2024 to rectify issues in relation to certain claimants, or they
may be removed from the proceedings as well."
BHP denies the claims made in the class action in their entirety.
Pogust Goodhead's global managing partner Tom Goodhead labelled the
legal skirmish a "desperate attempt from BHP" that failed.
"This is a damning indictment of BHP's tactics throughout this
legal action: delay, delay, delay and could cost BHP GBP1.8
billion," Mr Goodhead said in a statement to The Australian
Financial Review.
The firm continues to claim it represents 720,000 victims of the
disaster, but now includes its lawsuit against Vale in the
Netherlands in the figure.
"The victims' lives have been devastated, and it beggars belief
that they have still not received full and fair redress almost nine
years on. These are among the most disadvantaged people in Brazil,
and they are outraged at BHP."
BHP and Vale in April presented Brazilian authorities with a 127
billion reais ($34 billion) settlement proposal to act as
reparations for the disaster. This is a separate matter to the
class action launched in the UK.
Local prosecutors at the time told Reuters they wanted the mining
giants to increase that to 137 billion reais ($36 billion), which
over a 20-year agreement would amount to 500 million reais extra
each year. [GN]
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: New Jersey Court Dismisses Armstrong Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Julien Xavier Neals of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit styled SHEA ARMSTRONG and SAMUEL CALDWELL, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BMW OF
NORTH AMERICA, LLC, and BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03046-JXN-JBC
(D.N.J.).
The matter comes before the Court on Defendant BMW of North
America, LLC's ("Defendant's") motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
first amended class action complaint (the "Class Action Complaint")
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The
Plaintiffs opposed, and the Defendant replied. The Court has
considered the parties' submissions and decides this matter without
oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and
Local Civil Rule. 78.1(b).
For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, the Court rules that the
Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted, and the Class Action
Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiff has 30 days
to file an amended complaint that is consistent with this Opinion.
The action arises from an alleged "latent defect found" in certain
BMW vehicles (the "Class Vehicles"). According to the Plaintiffs,
the Class Vehicles lack a properly functioning engine cooling
system and the Defendant failed to disclose that the Class Vehicles
contained a defectively designed and/or manufactured coolant line
that causes it to prematurely fail when exposed to normal engine
operating temperatures. This alleged defect causes the coolant line
to fracture and leak coolant, resulting in Class Vehicles to
overheat, resulting in stalling or sudden and catastrophic engine
failure.
The Plaintiffs allege causes of action under: (i) California's
state laws (Counts One to Three); (ii) breach of express and
implied warranty (Counts Four to Five and Seven to Eight); (iii)
Florida state law (Count Six); (iv) the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
(Count Nine); and (v) common law fraud and unjust enrichment
(Counts Ten to Eleven).
On Nov. 14, 2023, the Defendant filed the motion to dismiss. On
Dec. 18, 2023, the Plaintiffs opposed. On Jan. 17, 2024, the
Defendant replied.
As a threshold matter, the Defendant argues that the Class Action
Complaint improperly groups the Defendants together in violation of
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 9(b). In opposition, the
Plaintiffs assert that the Class Action Complaint is not an
impermissible group pleading because it contains facts as to the
"roles" and actions of each Defendant. The Court agrees with the
Plaintiffs.
The Defendants argue that the Class Action Complaint violates Rule
8 and 9(b)'s pleading requirements by referring only to "BMW"
(defined to include both Defendants) or "Defendants" in each
allegation. However, Judge Neals says, neither Defendant is "in the
dark" about the actions of the other. Defendant Bayerische Motoren
Werke Aktiengesellschaft ("BMW-GER") is the parent company of the
Defendant.
Furthermore, Judge Neals finds the Plaintiffs sufficiently raise
allegations common to both Defendants -- design, manufacture,
distribution, service, repair, modification, installation, and
decisions regarding the Class Vehicles, as it relates to the
Defect, were performed exclusively by Defendants BMW-NA and
BMW-GER"). Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendants' motion to
dismiss as to impermissible "group pleading."
The Defendant also argues that the Class Action Complaint should be
dismissed for failure to allege a defect. The Plaintiffs oppose.
Because the Class Action Complaint fails to allege a plausible
defect, it is dismissed in its entirety, Judge Neals holds.
While the Plaintiffs allege the symptoms of a defective coolant
line (i.e., leaking coolant), Judge Neals finds they fail to
plausibly allege what is actually defective in the coolant line.
The Plaintiffs' failure to plausibly allege a defect necessitates
dismissal, Judge Neals points out.
Because the Plaintiffs base their claims on the existence of a
defect, the Court need not consider the Defendant's other arguments
in support of the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the motion to
dismiss is granted and the Class Action Complaint is dismissed
without prejudice.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to
dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated June 18, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3ck5nkys from PacerMonitor.com.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 18, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2bspx6we from PacerMonitor.com.
BROOKLYN BEDDING: Products' Price Discounts "False," Wilkerson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER WILKERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROOKLYN BEDDING LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-05262 (C.D. Cal., June 21, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of express
warranty, quasi-contract, negligent misrepresentation, intentional
misrepresentation, and violations of California's False Advertising
Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's
Unfair Competition Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of mattresses and
other bedding products under the Brooklyn Bedding brand. The
Defendant lists purported regular prices and advertises purported
limited-time discounts from those regular prices. These include
discounts offering "X% off mattresses" and "X% off sitewide" that
allegedly are only valid through a certain date. The Defendant also
advertises that its products have a lower discount price as
compared to a higher, regular price shown in grey and/or
strikethrough font. In truth, however, the Defendant's discounts
are routinely available. As a result, everything about the
Defendant's price and purported discount advertising is false. The
regular prices the Defendant advertises are not actually the
Defendant's regular prices, because its products are routinely
available for less than that. Had the Defendant been truthful, the
Plaintiff and other consumers like her would not have purchased the
products or would have paid less for them, says the suit.
Brooklyn Bedding LLC is a manufacturer of bedding products, with
its principal place of business in Phoenix, Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin Cho, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Grace Bennett, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
Email: christin@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
grace@dovel.com
BRUTLAG TRUCKE: BTD's Bid to Stay Discovery in Tjaden Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota denies the Defendant's Motion to Stay
Discovery in the lawsuit captioned James and Amanda Tjaden, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Brutlag, Trucke & Doherty, P.A., Spring Lake Park Lumber Co.,
and Perfekt, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-01452-KMM-DJF (D.
Minn.).
The matter is before the Court on Defendant Brutlag, Trucke &
Doherty, P.A.'s ("BTD") Motion to Stay Discovery. On June 6, 2024,
Defendant BTD moved to strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations
("Motion to Strike"). Defendant BTD asks that in the interests of
preserving party and Court resources, the Court stay entry of a
pretrial order, as well as the start of discovery or any other
deadlines, pending the Court's ruling on its Motion to Strike.
The Plaintiffs did not respond to the Motion to Stay Discovery, but
Defendant BTD filed a Meet and Confer Statement explaining that the
parties were unable to reach an agreement with respect to BTD's
request.
The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action Complaint in this
matter as on April 19, 2024, against Defendant BTD and two other
entities for actual and statutory damages, reasonable attorney's
fees, and costs against the Defendants for alleged violations of
the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act; the Consumer
Fraud Act; and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
In its Motion to Strike, Defendant BTD asks that: (1) the class
allegations asserted against BTD be stricken from the Plaintiffs'
Complaint such that the Plaintiffs may proceed as against BTD on an
individual basis only; or (2) alternatively, the class allegations
be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Defendant BTD argues there is good cause to stay discovery to avoid
the undue burden and expense of conducting class discovery in a
case that should proceed on an individual basis as against BTD.
But even if granted, Defendant BTD's Motion only would dispose of
the class allegations; it would not dispose of all, substantially
all, or indeed any of the principal claims asserted in the case,
Judge Foster opines. The filing of BTD's Motion, thus, does not
establish good cause to stay discovery.
Judge Foster points out that a stay is not appropriate for these
reasons and the Court denies Defendant BTD's Motion to Stay
Discovery, accordingly. The Court will schedule a pretrial
scheduling conference by separate Order.
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and
proceedings herein, the Court denies Defendant Brutlag, Trucke &
Doherty, P.A.'s Motion to Stay Discovery.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 18, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4hj7263f from PacerMonitor.com.
CALIFORNIA: Class Suit Can Nullify Parental Secrecy Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers in a federal case against a Southern California school
district's parental secrecy policies have requested to broaden a
judge's ruling to prevent state legislators from banning gender
parent notification policies. Should they succeed, bills such as AB
1955, which is on Governor Newsom's desk to ban gender parent
notification policies, would become null and void.
The federal suit was filed last year by Thomas More Society
attorneys on behalf of two Escondido teachers, who objected to
their school district policy requiring them to hide students'
gender identities from parents. Federal Judge Roger T. Benitez,
made an initial ruling last September in their favor stating
parents have a constitutional right to direct their child's,
education, health, and upbringing, calling the district's gender
identity secrecy policy a "trifecta of harm." Technically, the
ruling only applied to these two teachers, though it signaled to
all California school districts that secrecy policies violated the
US Constitution. However, Attorney General Rob Bonta and State
Superintendent Tony Thurmond ignored the federal ruling and
threatened school districts across the state with legal action if
they informed parents that their children had changed names and
pronouns at school.
"Despite the clarity in the law brought by this federal preliminary
injunction, Attorney General Rob Bonta has ignored it, and even
prosecuted school districts that sought to come into compliance
with the reasoning of this court's order," Thomas More Society
Special Counsel Paul Jonna stated. "In open defiance of the court's
order, state officials have sued or threatened to sue school
districts that chose to follow the natural and logical implication
of the court's order. As a result, on behalf of multiple clients
that have approached us for legal representation, we now seek to
expand the reach of this decision by adding additional teachers,
parents, and a school district as plaintiffs in a proposed class
action. Our clients hope to put this issue to rest once and for all
-- by obtaining class-wide relief on behalf of similarly situated
teachers, parents, and school districts."
If the judge approves this request that would require every school
in California to eliminate their secrecy policies and prevent AB
1955 from being enforced if Governor Newsom decides to sign it into
law. In short, any policy which directs teachers to lie, deceive,
or hide information from parents about students' gender identities
and mental health struggles, termed a "Parental Exclusion Policy,"
would no longer be legal.
Lakeside Union School District is joining the lawsuit in hopes the
judge will permit them to enact a gender parental notification
policy without incurring adverse legal action by state officials,
namely Bonta and California's Department of Education, who have
previously sued other school districts for enacting similar
policies.
Both the parents and teachers who are seeking to join the lawsuit
are doing so anonymously based on the severe harassment and
retaliation teachers Mirabelli and West faced following the initial
lawsuit in 2023. The two sets of parents requesting to join the
suit have firsthand experience with how damaging parental exclusion
policies can be, as they both have gender-confused children who
have been directly harmed by the policy. The teachers are joining
the suit because both have religious and moral objections to lying
to parents about their children.
"We have fought long and hard against AB 1955 and strongly oppose
AG Bonta's efforts to retaliate against schools for informing
parents about their children's actions at school," said Vice
President of California Family Council Greg Burt. "We are hopeful
that this lawsuit will reinforce parental rights and the
constitutional protections all teachers have by virtue of their
citizenship." [GN]
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Underpays Call Center Employees, Stoot Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBIN R. STOOT and LISA A. PHILLIPS, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:24-cv-06393 (W.D.N.Y.,
June 23, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wages Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay
Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as fully remote call
center employees.
Capital Management Services Group, Inc. is a collection agency and
customer services provider, headquartered in Buffalo, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert L. Mullin, Esq.
FERR & MULLIN, P.C.
40 Wildbriar Road
Rochester, NY 14623
Telephone: (585) 869-0210
Email: rlmullin@ferrmullinlaw.com
- and -
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
CDK GLOBAL: Faces Cyberattack Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
MSP Recovery Law Firm filed a complaint in Federal Court in the
Southern District of Florida against CDK Global Inc. on behalf of
several Plaintiff Classes representing current and former
automobile dealerships, automobile sales representatives, service
department employees, and auto purchasers, after an immense data
breach that leaked customer names, employee names, Social Security
numbers, personal financial data, emails and mailing addresses,
phone numbers, personal identification numbers (PINs), and dates of
birth, among other sensitive personally identifiable information
(PII).
MSP Recovery Law Firm will rely upon sophisticated data analytics
systems developed by MSP Recovery, Inc. d/b/a LifeWallet (NASDAQ:
LIFW) ("LifeWallet," or the "Company"), in collaboration with
Palantir Technologies Inc., utilizing its Foundry System to capture
and manage data pertaining to this case. These systems have been an
integral part of evidence presented in litigation by MSP Recovery
Law Firm including a recent class action that was certified against
USAA Casualty Insurance Company and USAA General Indemnity Company
(collectively "USAA"), on June 10, 2024, for failing to adequately
coordinate benefits.
CDK Global is at the epicenter of the automotive retail industry as
a provider of IT and digital solutions. The company is trusted by
more than 15,000 auto dealerships across North America to assist
them in pursuit of efficiency and customer satisfaction. Upon
learning of the breach on June 18, 2024, CDK took their systems
offline for a period of less than 24 hours to investigate and
remediate the situation. Less than 24 hours later, the system was
brought back online and was exposed to another breach. Two major
incidents in such a short amount of time raise substantial concerns
about the adequacy of CDK's cyber security measures and incident
response strategies.
"CDK failed to protect the data of its current and former customers
not once, but twice," said John H. Ruiz, Founder of MSP Recovery
Law Firm and lead counsel for the firm in the case. Mr. Ruiz is
also Founder and CEO of LifeWallet. "If CDK has the authority
through its partnerships to require customers to hand over
information for the company's commercial benefit, it bears the
responsibility for safeguarding it, at a minimum."
The Dealership Management System provided by CDK Global serves as a
backbone for more than 15,000 dealerships' day-to-day activities.
When the system is compromised due to CDK's misjudgments and
negligence, it is primarily vendors and customers that suffer. On
June 18, the affected dealerships were forced to revert to manual,
analog operations, significantly affecting their ability to
effectively conduct business operations. Current and former
customers are still facing potential repercussions in the form of
identity theft and threats of extortion.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications on the
way technology companies respond to cyber security events under
state and federal laws, potentially leading to greater preparedness
and accountability in the industry.
MSP Recovery Law Firm's experienced attorneys have litigated
hundreds of cases relating to insurance proceeds, federal, and
state statutes. As far back as 1995, the firm's attorneys have
taken on and prevailed against some of the largest companies in the
United States, including being selected as lead class counsel in
numerous lawsuits against the nation's automobile insurance
companies. MSP Recovery Law Firm's attorneys have the knowledge and
experience to address even the most complicated and data-driven
class actions. For more information, visit:
msprecoverylawfirm.com.
View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240630616620/en/
CONTACT: For Media:
MEDIA@MSPRECOVERYLAWFIRM.COM [GN]
CHARGE ENTERPRISES: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of investors of Charge Enterprises, Inc. ("Charge" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: CRGEQ). Such investors are advised to contact
Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.
The class action concerns whether certain of Charge's officers
and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful
business practices.
You have until July 29, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased
or otherwise acquired Charge securities during the Class Period. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.
A class action complaint has been filed against certain former and
current officers and directors of charge (collectively, the
"Defendants"), alleging that the Defendants made statements about
Charge's internal controls, financial condition and its
relationship with an outside asset manager that were materially
false and misleading. On November 21, 2023, Charge disclosed that
it had received a default notice from its senior lender, Arena
Investors, LP ("Arena"), and informed the market that its prior
belief that it had "approximately $9.9 million of Company assets .
. . in the form of cash, cash equivalents, marketable securities or
similar readily liquid assets" was false; instead, these funds had
been invested in an illiquid limited partnership interest and were
thus "not immediately able to be liquidated or readily accessible."
Charge warned that if it "[continued] not to have sufficient
liquidity to pay the principal and interest on the [Arena] Notes .
. . these circumstances could result in a default under other of
the Company's debt instruments and agreements that contain
cross-default provisions," which would "have a material adverse
effect on the Company's liquidity, financial condition and results
of operations, and may render the Company insolvent and unable to
sustain its operations and continue as a going concern." Charge
filed for bankruptcy on March 7, 2024.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
Danielle Peyton
Pomerantz LLP
dpeyton@pomlaw.com
646-581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN]
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Files Cross Appeal in McMahon Suit to 3rd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL INC., trading and doing business as
CHIPOTLE, is filing a cross appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled Bridget McMahon, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Chipotle
Mexican Grill Inc., trading and doing business as Chipotle,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-1448, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit was removed from
the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, to the
Western District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 25, 2020. The Plaintiffs
allege that Chipotle misappropriated funds and engaged in unfair
trade practices by failing to provide exact change to customers.
On Apr. 3, 2023, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify
the putative class action and the Defendant's motion to exclude
opinions and testimony of Matthew E. Pohl. The Plaintiffs' motion
to appoint Rothman Gordon, P.C. as Class Counsel is also denied as
moot. Only Plaintiffs' individual claims remain.
On Oct. 13, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment
which the Court granted on May 1, 2024 through a Memorandum Opinion
and Order signed by Judge William S. Stickman. A Judgment pursuant
to Rule 58 was then entered in favor of Defendant Chipotle Mexican
Grill, Inc. and against Plaintiffs Bridget McMahon and James Rice.
The appellate case is captioned Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. v.
Bridget McMahon, et al., Case No. 24-2042, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 14, 2024.
[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL INC., trading and doing
business as CHIPOTLE, is represented by:
Betsy Bulat, Esq.
Robert J. Mollohan, Jr., Esq.
MARTENSON HASBROUCK & SIMON
2573 Apple Valley Road NE
Atlanta, GA 30319
Telephone: (404) 909-8100
(404) 390-2398
- and -
Derek J. Illar, Esq.
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT
600 Grant Street
44th Floor, US Steel Tower
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 566-6771
Defendants-Appellees BRIDGET MCMAHON, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Frank G. Salpietro, Esq.
ROTHMAN GORDON
310 Grant Street, 3rd Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 338-1185
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Controls Tire Price, Worldwide Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WORLDWIDE AUTO REPAIR LTD., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT; CONTINENTAL TIRE THE AMERICAS, LLC; COMPAGNIE
GENERALE DES ETABLISSEMENTS; MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; NOKIAN
TYRES PLC; NOKIAN TYRES INC.; NOKIAN TYRES U.S. OPERATIONS LLC; THE
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; PIRELLI & C. S.P.A.; PIRELLI TIRE
LLC; BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION; and BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-01047-JRA (N.D. Ohio, June 21, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Section
1 of the Sherman Act and state antitrust statutes.
According to the complaint, the Defendants entered into and engaged
in a continuing combination, conspiracy, or agreement to
unreasonably restrain trade in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act by artificially restraining competition with respect to
the price of new replacement tires for passenger cars, vans,
trucks, buses, and motorcycles sold within the United States for
the purpose and effect of raising prices. As a result of the
Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and the Classes have been
injured in their business or property, says the suit.
Worldwide Auto Repair Ltd. is an auto repair shop owner and
operator.
Continental Aktiengesellschaft is a tire manufacturer based in
Germany.
Continental Tire The Americas, LLC is a tire manufacturer based in
South Carolina.
Compagnie Generale Des Etablissements is a tire manufacturer based
in France.
Michelin North America, Inc. is a tire manufacturer based in South
Carolina.
Nokian Tyres PLC is a tire manufacturer based in Finland.
Nokian Tyres Inc. is a tire manufacturer based in Tennessee.
Nokian Tyres U.S. Operations LLC is a tire manufacturer based in
Tennessee.
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is a tire manufacturer based in
Ohio.
Pirelli & C. S.p.A. is a tire manufacturer based in Italy.
Pirelli Tire LLC is a tire manufacturer based in Georgia.
Bridgestone Corporation is a tire and rubber company based in
Japan.
Bridgestone Americas, Inc. is a tire manufacturer based in
Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ashlie Case Sletvold, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
6370 SOM Center Road, Suite 108
Cleveland, OH 44139
Telephone: (216) 589-9280
Email: asletvold@peifferwolf.com
- and -
Jeffrey C. Zwerling, Esq.
Robin F. Zwerling, Esq.
ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
41 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 223-3900
Email: jwerling@zsz.com
rzwerling@zsz.com
DAK RESOURCES: Vigil Must Oppose Class Cert Denial Bid by July 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vigil v. DAK Resources,
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00163 (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Troy L. Nunley entered an order directing Counsel for Plaintiff to
show cause, in writing, no later than July 10, 2024 as to why they
should not be sanctioned in the amount of $250 for failure to
timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to
Defendant Michaels Stores Procurement Company, Inc.'s motion to
deny class certification in part, pursuant to Local Rule 230(c)
effective Aug. 7, 2023.
-- The Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or
statement
of non-opposition by Aug. 10, 2024.
-- Failure to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a
statement of non-opposition thereto and may result in a
recommendation that Defendant's motion be granted.
-- The Defendant may file a reply brief to Plaintiff's opposition,
if
any, in accordance with Local Rule 230(d).
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
DAK is a Service-Disabled Veteran Owned staffing and recruiting
company that focuses on connecting employers with military Veterans
and their family members.[CC]
DIAMOND PET: Court Certifies Grain-Free Dog Food Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Dickens, writing for Dog Food Advisor, reports that a
Missouri court has certified a proposed class action lawsuit
concerning the alleged connection between grain-free dog food and
dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). The class action includes Missouri
residents who purchased Taste of the Wild Grain-Free Dog Food from
August 27, 2015, to June 21, 2024.
Key Allegations and Legal Claims
The lawsuit, Mary Harmon et al. v. Schell & Kampeter, Inc. (case
number 2016-CV17833), alleges that Schell & Kampeter, Inc.,
operating as Diamond Pet Foods and Taste of the Wild, falsely
marketed their grain-free dog food as "uniquely high-quality, safe,
and healthy." Plaintiffs claim this representation violates the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act due to an alleged increased
risk of DCM associated with grain-free diets.
Diamond Pet Foods denies these allegations and maintains that its
product labelling is not misleading.
Other Legal Actions
This lawsuit follows another class action filed earlier this year
against Hill's Pet Nutrition, alleging similar claims about
grain-free dog foods and DCM. The February lawsuit by KetoNatural
Pet Foods seeks $2.6 billion in damages from Hill's, accusing them
and a group of veterinarians of manipulating the FDA to investigate
grain-free diets.
FDA Investigation and Industry Impact
In July 2018, the FDA launched an investigation into potential
links between grain-free diets and DCM. Reports indicated that 93%
of the 524 DCM cases involved dogs consuming diets with peas,
lentils, or potatoes, common in grain-free formulations. Despite
these reports, the FDA has stated there is insufficient data to
establish a direct causality.
Impact on Grain-Free Dog Food Sales
The FDA's 2019 announcement, which named 16 brands correlated to
DCM cases, led to a decline in sales for those brands. However,
ongoing scientific reviews have not found a definitive connection
between grain-free diets and DCM. As of December 2022, the FDA
maintains there is not enough data to establish a causal link.
Potential Ramifications of KetoNaturals Lawsuit
The outcome of KetoNaturals' lawsuit against Hill's Pet Nutrition
could have significant consequences. If the allegations are proven
false, it could damage the reputations of the involved veterinary
researchers. If true, Hill's may face substantial financial
penalties and be required to conduct corrective advertising.
Canine Dilated Cardiomyopathy (DCM)
DCM is a heart condition that leads to an enlarged heart and can
result in congestive heart failure. It's more prevalent in large
breeds such as Great Danes and Doberman Pinschers but has been
reported in various other breeds, including mixed breeds. Early
detection and appropriate treatment can improve heart function in
non-genetic cases. [GN]
DRAFTKINGS INC: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss NFT Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Reynolds of Coindesk reports that a U.S. Judge in Massachusetts
has denied a move by DraftKings to dismiss a class action lawsuit
brought on by buyers of its non-fungible tokens (NFTs).
The suit alleges that the tokens are investment contracts, setting
the stage for a future court battle on whether NFTs are securities.
DraftKings offers sports-themed NFTs on its marketplace via the
Polygon blockchain.
Justin Dufoe, a buyer, first filed suit against DraftKings, on
behalf of other owners in March 2023, alleging that these NFTs met
the prongs for the Howey test.
In this recent ruling, a court agreed that DraftKings' NFTs
involved an investment of money, pooled assets into a common
enterprise with shared risks and profits, and created a reasonable
expectation of profit from DraftKings' efforts, thus plausibly
classifying them as securities under the Howey test.
It is plausibly alleged that the NFTs' values were dependent on the
success of the DraftKings Marketplace, the court found, noting that
the value moves in tandem with interest in that specific
marketplace, an issue that has been addressed in prior cases
examining NFTs.
Dapper Labs faced a similar case
All this comes after Dapper Labs agreed in June to pay $4 million
to settle a similar class action suit. It was reported earlier by
Fortune that the SEC had once launched an investigation into Dapper
Labs but closed it in September 2023.
However, the difference between Dapper Labs' NFTs and those offered
by DraftKings is that Dapper uses its own proprietary blockchain
called Flow, while DraftKings issues its tokens on Polygon.
The use of Flow, a private chain, the court decided, means Dapper
Labs runs a higher risk of violating securities laws because its
Flow blockchain created a dependency on Dapper’s managerial
efforts and success, satisfying the Howey test criteria of a common
enterprise and expectation of profit.
A date to continue the DraftKings class action suit has not yet
been set. [GN]
ECL GROUP: Judge Approves Class Settlement of Cyberattack Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has approved a settlement in a complex class action
brought against eye-care practice management technology provider
ECL Group LLC by ophthalmology practices that licensed software
from ECL and related entities. Womble Bond Dickinson partners Russ
Ferguson, Patrick Spaugh and Matthew Tilley represented the class
of physician practices in the lawsuit over ECL's flawed response to
a series of ransomware attacks in 2021.
The settlement, which Judge Catherine Eagles of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina called "by far the
most complex class action settlement I have seen," creates a $1.46
million fund for the physician class, along with a $2.6 million
settlement fund for patients whose personal information was exposed
during the resulting data breaches.
The agreement "gives the classes as a whole the best deal possible
in light of the limited funds available," Judge Eagles said in her
ruling. In a hearing on the fairness of the settlement, she noted
that the class members "get everything they could have gotten,
really, and more than if you had litigated it."
The 2022 lawsuit focused on a series of ransomware attacks in 2021
that exposed patient data and caused outages impacting patient
recordkeeping and billing services provided by ECL. The lawsuit
alleged that ECL failed to keep patient data secure and to provide
contractually required discounts while ECL's services were
unavailable; it also alleged that ECL made misrepresentations about
the ransomware attack and engaged in unfair and deceptive trade
practices.
Because, as the court found, ECL's assets are tied up in a
receivership and the defendants have large-scale financial
obligations to others, Womble Bond Dickinson negotiated an early
settlement on behalf of the class. The settlement included:
Monetary payments for class members
-- Credits to ECL customers for future services (which could
value as much as $5.5 million)
-- The cessation of collection efforts by ECL for unpaid invoices
during periods with service interruptions
-- The ability to terminate their contracts with ECL early and
without penalty (and with cooperation to obtain their data and
transition to a new provider)
-- The assignment of two insurance policies to the physician
class
-- A legal release avoiding liability for any data breach claims
brought by patients of the physician practices
"This settlement represents the best possible outcome for doctors
across the country who were affected by ECL's business practices,"
WBD's Russ Ferguson said.
Importantly, the only available assets to pay the settlement
class's claims were ECL's insurance proceeds. Additionally, those
insurance policies were being eroded by ECL's own legal
costs—meaning an early settlement provided more money to the
physician practices. Before the settlement was finalized, ECL filed
for bankruptcy and put itself up for sale. The buyer of ECL
attempted to avoid honoring the physician class's rights under the
settlement agreement, including the ability to receive contractual
credits and to terminate their contracts with ECL.
Womble Bond Dickinson objected to that in the bankruptcy court in
Texas, an effort led by Wojciech Jung. "Without this work" in
bankruptcy court, Judge Eagles wrote, "the class probably would
have lost substantial benefits from the settlement."
Patrick Spaugh added, "In the face of a three-way fight between the
physicians, the patients, and ECL, this case could have easily
ended up with no one receiving money other than ECL's attorneys. I
am thrilled that we instead achieved an early global resolution on
behalf of the physicians that maximized their benefits."
About Womble Bond Dickinson
Womble Bond Dickinson is a transatlantic law firm with more than
1,000 lawyers based in 32 U.K. and U.S. office locations serving
clients across every business sector. The firm provides core legal
services including Commercial; Corporate; Employment; Dispute
Resolution and Litigation; Finance: Banking, Restructuring,
Insolvency; IP, Technology and Data; Private Wealth; Projects,
Construction and Infrastructure; Real Estate; and Regulatory Law.
"Womble Bond Dickinson," the "law firm" or the "firm" refers to the
network of member firms of Womble Bond Dickinson (International)
Limited, consisting of Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP and Womble
Bond Dickinson (US) LLP. Each of Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP and
Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP is a separate legal entity operating
as an independent law firm. Womble Bond Dickinson (International)
Limited does not practice law. Please see
www.womblebonddickinson.com/us/legal-notice for further details.
[GN]
EDUCATIONAL COMPUTER: Taylor Sues Over Unauthorized Info Access
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXYS TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EDUCATIONAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a
HEARTLAND ECSI, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00903 (W.D. Pa., June
21, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, breach of duty, and breach of implied contract.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals stored within its vendor
networks following a data breach from between October 29, 2023 to
February 12, 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.
Educational Computer Systems, Inc., doing business as Heartland
ECSI, is a campus-based student loan servicing solutions provider
based in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
1575 McFarland Road, Suite 305
Pittsburgh, PA 15216
Telephone: (412) 391-5164
Email: yateslaw@aol.com
- and -
Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0800
Email: sward@barrack.com
- and -
Andrew Heo, Esq.
Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-0600
Email: aheo@barrack.com
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS: Texas Cable Files Petition to 6th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TEXAS CABLE ASSOCIATION, et al. filed a petition in the lawsuit
entitled Texas Cable Association, et al., on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Federal
Communications Commission, et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-52, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The appellate case is captioned Texas Cable Association, et al. v.
FCC, et al., Case No. 24-3538, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on June 17, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners TEXAS CABLE ASSOCIATION, et al., are
represented by:
Jeffrey Bryan Wall, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL
1700 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 956-7500
Defendants-Respondents FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, et al.
are represented by:
Scott Matthew Noveck, Esq.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
45 L. Street, N.E., 8th Floor
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 418-7294
- and -
Robert B. Nicholson, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-2489
GAMESTOP CORP: Gill Sues Over Decline in Stock Prices
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of investors of GameStop Corp. ("GameStop" or the
"Company") (NYSE: GME) securities. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
and docketed under 24-cv-04608, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendant that purchased or
otherwise acquired GameStop securities between May 13, 2024 and
June 13, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to recover damages caused by Defendant's violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 9(a), 9(f),
10(b), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5(a) & (c) promulgated thereunder,
against Defendant.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
GameStop securities during the Class Period, you have until August
27, 2024 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle
Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.
GameStop is a specialty retailer that provides games and
entertainment products through its stores and ecommerce platforms
in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Europe. GameStop's principal
executive offices are located at 625 Westport Parkway, Grapevine,
Texas 76051. The Company's Class A common stock trades in an
efficient market on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker
symbol "GME."
Defendant Keith Patrick Gill, known as "Roaring Kitty" on YouTube
and the social media platform X (f/k/a Twitter), as well as
"DeepF***ingValue" ("DFV") on the social media platform Reddit, is
an American financial analyst and investor, as well as former
financial analyst for Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company,
also referred to as "MassMutual." Defendant is also a former
registered stockbroker who holds several securities-industry
licenses, as well as one of GameStop's largest shareholders. As of
June 2024, Defendant had over 1.6 million followers on X, 982,000
subscribers on YouTube, 116,000 members on his personal subreddit
"r/roaringkitty" (ranked "Top 2%" in size among top Reddit
communities), and 200,000 members on his personal subreddit
"r/DeepF***ingValue."
Defendant was a key figure in the so-called "meme stock" movement,
which saw shares of GameStop and a handful of other companies surge
as much as twenty-one-fold over two weeks in January 2021 before
crashing to pre-surge levels in the subsequent days. Meme stocks
are stocks that gained viral popularity on discussion threads on
social media platforms like Reddit and X, where online communities
of retail investors dedicated their attention to particular stocks,
sometimes for purposes of initiating a squeeze on short investors
and hedge funds, and other times based on genuine beliefs about a
company's prospects.
Defendant's ability to rally a massive following of retail
investors to purchase and hold GameStop securities through his
social media posts is well-documented. In 2021, after the meme
stock movement sparked chaos in the financial markets as major
hedge funds and others lost billions of dollars in short-squeeze
events, Defendant testified before the U.S. House Committee on
Financial Services about the meme stock movement as the perceived
champion and face of that movement for GameStop investors. In fact,
Defendant is largely credited as sparking the meme stock movement
and, in 2023, a biographical film called Dumb Money was released
chronicling these events and Defendant's subsequent rise to
celebrity status.
Defendant's last post on Reddit in 2021 showed that his GameStop
positions were worth approximately $30 million. Defendant made his
fortune as an investor largely, if not entirely, as a result of his
participation in the 2021 meme stock movement.
On May 12, 2024, for the first time in nearly three years,
Defendant made a post on the social media platform X, which took
the form of a meme showing a "gamer" -- that is, an individual that
plays video games -- in a suit, leaning forward in his chair in
seeming concentration and/or attention. As reported by multiple
news outlets, this meme was widely understood by Defendant's
followers, analysts, and others to mean that Defendant was watching
and/or following GameStop's performance. Over the next few days,
Defendant posted a series of subsequent memes on X -- largely
taking the form of video clips with a battle or fight theme from
popular movies and television shows, overlaid with text or other
graphics -- that were similarly understood to generally reflect
Defendant's renewed interest in GameStop.
As the market reacted to Defendant's posts, GameStop's stock price
surged, rising by $12.99 per share, or over 74%, to close at $30.45
per share on May 13, 2024 -- the first trading day following
Defendant's post on X. GameStop's stock price continued to climb
the following trading day, closing at $48.75 per share, an increase
of over 179% from the stock's closing price of $17.46 per share on
May 10, 2024 -- the last trading day before Defendant's post on X
-- only to normalize again and close as low as $18.32 per share by
May 23, 2024.
On Sunday, June 2, 2024, to pump the prices of GameStop's
securities back up, Defendant revealed his large stake in the
Company via a post on Reddit, causing GameStop shares to soar more
than 70% in early premarket trading on June 3, 2024. In particular,
Defendant posted a screenshot of his GameStop portfolio on Reddit
through his DFV account, revealing that he owned 5 million shares
of GameStop stock and 120,000 GameStop call options with a strike
price of $20, which were set to expire on June 21, 2024.
Significantly, this post did not reveal when Defendant had
purchased these securities.
On June 3, 2024, GameStop's stock price ultimately closed at $28.00
per share -- 21% higher than the prior trading day's closing price
of $23.14 per share on May 31, 2024.
On June 3, 2024, shortly before markets closed, the Wall Street
Journal ("WSJ") published an article revealing that Defendant had
purchased "a large volume of GameStop options on E*Trade" shortly
before his May 12, 2024 post on X that sent GameStop securities
soaring. The WSJ reported that "E*Trade is considering telling
Defendant that he can no longer use its platform after growing
concerned about potential stock manipulation around his recent
purchases of GameStop options, according to people familiar with
the matter." The article reported that "[s]hortly before
[Defendant] reignited a meme-stock craze in May, he bought a large
volume of GameStop options on E*Trade," and that "[t]his week, Gill
posted screenshots of an E*Trade account showing he owns GameStop
shares now valued at $140 million and a new set of options that
expire later this month. His total gains on the positions were at
$85.5 million, he posted late [on June 3], showing his account
remained in operation." The WSJ article stated that "E*Trade and
its owner Morgan Stanley" had "concerns [Defendant] can pump up a
stock for his own benefit" and are "debat[ing] whether his actions
amounted to manipulation[.]" Finally, the article reported that
"the Massachusetts securities division is looking into
[Defendant]'s activities" and that "[t]he [SEC] has also been
reviewing trading in GameStop call options around the time of
[Defendant]'s social media posts[.]"
On this news, GameStop's stock price fell $1.50 per share, or
5.36%, to close at $26.50 per share on June 4, 2024.
Then, on June 13, 2024, during after-market hours, Defendant posted
another screenshot of his GameStop portfolio on Reddit through his
DFV account, showing that his portfolio no longer included the
120,000 GameStop call options set to expire on June 21, 2024, and
that his position in GameStop stock had increased from 5 million
shares to over 9 million shares, making him one of the Company's
largest shareholders. Defendant profited handsomely from these
transactions. In particular, before his May 12, 2024 post on X that
reignited the meme stock movement, GameStop call options were
generally trading at less than $3.00 per option contract. After his
May 12, 2024 post on X and during the Class Period, the value of
these options rose dramatically to an average of $10.16 per option
contract, peaking at a closing price of $31.00 per option contract
on May 14, 2024 during the Class Period. These same options traded
at around $5.00 per option contract as of their June 21, 2024
expiration date.
Following news that Defendant had sold and/or exercised these
GameStop call options, GameStop's stock price fell $4.42 per share,
or 15.18%, over three consecutive trading sessions, to close at
$24.70 per share on June 18, 2024.
The complaint alleges that Defendant engaged in a pump-and-dump
scheme, whereby he: (i) shortly before his May 12, 2024 social
media post on X, and unknown to investors, quietly purchased a
large volume of GameStop call options on E*Trade at comparatively
low prices; (ii) on May 12, 2024, reignited the meme stock movement
and pumped the value of GameStop securities with his first social
media post on X in nearly three years; (iii) after the prices of
GameStop securities had abated, pumped the value of GameStop
securities again via a June 2, 2024 post of his GameStop portfolio
on Reddit, disclosing his large position in GameStop securities,
including 120,000 GameStop call options and 5 million shares of
GameStop stock; and (iv) by June 13, 2024, quietly sold and/or
exercised (i.e., dumped) all 120,000 of his GameStop call options
for a large profit, seemingly to increase his own stake in GameStop
stock by over 4 million shares, belatedly revealing as much to
investors on June 13, 2024, during after-market hours.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
Danielle Peyton
Pomerantz LLP
dpeyton@pomlaw.com
646-581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN]
GEISINGER HEALTH: Wierbowski Sues Over Data Security Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
WTAJ reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against
Geisinger and a Microsoft company –- demanding $5 million to
compensate patients for a data security breach.
A former patient, James Wierbowski, filed the lawsuit individually
and on behalf of more than 1 million impacted Geisinger patients,
claiming that a former Nuance Communications employee accessed
their private health information. Nuance, which is owned by
Microsoft, provides AI-powered healthcare IT services for about
10,000 healthcare organizations globally, including Geisinger,
according to the lawsuit.
In the lawsuit, Wierbowski claims that Geisinger, a Pennsylvania
healthcare system based in Danville, discovered that a former
Nuance employee, Max Vance, accessed patient information two days
after being fired. The lawsuit also alleges that after being
notified of the data breach, Nuance removed Vance's access to
records.
The data breach was allegedly discovered on November 29, 2023.
According to the lawsuit, various patient information, including
names, date of birth, address, admit and discharge or transfer
code, medical record number, race, gender, phone number, and
facility name abbreviation information, were accessed.
Wierbowski alleges that patients were not notified of the data
breach until six months after it occurred and warned that criminals
can use stolen patient health information to sell on the black
market.
Geisinger posted official notice on June 24. In the press release,
Geisinger reports that law enforcement investigators asked Nuance
to delay notifying patients of the incident.
"Our patients' and members' privacy is a top priority, and we take
protecting it very seriously," Jonathan Friesen, Geisinger chief
privacy officer, said in a statement on June 24. "We continue to
work closely with the authorities on this investigation, and while
I am grateful that the perpetrator was caught and is now facing
federal charges, I am sorry that this happened."
The lawsuit states that Nuance should have disabled Vance's
security clearance immediately and allege that Nuance and Geisinger
were negligent and in breach of fiduciary duty and implied contract
against Geisinger patients.
Wierbowski is demanding $5 million in the class action lawsuit.
[GN]
GENENTECH INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Tulsa Suit Due Sept. 11
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tulsa Cancer Institute,
PLLC et al v. Genentech, Inc. (Genentech, Inc., Herceptin
(Trastuzumab) Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation), Case No.
4:22-cv-00251-GKF-JFJ (N.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Gregory Frizzell
entered a Third Amended Phase II Scheduling Order as follows:
Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosures Due: July 15, 2024
Genentech's Expert Disclosures Due: July 29, 2024
Plaintiffs' Expert Depositions Deadline: Aug. 14, 2024
Genentech's Expert Depositions Deadline: Aug. 28, 2024
Close of Phase II Discovery: Aug. 28, 2024
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Sept. 11, 2024
Due:
Genentech's Response Brief Due: Oct. 25, 2024
Plaintiffs' Reply Brief Due: Nov. 18, 2024
Hearing on Motion for Class Certification: Jan. 15, 2025
Genentech manufactures and markets pharmaceutical products.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5kzuvb at no extra
charge.[CC]
GLOCK INC: Bunce Has More Time to File Agreed Discovery Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Christina Reiss of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Vermont issued an Entry Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion
for extension of time to file stipulated discovery schedule in the
lawsuit titled GREGORY BUNCE, individually and as personal
representative ofthe estate of Peter Bunce, and EVELYN BUNCE,
Plaintiffs v. GLOCK, INC., and GLOCK GES.M.B.H., Defendants, Case
No. 2:23-cv-00133-cr (D. Vt.).
Plaintiffs Gregory Bunce and Evelyn Bunce move to extend the
deadline to file a stipulated discovery schedule with Defendant
Glock, Inc., and for alternate service against Defendant Glock
Ges.m.b.H., requesting the Court permit service on Glock Ges.m.b.H.
via the law firm representing Glock, Inc., Renzulli Law Firm, LLP
(the "Renzulli Law Firm"). Glock, Inc., and the Renzulli Law Firm
opposed the motion for alternate service on Feb. 20, 2024, and the
Plaintiffs replied on March 5, 2024.
The Plaintiffs are represented by Laura H. White, Esq. Glock, Inc.,
is represented by Christopher Renzulli, Esq., Jeffrey M. Malsch,
Esq., and Matthew B. Byrne, Esq.
The Plaintiffs commenced this action on June 23, 2023. On Oct. 6,
2023, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to extend the
deadline to complete service to Nov. 20, 2023. The Plaintiffs
served summonses, a civil cover sheet, notice and waiver forms, and
their Complaint and First Amended Complaint on Glock, Inc., and
Glock Ges.m.b.H. by mail to the registered agent for Glock, Inc.,
on Oct. 16, 2023.
Thereafter, Glock, Inc.'s general counsel returned the documents
served on Glock Ges.m.b.H., stating that Glock, Inc., was not
authorized to accept service on behalf of Glock Ges.m.b.H. Counsel
for Glock, Inc., however, accepted service and the Plaintiffs filed
the waiver form on Nov. 16, 2023.
Carlos Guevara, a Vice-President and Secretary and General Counsel
of Glock, Inc., submitted a sworn declaration describing Glock,
Inc.'s relationship to Glock Ges.m.b.H. Glock, Inc., a Georgia
corporation with its sole place of business located in Smyrna,
Georgia. Glock Ges.m.b.H., an Austrian limited liability company
with all places of business located in Austria, owns half of Glock,
Inc.'s stock. INC Holding GmbH, an Austrian limited liability
company, owns the other half.
Glock Ges.m.b.H. designs and manufactures Glock semi-automatic
pistols and component parts. Glock, Inc., purchases component parts
from Glock Ges.m.b.H. to assemble and sell Glock pistols. It is the
only company in the United States with which Glock Ges.m.b.H. does
business.
Glock, Inc., and Glock Ges.m.b.H. are separate legal entities with
"individual business plan[s]." Glock Ges.m.b.H. has not designated
Glock, Inc., as its agent or authorized Glock, Inc., to receive
service of process on Glock Ges.m.b.H.'s behalf.
Christopher Renzulli submitted a sworn declaration that Glock
Ges.m.b.H. has not authorized the Renzulli Law Firm to accept
service of process on its behalf. The Renzulli Law Firm has
represented Glock Ges.m.b.H. in previous litigations, including
Travieso v. Glock Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00523 (D. Ariz.).
The Plaintiffs contend that, if Glock, Inc., and Glock Ges.m.b.H.
are separate legal entities as Mr. Guevara asserts, Glock, Inc.,
does not have standing to oppose their motion regarding Glock
Ges.m.b.H. because co-defendants do not have standing to assert
improper service claims on behalf of other defendants.
Because the Plaintiffs request service of Glock Ges.m.b.H. through
the Renzulli Law Firm and because the declarations of Mr. Guevara
and Mr. Renzulli will assist in evaluating the Plaintiffs' motion
for alternative service, the Court considers those declarations, as
well as Glock, Inc.' s memorandum in opposition.
The Plaintiffs point out the Renzulli Law Firm has represented both
Glock, Inc., and Glock Ges.m.b.H. previously and that Glock, Inc.,
is a subsidiary of Glock Ges.m.b.H. They contend that alternative
service is appropriate because they have attempted to serve Glock
Ges.m.b.H. and because the process of serving Glock Ges.m.b.H.
abroad would be time-consuming and expensive.
Judge Reiss notes that Austria is a party to the Hague Convention,
which applies to transmittal abroad that is required as a necessary
part of service. Judge Reiss holds that service on an agent or a
law firm within the United States does not violate the Hague
Convention.
Although Glock, Inc., is not Glock Ges.m.b.H.'s wholly owned
subsidiary, Glock Ges.m.b.H. owns 50% of Glock, Inc.'s stock and
has retained shared counsel with Glock, Inc., on numerous
occasions, Judge Reiss opines. Glock, Inc.'s business includes
assembling and selling Glock Ges.m.b.H. products in the United
States, and Glock, Inc., is the only company in the United States
with which Glock Ges.m.b.H. does business. Glock, Inc.'s claim that
it will suffer prejudice if alternative service is granted is
unsupported by any specifics, Judge Reiss points out.
The Renzulli Law Firm has had notice of this lawsuit since at least
Nov. 11, 2023, Judge Reiss says. Under these circumstances, service
on Glock, Inc.'s counsel is reasonably calculated to apprise Glock
Ges.m.b.H. of the pendency of the current action. The means of
service requested is, therefore, likely to comport with traditional
notions of due process, Judge Reiss points out.
Although the Hague Convention provides simple and certain means by
which to serve process on a foreign national, Judge Reiss notes
courts in the Second Circuit nonetheless have found that lengthy
delays in service under the Hague Convention are sufficient to show
that alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3) is warranted.
In this case, the Plaintiffs have not submitted any evidence
regarding the time or expense necessary to complete service
pursuant to the Hague Convention in Austria, nor any indication
that they tried to accomplish service through that method, Judge
Reiss opines. In the absence of this information, Judge Reiss finds
the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that alternative service
is appropriate in this case.
For these reasons, the Court denies, without prejudice, the
Plaintiffs' motion for alternate service. The Plaintiffs' motion
for an extension of time to file a stipulated discovery schedule is
granted. The Plaintiffs and Glock, Inc., will file a stipulated
discovery schedule within fourteen (14) days of this Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Entry Order dated June 18, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc3v82s8 from PacerMonitor.com.
GOLDEN STATE SUPPLY: Romero Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LETICIA ROMERO;
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GOLDEN STATE SUPPLY, LLC, a limited liability corporation; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-10578-MCS-AS (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs Leticia Romero and Donovin Sheffield, on Aug.
12, 2023, will move the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)
for an order:
1. Certifying the class described below;
2. Appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of the class
proposed
or later proposed and approved by the Court and any other
sub-
class the Court may devise;
3. Appointing Kane Moon, Daniel Park, and Michael Citrin of Moon
Law Group P.C., and Michael Elkin and Benjamin McLain of
Elkin
Gamboa, LLP as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(g);
and,
4. Issuing such other Orders as necessary to effectuate the
Court's
certification Order.
This motion is brought on the grounds that this action properly may
be certified as a class action under FRCP Rules 23 (a) and 23(b).
Counsel conferred by telephone about the basis for this Motion on
June 10, 2024 and June 21, 2024. This Motion is based upon this
Notice, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed in support
thereof, the declarations filed herewith as well as the exhibits
thereto, the pleadings and records on file in this action, and such
additional argument and evidence as may be presented at the hearing
on this motion.
This is a wage and hour class action lawsuit involving non-exempt
hourly employees that worked for the Defendant.
This Motion is made under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a),
23(b)(3), and 23(g) (“Rule 23”), for an Order certifying the
following classes:
(1) Regular Rate Class:
"All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
Defendant who worked for Defendant in California from Nov.
6,
2019 to the present, and who, according to Defendant's
records:
(a) Were paid a "Meal Premium Payment," "PR Meal Premium
Payment," or a "Break Premium Payment" when they had a Meal
Event or Rest Event; (b) Had a "Meal Event" (defined as an
incident when the employee's time records show that the
employee recorded a meal period of less than 30 minutes, or
started a meal period after the end of the fifth hour of
work)
on days the employees worked shifts over six hours; or (c)
Had
a "Rest Event" (defined as an incident when an employee
missed
rest periods); and (d) Were paid nondiscretionary incentive
pay
(e.g. "Commercial Bonus," "Shift Premium Reg," "Contests &
Incentives," "DC Incentive," "Field Sales Bonus," "Holiday
Work
Premium" "Referral Bonus," "Sign On Bonus," "Spot Bonus
Pmt,"
"ZDNU-Attendance Bonus," "Wellness Incentive") that covered
the
period when the other foregoing criteria were met."
(2) Waiting Time Penalties Subclass:
"All members of the Regular Rate Class whose employment with
Defendant ended at any time between Nov. 6, 2020 to the
present. In addition, former hourly, non-exempt employees of
Defendant whose employment with Defendant ended at any time
between Nov. 6, 2020 to the present and who, according to
Defendant's records were paid "Sick Pay" or "Supplemental
Sick"
and a nondiscretionary incentive pay within the same
period."
(3) Wage Statement Class:
"All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
Defendant who worked for Defendant in California from Nov.
6,
2022 to the present, who received a "Meal Premium Payment,"
"PR
Meal Premium Payment," "Sick Pay," "Supplemental Sick," or a
"Break Premium Payment" from Nov. 6, 2022 to the present and
who received nondiscretionary incentive pay.
The Plaintiff Romero was employed by Defendant as a "DC Associate"
in the State of California from July 21, 2021 to June 6, 2023.
Golden State is a retailer and distributor of aftermarket auto
parts.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nptPTt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
Daniel J. Park, Esq.
Michael Citrin, Esq.
MOON LAW GROUP, PC
725 S. Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 232-3128
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
E-mail: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com
dpark@moonlawgroup.com
mcitrin@moonlawgroup.com
- and -
Michael Elkin, Esq.
Benjamin McLain, Esq.
ELKIN | GAMBOA, LLP
4119 W. Burbank Blvd., Suite 110
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (323) 372-1202
Facsimile: (323) 372-1216
E-mail: michael@elkingamboa.com
ben@elkingamboa.com
GREAT LAKES: Case Management Deadlines in Besso Held in Abeyance
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Besso v. Great Lakes Home
Remodeling, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00688 (N.D. Ohio, Filed April 17,
2024), the Hon. Judge James R. Knepp II entered an order that all
other case management deadlines held in abeyance pending a decision
on conditional class certification.
-- Telephone Status Conference is set for: Oct. 3, 2024
-- The conference will convene on the Court's bridge line with
dial-
in access information to be provided to parties in advance of
the
call.
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
Great Lakes is a licensed exterior home improvement company.[CC]
HASHICORP INC: M&S Investigates Proposed Merger With IBM
--------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has
recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm
in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We
are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and
are investigating HashiCorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: HCP), relating to its
proposed merger with International Business Machines Corporation
("IBM"). Under the terms of the agreement, IBM will acquire
HashiCorp for $35 per share in cash.
ACTION NEEDED: The shareholder vote will be taking place on July
15, 2024. Mr. Juan Monteverde is available to personally discuss
this case with you.
Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
HOMEADVISOR INC: Airquip Appeals Denial of Reconsideration Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
AIRQUIP, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
denying their motion for reconsideration of the class certification
order in the lawsuit entitled Airquip, Inc., et al., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
HomeAdvisor, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:16-CV-01849-PAB-KAS, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint,
as amended in November 2016, alleged that HomeAdvisor engages in
certain deceptive practices affecting the service professionals who
join its network, including charging them for substandard customer
leads and failing to disclose certain charges. The complaint sought
certification of a nationwide class consisting of all HomeAdvisor
SPs since October 2012, asserted claims for fraud, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment and violation of the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) statute
and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, and sought injunctive
relief and damages in an unspecified amount.
On May 26, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and appointment of Class counsel, which the Court
granted in part and denied in part through an Order entered by
Judge Philip A. Brimmer on Jan. 10, 2024. The Court certified a
Nationwide Misappropriation Class and three State Misappropriation
Classes but denied the Plaintiffs' request to certify a Nationwide
Deceptive Practices Class and nine State Deceptive Practices
Classes for the states of California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio.
On Jan. 24, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
on the class certification order.
The Court finds no clear error in its decision that the Plaintiffs
failed to establish the predominance element for the nine state
classes because "Plaintiffs failed to undertake a claim-specific
analysis and identify the elements of the forty-three claims."
However, even if there was an error in the Court's decision that
the Plaintiffs failed to establish predominance for the nine state
classes, the Court finds that reconsideration is not warranted
because the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the superiority element
under Rule 23(b)(3).
The appellate case is captioned Airquip, Inc., et al. v.
HomeAdvisor, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-704, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on June 13, 2024.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners AIRQUIP, INC., et al., on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
Kimberly M. Donaldson-Smith, Esq.
Alex B. Kashurba, Esq.
Beena M. McDonald, Esq.
Scott M. Tucker, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH
361 West Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: (610) 642-8500
- and -
Gordon W. Netzorg, Esq.
NETZORG, MCKEEVER, KOCLANES & BERNHARDT
1670 Broadway, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 864-1000
- and -
Mark Wilson Williams, Esq.
SHERMAN & HOWARD
675 Fifteenth Street, Suite 2300
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 297-2900
Defendants-Respondents HOMEADVISOR, INC., et al. are represented
by:
Michelle R. Gomez, Esq.
Laurin David Quiat, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER
1801 California Street, Suite 4400
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 861-0600
- and -
Nicholas Hoy, Esq.
Jennifer Jackson Barrett, Esq.
Shon Morgan, Esq.
Stephen R. Neuwirth, Esq.
George T. Phillips, Esq.
Neil T. Phillips, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 849-7000
HONDA MOTOR: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hamid Bolooki v. Honda
Motor Company Limited, et al. (HONDA IDLE STOP LITIGATION), Case
No. 2:22-cv-04252-MCS-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court
to enter an order:
-- granting Honda's application to file under seal portions of
Honda's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification
and Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 31, 33, 34, 35,
38, and 39 to the Declaration of Eric Y. Kizirian in Support of
Honda's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.
On May 12, 2023, the Court entered a Stipulated Protective Order
designed to safeguard the confidential nature of certain documents
and information. Honda seeks to file under seal information
protected by the terms of the Protective Order.
Pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order, Honda may not file
in the public record of this action information that it (or another
party) has designated as Confidential. Because the Exhibits filed
in support of Honda's Opposition, and portions of Honda’s
Opposition citing those Exhibits, draw from information that has
been designated as Confidential, Honda is obligated to submit this
Application in accordance with the requirements of Local Rule
79-5.2.2(a).
Here, Honda seeks to file an unredacted copy of portions of its
Opposition and certain Exhibits under seal. The Parties have
conferred and Plaintiffs take no position on the issue. The
Application is made in a good faith effort to reduce the amount of
information excluded from the public record by publicly filing a
narrowly redacted copy of the Motion and only certain Exhibits.
Honda is a manufacturer of automobiles, motorcycles, and
battery-powered equipment.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZF8TTZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Eric Y. Kizirian, Esq.
Zourik Zarifian, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 250-1800
Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
E-mail: Eric.Kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com
Zourik.Zarifian@lewisbrisbois.com
IDAHO: Court OK's Plaintiffs' Bid for Provisional Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE ROE, JANE POE, JANE
DOE, Plaintiffs, v. RAUL LABRADOR, in his official capacity as
Attorney General of the State of Idaho, et. al., Case No.
1:24-cv-00306-DCN (D. Idaho), the Hon. Judge David Nye entered an
order that:
1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,
Provisional
Class Certification, and Preliminary Injunction is granted in
part.
a. The Court grants a provisional temporary restraining
order.
2. Defendants' Motion for Hearing (Dkt. 7) is granted in part
and
denied in part.
3. Briefing on Plaintiffs' Motion shall proceed as outlined and
a
hearing will be held on July 15, 2024, at 11:00 a.m., to
determine whether to enter a formal TRO or preliminary
injunction during the pendency of this case.
The named Plaintiffs are three transgender women who are currently
incarcerated in facilities administered by the Idaho Department of
Corrections.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D7Ms3n at no extra
charge.[CC]
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by July 30
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARKIN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
v. Intuitive Surgical Inc. (DA VINCI SURGICAL ROBOT ANTITRUST
LITIGATION), Case No. 3:21-cv-03825-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order that the briefing schedule
for the Opposition and Reply briefs on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification shall be modified as follows:
Event Proposed Date
Intuitive's Opposition July 30, 2024
Plaintiffs' Reply Sept. 10, 2024
On June 6, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification and a report from one expert.
On June 19, 2024, Intuitive asked Plaintiffs about the expert's
availability for a deposition on July 10 or July 11 and Plaintiffs
indicated that the expert was not available those days, but was
available the week of July 15, 2024.
Intuitive develops, manufactures, and markets robotic products
designed to improve clinical outcomes of patients through minimally
invasive surgery.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EABTzW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
Icee N. Etheridge, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
E-mail: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com
jspector@srkattorneys.com
ietheridge@srkattorneys.com
- and -
Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq.
Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
Daniel McCuaig, Esq.
Christopher J. Bateman, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
TOLL PLLC
11780 U.S. Highway One, Suite N500
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408
Telephone: (561) 515-2604
Facsimile: (561) 515-1401
E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com
bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
dmccuaig@cohenmilstein.com
cbateman@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq.
Samuel Maida, Esq.
Reena A. Gambhir, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite
3200 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
E-mail: gsmith@hausfeld.com
smaida@hausfeld.com
rgambhir@hausfeld.com
- and -
Michael J. Boni, Esq.
Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
John E. Sindoni, Esq.
BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
15 St. Asaphs Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (610) 822-0200
Facsimile: (610) 822-0206
E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
jsnyder@bonizack.com
jsindoni@bonizack.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Allen Ruby, Esq.
ALLEN RUBY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
15559 Union Ave. 138
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Telephone: (408) 477-9690
E-mail: allen@allenruby.com
- and -
Joshua Hill, Esq.
Kenneth A. Gallo, Esq.
Paul D. Brachman, Esq.
William B. Michael, Esq.
Crystal L. Parker, Esq.
Daniel A. Crane, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 204-7420
E-mail: kgallo@paulweiss.com
pbrachman@paulweiss.com
wmichael@paulweiss.com
cparker@paulweiss.com
dcrane@paulweiss.com
jhill@paulweiss.com
- and -
Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq.
Sonya E. Winner, Esq.
Andrew Lazerow, Esq.
Ashley E. Bass, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
Telephone: (650) 632-4700
Facsimile: (650) 632-4800
E-mail: kcahoy@cov.com
swinner@cov.com
alazerow@cov.com
abass@cov.com
JHK JEWELRY: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Fernandez Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JHK JEWELRY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04691 (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 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,
www.trumpetandhorn.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: missing alternative text (alt-text), hidden elements on
web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups,
unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that
some events be performed solely with a mouse.
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.
JHK Jewelry, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
JOCKEY INTERNATIONAL: Dalton Sues Over Blind's Access to Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE DALTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOCKEY INTERNATIONAL GLOBAL INC., Defendant,
Case No. 0:24-cv-02449-NEB-ECW (D. Minn., June 24, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights
Act.
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, www.jockey.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:
insufficient screen reader-accessible text equivalent for important
non-text image(s); uses visual cues as the only means of conveying
information, making the information unavailable to screen reader
users; fails to alert screen readers to pop-up window content;
unclear purpose of certain links and/or buttons; and fails to
narrate Customer Average ratings on its products "Fit," "Quality,"
and "Comfort" information.
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.
Jockey International Global Inc. is a company that sells online
goods and services, headquartered in Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
KINGSUM INC: Faces Karim Suit Over Online Store's Access Barriers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KINGSUM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04787 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 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.luckyclovertrading.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, incorrectly formatted lists, ambiguous link texts,
changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for
interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible
drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate
labeling of form fields, redundant links where adjacent links go to
the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be
performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.
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.
Kingsum, Inc. 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
KISS NAIL: Aids Meta to Collect Website Communications, Itzhak Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTA ITZHAK and LYNDA MAURER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KISS NAIL PRODUCTS, INC.,
d/b/a KISS USA, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-04460 (E.D.N.Y., June
24, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of
the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Pennsylvania
Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of aiding, agreeing
with, employing, procuring, or otherwise enabling the wiretapping
of the electronic communications of visitors to its website,
https://www.kissusa.com/. Specifically, the Defendant aids, agrees
with, procures, or otherwise enables Meta Platforms, Inc., a
third-party service provider, to collect information from visitors
to its website without obtaining prior consent.
Kiss Nail Products, Inc. is a company that sells beauty products,
with its principal place of business in Port Washington, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: aleslie@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
LES SCHWAB: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Hill Due Oct. 30
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY HILL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LES SCHWAB TIRE
CENTERS OF WASHINGTON, LLC, a Washington limited liability company;
and DOES 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-00425-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Court
entered an order setting the following deadlines and briefing
schedule:
Deadline Date
Joinder of Parties Deadline Aug. 30, 2024
Amended Pleadings Sept. 6, 2024
Deadline to complete discovery Sept. 30, 2024
on class certification (not to be
construed as a bifurcation of
discovery)
Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Oct. 30, 2024
Motion for Class Certification
Deadline for Defendants to file Nov. 27, 2024
Response to Motion for Class
Certification
Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Dec. 15, 2024
Reply in Support of Motion for
Class Certification
Les Schwab is a tire retail chain operating in the western United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JqI2Ln at no extra
charge.[CC]
LINKEDIN CORP: Class Cert. Filing in Jackson Due May 2, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE JACKSON, v.
LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Case No. 5:24-cv-00812-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order setting the following
schedule for this case:
Motion for Class Certification May 2, 2025
Opposition to Class Certification Motion July 1, 2025
Reply in Support of Class Certification Motion Aug. 22, 2025
Fact Discovery Cutoff Dec. 12, 2025
Designation of Opening Experts with Reports Jan. 19, 2026
Designation of Responsive Experts with Reports March 20, 2026
Designation of Rebuttal Experts with Reports May 4, 2026
Expert Discovery Cutoff June 3, 2026
Completion of ADR June 24, 2026
Filing of Dispositive/Daubert Motion(s) June 24, 2026
Oppositions to Dispositive/Daubert Motion(s) July 24, 2026
Replies in Support of Dispositive/Daubert Aug. 13, 2026
Motion(s)
Hearing on Dispositive/Daubert Motion(s) Aug. 27, 2026
Trial Schedule
Joint Pretrial Conference Nov. 17, 2026
Jury Trial (5–7 days) Dec. 7, 2026
LinkedIn is a business and employment-focused social media platform
that works through websites and mobile apps.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pXitXj at no extra
charge.[CC]
MASIMO CORP: Faces Class Action for Misleading Investors
--------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises Masimo Corporation ("Masimo" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: MASI) investors that a class action has been
filed on behalf of investors. Masimo investors that lost money on
their investment are encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by
phone 310-692-8883 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss
their legal rights, or click here to join the case via
www.portnoylaw.com. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a
complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for
pursuing claims to recover their losses.
The complaint filed alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants:
(1) misled investors by creating the false impression that
they possessed reliable information pertaining to the Company's
sales pipeline;
(2) failed to adequately account for potential loss of sensor
sales among Masimo's customers, as well as the potential decline in
demand for premium and luxury audio categories;
(3) deliberately ignored the decline in sales; and
(4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm’s founding
partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
Telephone: (310) 692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
MAYNE PHARMA: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Class Action for $38MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Ogg, writing for Business News Australia, reports that after
almost three years of legal proceedings, Mayne Pharma (ASX: MYX)
has agreed to settle a shareholder class action without liability
for $38 million -- a sum that represents around 10 per cent of the
Adelaide-based group's market capitalisation.
Phi Finney McDonald filed the suit in August 2021 in the Supreme
Court of Victoria alleging Mayne had breached its continuous
disclosure obligations and engaged in misleading and deceptive
conduct in relation to alleged price-fixing and market-share
arrangements in the US between 2014 and 2016.
In mid-December 2016 the Attorney General of the US state of
Connecticut started anti-trust civil proceedings against Mayne USA,
alleging it had agreed to price fixing for acne drug Doxy DR with
competitor Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Investors fled for the exits with the share price dropping as much
as 24 per cent in one day amidst a tumultuous period for Mayne
Pharma, having been included in a Bloomberg report a month prior
alleging Mayne was not cooperating with the Department of Justice
(DOJ) in a separate investigation, and that criminal charges may be
brought against the Australian group.
Previously in June of that year, Mayne Pharma had informed
shareholders in an investor presentation that it was one of
numerous companies to receive a subpoena from the DOJ's Antitrust
Division requesting information about the marketing, pricing and
sales of select generic products.
In that presentation Mayne also added it had received a subpoena
from the Connecticut Attorney General seeking similar information.
"Based on currently available information, Mayne Pharma does not
believe these investigations will have a material impact on its
future earnings," Mayne wrote in the presentation, which coincided
with an $888 million capital raise to fund the acquisition of 42
therapeutic products from Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and
Allergan.
One of Phi Finney McDonald's gripes with Mayne in the case was that
it continued to make public representations that Mayne was
compliant with competition law and was not exposed to the risk of
reputational, financial or other impacts in the US for
non-compliance with competition law.
"The class action alleges that investors who acquired Mayne Pharma
shares during the Claim Period are entitled to compensation for
loss and damage as they paid more for those shares than they would
have paid as a consequence of Mayne Pharma’s conduct," the law
firm stated.
"The class action also alleges that some group members would not
have purchased Mayne Pharma shares if Mayne Pharma had complied
with its obligations."
In the statement, Mayne said the agreement to settle was a
commercial decision made in the best interests of shareholders.
"The resolution of this matter enables Mayne Pharma to avoid the
distraction and significant expense of a lengthy trial, and to
remain focused on driving growth and shareholder value through its
core commercial business," the company said.
"The settlement is without any admission of liability by Mayne
Pharma – both with respect to the alleged underlying
anti-competitive conduct in the United States, and the alleged
misleading or deceptive conduct and breaches of continuous
disclosure obligations – and is subject to Court approval."
Approximately $4.7 million of the $38 million settlement will be
funded by insurance, with the remainder to be paid from Mayne
Pharma’s cash reserves.
As at the end of 2023, the group had $146.8 million worth of cash
and marketable securities.
"The company maintains its outlook for the financial year ended
June 2024 and will report its year end cash balance with its full
year results in August."
The class action was funded by Vannin Capital Operations.
Since August 2016 MYX shares have fallen from $42 to their current
level of $4.64, representing a decline of 89 per cent. [GN]
MDL 2700: Class Cert Bid Filing in MOH Suit Due Sept. 11
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Minnesota Oncology
Hematology, P.A. v. Genentech Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00210 (N.D.
Okla.), the Hon. Judge Gregory K. Frizzell entered a third amended
phase II scheduling order as follows:
-- Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosures Due: July 15, 2024
-- Genentech's Expert Disclosures Due: July 29, 2024
-- Plaintiffs' Expert Depositions Deadline: Aug. 14, 2024
-- Genentech's Expert Depositions Deadline: Aug. 28, 2024
-- Close of Phase II Discovery: Aug. 28, 2024
-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Sept. 11, 2024
Certification Due:
-- Genentech's Response Brief Due: Oct. 25, 2024
-- Plaintiffs' Reply Brief Due: Nov. 18, 2024
-- Hearing on Motion for Class Jan. 15, 2025
Certification:
The Minnesota Oncology case is being consolidated in MDL 2000
Genentech, Inc., Herceptin (Trastuzumab) Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation.
These actions share factual questions arising from Genentech's
marketing and sales of Herceptin (trastuzumab), a prescription
medication for the treatment of certain types of breast cancer. The
Plaintiffs in all the actions are oncology providers who allege
that Genentech breached its warranties regarding the amount,
volume, or concentration of Herceptin that it sold them.
Genentech manufactures and markets pharmaceutical products.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b4j7xS at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2700: Class Cert Bid Filing in NCS Suit Due Sept. 11
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Northwest Cancer
Specialists, P.C. v. Genentech Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv- 00359 (N.D.
Okla.), the Hon. Judge Gregory K. Frizzell entered a third amended
phase II scheduling order as follows:
-- Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosures Due: July 15, 2024
-- Genentech's Expert Disclosures Due: July 29, 2024
-- Plaintiffs' Expert Depositions Deadline: Aug. 14, 2024
-- Genentech's Expert Depositions Deadline: Aug. 28, 2024
-- Close of Phase II Discovery: Aug. 28, 2024
-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Sept. 11, 2024
Certification Due:
-- Genentech's Response Brief Due: Oct. 25, 2024
-- Plaintiffs' Reply Brief Due: Nov. 18, 2024
-- Hearing on Motion for Class Jan. 15, 2025
Certification:
The Northwest case is being consolidated in MDL 2000 Genentech,
Inc., Herceptin (Trastuzumab) Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation.
These actions share factual questions arising from Genentech's
marketing and sales of Herceptin (trastuzumab), a prescription
medication for the treatment of certain types of breast cancer.
Plaintiffs in all the actions are oncology providers who allege
that Genentech breached its warranties regarding the amount,
volume, or concentration of Herceptin that it sold them.
Genentech manufactures and markets pharmaceutical products.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x6T3HZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2700: Class Cert Bid Filing in NSHOA Due Sept. 11
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as North Shore
Hematology-Oncology Associates, P.C. v. Genentech Inc., Case No.
4:16-cv- 00202 (N.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Gregory K. Frizzell
entered a third amended phase II scheduling order as follows:
-- Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosures Due: July 15, 2024
-- Genentech's Expert Disclosures Due: July 29, 2024
-- Plaintiffs' Expert Depositions Deadline: Aug. 14, 2024
-- Genentech's Expert Depositions Deadline: Aug. 28, 2024
-- Close of Phase II Discovery: Aug. 28, 2024
-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Sept. 11, 2024
Certification Due:
-- Genentech's Response Brief Due: Oct. 25, 2024
-- Plaintiffs' Reply Brief Due: Nov. 18, 2024
-- Hearing on Motion for Class Jan. 15, 2025
Certification:
The North Shore case is being consolidated in MDL 2000 Genentech,
Inc., Herceptin (Trastuzumab) Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation.
These actions share factual questions arising from Genentech's
marketing and sales of Herceptin (trastuzumab), a prescription
medication for the treatment of certain types of breast cancer.
Plaintiffs in all the actions are oncology providers who allege
that Genentech breached its warranties regarding the amount,
volume, or concentration of Herceptin that it sold them.
Genentech manufactures and markets pharmaceutical products.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T1pm9a at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2700: Class Cert Bid Filing in OHACI Due Sept. 11
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Oncology-Hematology
Associates of Central Illinois P.C. v. Genentech, Inc., Case No.
4:16-cv-00394 (N.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Gregory K. Frizzell
entered a third amended phase II scheduling order as follows:
-- Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosures Due: July 15, 2024
-- Genentech's Expert Disclosures Due: July 29, 2024
-- Plaintiffs' Expert Depositions Deadline: Aug. 14, 2024
-- Genentech's Expert Depositions Deadline: Aug. 28, 2024
-- Close of Phase II Discovery: Aug. 28, 2024
-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Sept. 11, 2024
Certification Due:
-- Genentech's Response Brief Due: Oct. 25, 2024
-- Plaintiffs' Reply Brief Due: Nov. 18, 2024
-- Hearing on Motion for Class Jan. 15, 2025
Certification:
The Oncology-Hema case is being consolidated in MDL 2000 Genentech,
Inc., Herceptin (Trastuzumab) Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation.
These actions share factual questions arising from Genentech's
marketing and sales of Herceptin (trastuzumab), a prescription
medication for the treatment of certain types of breast cancer.
Plaintiffs in all the actions are oncology providers who allege
that Genentech breached its warranties regarding the amount,
volume, or concentration of Herceptin that it sold them.
Genentech manufactures and markets pharmaceutical products.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vrb0Gi at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2700: Class Cert Bid Filing in OHASV Suit Due Sept. 11
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Oncology and Hematology
Associates of Southwest Virginia, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Case No.
4:16-cv-00419 (N.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Gregory K. Frizzell
entered a third amended phase II scheduling order as follows:
-- Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosures Due: July 15, 2024
-- Genentech's Expert Disclosures Due: July 29, 2024
-- Plaintiffs' Expert Depositions Deadline: Aug. 14, 2024
-- Genentech's Expert Depositions Deadline: Aug. 28, 2024
-- Close of Phase II Discovery: Aug. 28, 2024
-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Sept. 11, 2024
Certification Due:
-- Genentech's Response Brief Due: Oct. 25, 2024
-- Plaintiffs' Reply Brief Due: Nov. 18, 2024
-- Hearing on Motion for Class Jan. 15, 2025
Certification:
The Oncology case is being consolidated in MDL 2000 Genentech,
Inc., Herceptin (Trastuzumab) Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation.
These actions share factual questions arising from Genentech's
marketing and sales of Herceptin (trastuzumab), a prescription
medication for the treatment of certain types of breast cancer.
Plaintiffs in all the actions are oncology providers who allege
that Genentech breached its warranties regarding the amount,
volume, or concentration of Herceptin that it sold them.
Genentech manufactures and markets pharmaceutical products.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ol82b1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MGM RESORTS: Lassoff Appeals Case Transfer Ruling to 3rd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAUL LASSOFF, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Defendant's motion to transfer venue in the lawsuit
entitled Saul Lassoff, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MGM Resorts
International, Defendant, Case No. 1-23-cv-20419, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendant for alleged
negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment arising from
a cybersecurity incident in September 2023.
On Jan. 16, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to transfer case to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, which the Court
granted through an Order entered by Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez on
May 22, 2024.
The Court further finds that the transfer of this action will
promote the just and efficient resolution of these matters for all
parties and preserve the judiciary's resources by streamlining both
motion practice and discovery. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion
to transfer this action to the District of Nevada pursuant to 28
U.S. Code Sec. 1404(a) will be granted and the Court will grant the
Defendant's request for a thirty-day stay to its obligation to
respond to the Plaintiffs' complaint. The relief sought in the
Plaintiffs' motion to preclude is denied.
The appellate case is captioned Saul Lassoff, et al. v. MGM Resorts
International, Case No. 24-2060, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 14, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants SAUL LASSOFF, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Samuel J. Lassoff, Esq.
5006 Wellington Avenue
Ventnor, NJ 08406
Telephone: (609) 375-7491
Defendant-Appellee MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL is represented by:
Stephen H. Barrett, Esq.
Haley D. Torrey, Esq.
DLA PIPER
1650 Market Street
One Liberty Place, Suite 5000
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 656-2455
MH CONSULTANTS: Court Grants Credco's Bid to Dismiss Olvera Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ed Kinkeade of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, grants Credco's Motion to
Dismiss the lawsuit styled BETSY SANCHEZ OLVERA and WILLIE D.
WILSON, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MH CONSULTANTS, INC. d/b/a MANUFACTURED HOUSING
CONSULTANTS and CORELOGIC CREDCO, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-00746-K (N.D. Tex.).
Before the Court are Defendant CoreLogic Credco, LLC's ("Credco")
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and Memorandum of Law in
support thereof, Plaintiffs Betsy Sanchez Olvera and Willie D.
Wilson's Opposition to Credco's Motion to Dismiss, and Credco's
Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint.
Upon consideration of the parties' submissions, the Court grants
Credco's Motion to Dismiss and dismisses Ms. Olvera and Mr.
Wilson's claims against Credco without prejudice.
Ms. Olvera and Mr. Wilson attempted to buy a mobile home from MH
Consultants, Inc. d/b/a Manufactured Housing Consultants ("MH
Consultants") on credit but asked MH Consultants not to look at
their credit reports. MH Consultants got the reports from Credco
and looked at them anyway.
The Plaintiffs claim that this violated the Fair Credit Reporting
Act ("FCRA"). Based on Ms. Olvera and Mr. Wilson's current
complaint, the Court disagrees. Although the Defendants' alleged
conduct was less than praiseworthy, FCRA allowed the Defendants to
access Ms. Olvera's and Mr. Wilson's credit reports in connection
with the potential mobile home sale despite their objections. The
Court will permit Ms. Olvera and Mr. Wilson to replead their
complaint because they may be able to allege facts that alter the
application of FCRA to their case.
Because the Court finds that Credco permissibly accessed and
distributed Ms. Olvera's and Mr. Wilson's credit reports for the
purpose of facilitating a credit transaction among Ms. Olvera, Mr.
Wilson, and MH Consultants, the premise of each of Ms. Olvera and
Mr. Wilson's claims fails.
The Court concludes that Credco permissibly pulled Ms. Olvera's and
Mr. Wilson's credit reports in service of a proposed credit
transaction involving Ms. Olvera, Mr. Wilson, and MH Consultants.
Based on that conclusion, the Court grants Credco's Motion to
Dismiss and dismisses Ms. Olvera and Mr. Wilson's claims against
Credco without prejudice. The existence of a permissible purpose
for the credit pulls negates Ms. Olvera and Mr. Wilson's claims
that Credco obtained, used, or furnished their credit reports
without a permissible purpose.
Because the Court is not convinced that amendment of Ms. Olvera and
Mr. Wilson's complaint would be futile, the Court will allow them
to attempt to correct the defects in their pleading. If they have a
good faith basis to do so, they may file an amended complaint no
later than twenty-one days after the entry of this order.
If Ms. Olvera and Mr. Wilson file an amended complaint, they will
attach to it a redline showing the differences between the amended
complaint and the complaint it supersedes.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
June 18, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/947ecpmp from
PacerMonitor.com.
MIADONNA & COMPANY: Blind Can't Access Website, Karim Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIADONNA & COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04788 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 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.miadonna.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, incorrectly formatted
lists, changing of content without advance warning, 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,
says the suit.
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.
Miadonna & Company, 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
MIDLAND FUNDING: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Extended
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STROMBERG v. MIDLAND
FUNDING LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-09288 (D.N.J., Filed Dec. 15,
2016), the Hon. Judge Esther Salas entered an order granting June
21, 2024, extension request regarding the current briefing schedule
for its class certification motion, to which Defense counsel has
not objected.
However, the parties will not file the papers associated for
Plaintiff's class certification motion until they are fully
briefed, at which time the entire set of motion papers shall be
filed.
Accordingly, the movant shall serve, but not file, all moving
papers on the adversary by July 24, 2024.
The opposing party will serve, but not file, the opposition papers
by August 28, 2024.
On or before September 11, 2024, the movant will file all papers
in support, opposition, and in reply, for the motion with the Clerk
of Court.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act
involving consumer credit.
Midland is debt collection agency.[CC]
MIKE DEWINE: Court Tosses Simon Class Suit
------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reverend Kenneth L. Simon,
et al., v. Mike DeWine, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00612-JRA-SO-JLL
(N.D. Ohio), the Court entered an order:
-- Denying as moot the Plaintiffs motion for temporary restraining
order, a preliminary injunction, and partial summary judgment.
-- Granting Defendants move to dismiss.
The plaintiffs in this case are Black voters from Mahoning County,
Ohio. They allege that the defendants, the Ohio Redistricting
Commission and certain Commission members, intentionally
disregarded race in redrawing Ohio's congressional districts and
drew districts that dilute Black voting strength.
The Plaintiffs argue that these actions violated section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act and the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth
Amendments.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ydLWlZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
MULTIPLAN INC: Shoshany Sues Over Control of OON Reimbursements
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN SHOSHANY, DC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MULTIPLAN, INC., MULTIPLAN CORP.,
VIANT, INC., VIANT PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC., NATIONAL CARE NETWORK,
LP, NATIONAL CARE NETWORK, LLC, AETNA, INC., CENTENE CORP., CIGNA
GROUP, ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC., HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION,
HUMANA INC., KAISER PERMANENTE LLC, and UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05201 (N.D. Ill., June 21, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Sherman
Antitrust Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' scheme of sharing their
confidential claims data in real time, so that when a payor
receives a claim from a healthcare provider for out-of-network
(OON) services, the claim is sent immediately to MultiPlan.
MultiPlan then uses its repricing algorithm to generate a
reimbursement amount that is far lower than the payor would
otherwise pay on the claim. The new price is then imposed on the
healthcare provider, giving the provider only days, or in some
cases mere hours, to respond to the repriced claim. As a condition
of accepting the repriced claim, MultiPlan forces the healthcare
provider to forego seeking reimbursement from any other source,
effectively locking in the harm caused by the collusive
underpayment. The Defendants' agreements to use MultiPlan's
repricing tools to set reimbursement rates on OON claims violates
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act because those agreements
unreasonably restrain trade and have anticompetitive effects
throughout the market for reimbursements for OON healthcare
services while providing no countervailing procompetitive benefits,
says the suit.
MultiPlan, Inc. is a New York corporation with its principal place
of business in New York.
MultiPlan Corporation is a publicly traded company and the parent
company of MultiPlan, Inc.
Viant, Inc. is a healthcare payment solutions company, with its
principal place of business in Illinois.
Viant Payment Systems, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Illinois.
National Care Network, LP is a Delaware limited partnership based
in Texas.
National Care Network, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
based in Texas.
Aetna, Inc. is a subsidiary of CVS Health Corporation, with its
principal place of business in Connecticut.
Centene Corporation is an insurance firm, with its principal place
of business in Missouri.
The Cigna Group is an insurance provider, with its principal place
of business in Connecticut.
Elevance Health, Inc., formerly known as Anthem, Inc., is an
insurance company based in Indiana.
Health Care Service Corporation is a mutual legal reserve company,
with its principal place of business in Illinois.
Humana, Inc., is an insurance company, with its principal place of
business in Kentucky.
Kaiser Permanente LLC is an insurance company, with its principal
place of business in California.
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. is an insurance company, with its
principal place of business in Minnesota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary Burger, Esq.
BURGER LAW
332 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 500-4878
Email: gary@burgerlaw.com
- and -
Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
Two CityPlace Drive, Second Floor
St. Louis, MO 63141
Telephone: (314) 226-1015
Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
Evelyn Riley, Esq.
Claire Esmonde, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 789-3930
Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
Email: charles@cuneolaw.com
evelyn@cuneolaw.com
cesmonde@cuneolaw.com
- and -
John W. ("Don") Barrett, Esq.
Sterling Aldridge, Esq.
BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
P.O. Box 927
404 Court Square North
Lexington, MS 39095
Telephone: (662) 834-2488
Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
saldridge@barrettlawgroup.com
MYLAN NV: Judge Denies EpiPen Price-Gouging Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
CPI reports that Mylan, CVS Health Corp. units, and other
healthcare companies have successfully evaded a proposed class
action lawsuit over alleged EpiPen price-gouging. The ruling,
handed down by Judge Eric Tostrud of the US District Court for the
District of Minnesota, determined that the plaintiffs did not meet
the necessary standards for class certification.
The lawsuit, brought by Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc. and Dakota
Drug Inc., accused Mylan, a subsidiary of global pharmaceutical
company Viatris Inc., of engaging in bribery and kickbacks to CVS
Caremark and other pharmacy benefit managers. These intermediaries,
which serve as a crucial link between health insurance providers
and drug manufacturers, were allegedly complicit in maintaining a
monopoly and artificially inflating the prices of the EpiPen, a
vital auto-injector used for treating severe allergic reactions.
However, Judge Tostrud found that the proposed class did not
satisfy several key legal criteria. He noted that the class,
composed predominantly of members with substantial individual
claims, did not meet the numerosity requirement necessary for class
action certification. "Plaintiffs have not shown that their
proposed class does," Tostrud wrote, emphasizing the insufficiency
in the class's size and commonality.
Furthermore, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs, Rochester and
Dakota, failed to meet the accurate-representation requirement.
Tostrud pointed out that these companies could not adequately
represent the class since they purportedly suffered harm from the
same actions that benefited other class members. According to the
ruling, some class members experienced advantages from EpiPen price
hikes in the form of additional service fees, rebates, and
inventory appreciation.
The court also highlighted the plaintiffs' inability to demonstrate
that the alleged bribery-kickback scheme had a uniform impact on
all class members, a necessity under federal law for certifying a
class action.
This decision comes amidst a backdrop of ongoing legal challenges
and investigations for Mylan. In a separate development, Viatris
announced that the Department of Justice had removed Mylan and its
former president from an antitrust investigation into the generic
drug industry. Moreover, the US Supreme Court in April declined to
reinstate antitrust litigation against Mylan initiated by Sanofi
SA, which accused Mylan of engaging in anti-competitive practices
to protect the EpiPen from market competition. [GN]
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Suit for Exploiting Student-Athletes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg attorneys have filed a class action lawsuit against the
National Collegiate Athletic Association ("NCAA") on behalf of a
dozen former NCAA student-athletes whose names, images, and
likenesses continue to be used for commercial purposes by the NCAA
without consent or compensation.
The lawsuit contends the NCAA's "admitted monopolist" power,
primarily motivated by the generation of profit, has exploited
former student-athletes for more than forty years. The Plaintiffs
and similarly situated class members claim the NCAA first requires
young student-athletes to "cede their [name, image, and likeness]
rights to the NCAA," only to have those rights appropriated,
without consent or compensation, long after they have graduated.
Plaintiff Mario Chalmers played men's collegiate basketball for the
Kansas Jayhawks. During the 2008 NCAA National Championship game
against the Memphis Tigers, Chalmers made one of the most memorable
three-point shots in March Madness history -- dubbed "Mario's
Miracle" -- with just a few seconds remaining in the game.
Chalmers's shot tied the score and sent the National Championship
game into overtime, where Kansas went on to win.
"Mario's Miracle" has since been replayed commercially "countless
times" across a wide range of media, including live television
broadcasts, promotional advertisements, online videos, and more.
March Madness, which generates close to $1 billion in annual
revenue for the NCAA and with broadcast rights worth nearly $20
billion over the next decade, is promoted by these countless
replays of legendary moments like "Mario's Miracle." While these
mediums continue to generate commercial revenue for the NCAA and
its affiliates, Chalmers has never been compensated by the NCAA.
The same is true for nearly a dozen NCAA student-athletes who join
Chalmers as Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, including members of the
1997 Arizona Wildcats national champion men's basketball team, the
2011 and 2014 UConn national champion men's basketball teams, and
other members of the 2008 Kansas Jayhawks national champion men's
basketball team, who claim their "names, images, and likenesses"
continue to be utilized by the NCAA and its affiliates for
commercial purposes without consent or compensation.
The suit similarly names the Big East Conference, Pac-12
Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big Twelve Conference, Southeastern
Conference, Atlantic Coast Conference, and Turner Sports
Interactive as "co-conspirators" who have, alongside the NCAA,
"systematically and intentionally misappropriated [the] Plaintiffs
and similarly situated class members' publicity rights." The
complaint cites the millions of dollars in generated profit (and
billions in annual revenue) by the NCAA and its co-conspirators at
the "exploited" expense of the Plaintiffs.
"Former athletes like Mario Chalmers have provided the sport of
college basketball with moments that have built March Madness into
a multibillion dollar enterprise, but have been paid nothing by the
NCAA and its partners and continue to have their NIL used by the
NCAA and its partners without consent. We look forward to providing
compensation for these former athletes in this case," Milberg
Senior Partner Scott Harris explained.
The complaint challenges the NCAA's conduct which allegedly
constitutes unreasonable restraint of trade, illegal
monopolization, tortious misappropriation of publicity rights, and
unjust enrichment.
Milberg attorneys have requested a trial by jury and "reasonable
compensation" for the Plaintiffs and student-athlete class members
who have been "coerced to give up [their] legal rights" through
damages, interest, and attorney fees.
The Milberg team representing the Plaintiffs and class members
includes Scott Harris, Peggy Wedgworth, James DeMay, and Michael
Dunn.
Co-counsel attorneys include Elliot Abrams of Cheshire Parker
Schneider, PLLC, Stacy Miller II of Miller Law Group, PLLC, and
Scott Tompsett of Tompsett Collegiate Sports Law.
About Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC:
For over 50 years, Milberg and its affiliates have been fighting to
protect victims' rights and have recovered over $50 billion for
clients. A pioneer in class action litigation, Milberg is widely
recognized as a leader in defending the rights of victims of
corporate wrongdoing.
Media Contact:
Karine Lim
klim@milberg.com [GN]
NEBRASKA: Seeks to Stay Filyaw Proceedings
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILLIAN FILYAW,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
STEVE CORSI, Chief Executive Officer of the Nebraska Department of
Health and Human Services, in his official capacity, and MATT
AHERN, Interim Director of the Division of Medicaid and Long-Term
Care, in his official capacity, Case No. 4:24-cv-03108-BCB-JMD (D.
Neb.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order staying all
proceedings related to Plaintiff's motion to certify class,
including the defendants' obligation to oppose the motion, until
after the court rules on the defendants' motion to dismiss
complaint.
The Defendants Steve Corsi and Matt Ahern, in their official
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HbSyJn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Erik W. Fern, Esq.
Jennifer A. Huxoll, Esq.
Timothy M. Young, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
2115 State Capitol
Lincoln, NE 68509
Telephone: (402) 471-1830
Facsimile: (402) 471-4725
E-mail: erik.fern@nebraska.gov
jennifer.huxoll@nebraska.gov
tim.young@nebraska.gov
NHK SPRING: BC Court of Appeals Upholds Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that in a
recent decision, the BC Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal
challenging the certification of a national class action lawsuit
alleging an international price-fixing conspiracy involving key
components of hard disk drives (HDDs).
The case, indexed as NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Cheung, 2024 BCCA 236,
revolves around claims that the appellants conspired to fix the
prices and supply of suspension assemblies used in HDDs, impacting
the costs of various consumer and enterprise electronics.
The respondents in the case alleged that the appellants, who
control about 96 percent of the global market for suspension
assemblies, conspired to inflate prices unlawfully. This
overcharge, the respondents claim, was passed on to consumers in
British Columbia and other parts of Canada, resulting in damages or
entitling them to restitution during the period from January 1,
2003, to April 30, 2016. The components in question are integral to
devices such as computers, servers, and gaming consoles.
On appeal, the appellants argued that the lower court erred in
assuming jurisdiction and certifying the class action. They
contended that the alleged conspiracy, which was organized and
executed outside Canada, did not establish a substantial connection
with British Columbia or Canada as required by the Court
Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (CJPTA). Furthermore,
they argued that the claim under s. 36 of the Competition Act
disclosed no reasonable cause of action since the alleged conduct
did not occur within Canadian territorial jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision, concluding
that the economic harm suffered by British Columbian consumers due
to the alleged conspiracy provided sufficient grounds for assuming
jurisdiction. The court emphasized that participation in a
conspiracy that foreseeably causes economic harm in British
Columbia is enough to establish a real and substantial connection
under the CJPTA. The judges also rejected the appellants' argument
that the civil cause of action under s. 36 of the Competition Act
required the impugned conduct to be an offence within Canada.
Additionally, the court found that the respondents had sufficiently
demonstrated that Canadian consumers were harmed by the alleged
price-fixing conspiracy, and that the claimed overcharge was passed
through the supply chain into the final product prices. The court
noted that the methodology used by the respondents’ experts to
calculate damages was plausible and credible, allowing the class
action to proceed.
Ultimately, the BC Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss the appeal
supports the certification of the class action, allowing Canadian
consumers to seek redress for alleged price-fixing activities
conducted by major global manufacturers of HDD components. [GN]
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court Certifies Classes in Behar Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JED and ALISA BEHAR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION and NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:21-cv-03946-HDV-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Vera entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
After careful consideration of the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, the Court finds class certification
appropriate. Plaintiffs' claims are well suited for class
treatment; they present several common issues of law and fact that
are most efficiently resolved on a classwide basis.
The case arises out of contamination allegedly released by Litton
Systems from its commercial manufacturing facility in Canoga Park
between 1968 and 1970. The contaminants have spread to the
groundwater, soil, and soil vapor beyond the facility, forming a
toxic groundwater plume approximately 2.4 miles long and 1.8 miles
wide.
The Plaintiffs live in a home directly above this groundwater
plume. They allege that toxins from the groundwater have the
potential to migrate up through the soil as vapor and flow through
the foundation and crawlspaces.
The Plaintiffs also claim they have suffered economic harm in the
form of a diminished home value. The Behars bring claims for
negligence, trespass, and nuisance on behalf of themselves and all
other homeowners with houses directly above the plume. Before the
Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as well as
several evidentiary motions seeking to exclude the testimony of
Plaintiffs' experts.
The Plaintiffs propose two classes: (1) a Mitigation Class, and (2)
a Property Damage Class, each comprised of
"all persons who own a single family or townhome within the PCA
at
the time of Class Certification."
Both classes exclude employees of Defendants as well as anyone who
purchased a home with disclosure of contamination at their property
from the 8020 Deering Avenue Site.
Northrop is an American multinational aerospace and defense
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LzIAmS at no extra
charge.[CC]
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Plaintiffs Must File Colette Forjone Declaration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pauli v. Ollie's Bargain
Outlet, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279 (N.D.N.Y., Filed March 22,
2022), the Hon. Judge Mae A D'Agostino entered an order granting
the plaintiffs request for leave to file the Declaration as to
Colette Forjone.
The motion is fully briefed. No further submissions will be
permitted, Judge D'Agostino says.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Ollie's is an American chain of discount closeout retailers.[CC]
PALOMAR HEALTH: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Security Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Alegre, writing for FOX 5, reports that an online system
disruptions with Palomar Health Medical Group or PHMG have been
ongoing for nearly two months and its users are fighting back. Now,
FOX 5/KUSI have obtained a class-action complaint against the
provider -- claiming negligence and failure to maintain
cybersecurity.
"It's just unbelievable how much anxiety this has created for me,"
shared PHMG user John Tucker of Encinitas. For nearly 60 days and
counting, Tucker has lost simple access to health care.
Our crews first met Tucker this June after Gray Bill Medical, also
known as Palomar Health Medical Group's phone and online system,
went dark following "suspicious activity," according to the
provider.
"Nothing has changed, at all," Tucker said. ". . . Still can't get
prescriptions without going into the office, and then it takes
three to five days to process it."
It's a reality Tucker says is adding to his ongoing burden amid his
fight against cancer and his wife's struggles with multiple
sclerosis.
"My wife is like, we should just file a lawsuit because she's had
to go to the hospital, to get her catheter changed," he said.
While Tucker hasn't filed yet, FOX 5/KUSI has since obtained a
class-action complaint filed against PHMG at the end of June with
the San Diego Superior Court. The suit alleges negligence and
failure to implement and maintain reasonable cybersecurity
measures.
"They're playing chess, and we're playing checkers," said
cybersecurity and ethical hacker Steven McKeon, who is the CEO of
MacguverTech.
McKeon suggests medical groups are easy prey for hackers who can
then sell the most precious of personal data on the dark web for a
nice profit.
"These systems are not able to defend themselves against the more
sophisticated hackers using AI and more of the newer tools -- so
that's why a lot of these hospital systems have been hacked because
it's an easy target," McKeon said.
The complaint goes on to suggest the plaintiff and others have
suffered harm, alleging personal information exposed to criminals
has increased stress and fear of identity theft or fraud.
"Quality medical care relies on the information we share with our
medical provider -- the most sensitive information -- But even if
you don't have concrete evidence that your confidential information
has been compromised, there's that anticipatory trauma that it
could be," FOX 5 and KUSI legal analyst Wendy Patrick explained.
As far as Tucker, not only worries about his family's dire care,
the burden of the unknown state of his privacy looms.
"My social security, what can you do with that? Everything. My
birthday and social security, you can do even more, my personal
records? Now you know everything about me," Tucker said.
On Wednesday, Palomar Health Medical Group responded to FOX 5/KUSI
in a statement saying that their "investigation is ongoing, and, at
this time, it is not able to determine the specific individuals and
information that may have been impacted."
"It will provide more information as its investigation continues,
but in interim is sharing the information known with all its
patients," the medical group said.
Palomar Health revealed in the statement that "an unauthorized
actor gained access to certain files within PHMG's network from
April 23, 2024, to May 5, 2024, and may have copied those files,"
causing "certain files to become unrecoverable."
The medical group added that it is "continuing its efforts to
restore all files and identify the specific individuals and
information that may have been impacted so it can provide
individualized notice with additional information when its
investigation is complete."
Palomar Health also advises patients to remain vigilant against
identity theft and fraud by reviewing account statements and
explanation of benefits and monitoring credit reports for
unauthorized or suspicious activity. [GN]
PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Baby Bottles Microplastics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions reports that plaintiffs
Tuliisa Miller, Adrianna Cortez and Brian Magadan filed a class
action lawsuit against Philips North America LLC.
Why: Philips allegedly failed to inform consumers about potential
baby bottles microplastics leaching into liquid when heated.
Where: The Philips class action lawsuit was filed in California
federal court.
A Philips class action lawsuit says the company fails to inform
consumers its baby bottles leach harmful microplastics when heated
as intended.
Plaintiffs Tuliisa Miller, Adrianna Cortez and Brian Magadan filed
the class action lawsuit against Philips North America LLC,
alleging the company disregards the potential health consequences
of harmful baby bottle microplastics for babies and young
children.
"[Philips] has, in effect, callously brought to life every parent's
worst nightmare: unknowingly exposing their children to harm with a
product they reasonably believed was safe," the plaintiffs allege.
Microplastics are tiny plastic particles formed through the
breakdown of solid plastics, the Philips class action lawsuit
explains. Because of their small size, they tend to accumulate in
the body, potentially compounding health issues such as growth and
reproductive issues, DNA damage, inflammation, weakened immunity
and other adverse health effects.
Exposure to low levels of microplastics early in a child's life may
cause long-term health issues as they grow older, the plaintiffs
allege.
Philips class action: Consumers trusted product to be free of
harmful substances
Parents trust products to be free from harmful chemicals and
substances, particularly when they are intended for babies and
infants, the plaintiffs say. The product labels tout Philips as the
"No. 1 Bottle Brand," leading consumers to believe the products are
industry leading and will not put babies at risk, the plaintiffs
say.
They also note the "BPA FREE" label on the products, which leads
consumers to believe the products are safe for infants and babies.
Bisphenol A (BPA) has been widely recognized to cause a variety of
negative health effects, and consumers have increasingly sought to
purchase plastic products that do not contain BPA.
The Philips baby bottles are reportedly made with polypropylene;
when heated, polypropylene releases microplastics into liquids, the
Philips class action lawsuit says.
Baby bottle microplastics are therefore released when the bottles
are sterilized, shaken with warm water and through other typical
formula preparation procedures, according to the class action.
Philips claims its baby bottles can be sterilized by boiling, yet
allegedly fails to inform consumers they need to repeatedly rinse
the bottles or take other measures to mitigate the release of
microplastics.
The Philips class action lawsuit asserts claims for violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law,
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of warranty and unjust
enrichment.
A recent Fiji water class action lawsuit alleges the product is
falsely advertised as natural artesian water even though it
contains microplastics.
Miller, Cortez and Magadan are represented by Ryan J. Clarkson,
Bahar Sodaify, Kelsey J. Elling and Alan Gudino of Clarkson Law
Firm PC.
The Philips baby bottles microplastics class action lawsuit is
Tuliisa Miller, et al. v. Philips North America LLC., Case No.
3:24-cv-03781, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California. [GN]
PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE: Settles Undervalued Vehicle Suit for $48MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Finimize reports that Progressive agreed to pay $48 million to
settle a lawsuit that accused them of undervaluing vehicle claims
for New York drivers.
What does this mean?
Policyholders alleged that Progressive used software that
underestimated their vehicles' values, violating company policies
and New York law. The software reportedly overemphasized haggling,
which is less relevant today because of online pricing. While
Progressive denied wrongdoing, they have agreed to settle. The
settlement, filed in Manhattan federal court, awaits approval from
Judge Lorna Schofield. If approved, affected members will receive
$335 each.
Why should I care?
For markets: Insurance integrity in question.
Progressive's settlement may worry investors about similar industry
lawsuits. The potential $48 million plus $16 million in legal fees
could impact Progressive's financials and shake confidence in
insurers using similar methods.
The bigger picture: Legal precedents and consumer trust.
This case stresses the need for regulatory compliance in the
financial sector. With online pricing more accessible, insurers
must update valuation tools. Failing to adapt could prompt more
oversight and legal actions, impacting the industry's overall
approach to claims and settlements. [GN]
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court OK's Torres Bid to Seal Exhibit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIE TORRES and RHONDA
HYMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC., ACTIVEPROSPECT, INC., and ASSURANCE
IQ, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-07465-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Charles Breyer entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' June 28,
2024, administrative motion to seal exhibit to their motion for
class certification:
The TrustedForm Certificate for Plaintiffs Valerie Torres shall
be
sealed.
Prudential offers a variety of products and services, including
life insurance, mutual funds, annuities, pension, and retirement
related services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PoBWAp at no extra
charge.[CC]
QUANTUM RESIDENTIAL: $150K Settlement OK'd; Dunne May Amend Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David G. Estudillo of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Tacoma, grants the Plaintiff's unopposed
motion for leave to amend his complaint in the lawsuit entitled
TIMOTHY DUNNE, Plaintiff v. QUANTUM RESIDENTIAL INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-05535-DGE (W.D. Wash.).
The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of settlement and class
certification.
On June 14, 2023, Plaintiff Timothy Dunne filed a class and
collective action complaint in the Court to recover unpaid wages
and other damages from Defendant Quantum Residential Inc. The
Plaintiff alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the Washington Minimum Wage Act ("WMWA"), the Washington
Rebate Act ("WRA"), and the Washington Administrative Code
("WAC").
On Dec. 13, 2023, the parties participated in a private mediation
in Seattle. On Dec. 15, 2023, the parties informed the Court that
they had reached a settlement. On Feb. 7, 2024, the Plaintiff filed
unopposed motions to amend his complaint and for preliminary
approval of settlement and class certification. On Feb. 8, 2024,
the Plaintiff filed an amended motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement and class certification.
There are approximately 126 members in the proposed settlement
class, which includes all individuals who: (1) resided in
Washington State or Oregon, (2) were employed by the Defendant, (3)
in the position of maintenance technician or maintenance manager,
(4), and who were paid on an hourly rate, (5) at any time from June
14, 2020, to June 14, 2023. Participating class members will be all
Oregon class members, who opt in and Washington class members, who
do not submit a written and valid opt out.
The total settlement amount is $150,000. Out of this, the following
payments will be made: (1) $5,000 to the Named Plaintiff as a
service award, (2) $60,000 to cover the attorney fees of the
Plaintiff's counsel, and (3) $10,000 for settlement administrative
costs. After these payments are made, the remainder of the
settlement funds will be available for distribution to the
participating class members.
If the settlement agreement is approved, class members will receive
a letter notifying them of the settlement. They will have the
opportunity to submit a request for exclusion from the settlement
or object to the settlement. Class members, who do not submit a
request for exclusion will be issued checks and will release all
wage and hour claims or causes of action arising from June 14,
2020, through June 14, 2023, and which arise out of or are related
to the allegations in the complaint, including those arising out of
the FLSA and the WMWA.
The Named Plaintiff will also release such wage and hour claims
arising out of his employment with, treatment at, and separation
from the Defendant, as well as any claims regarding wages or
compensation received from the Defendant. The Named Plaintiff
retains the right to pursue a claim for workers' compensation
benefits.
The parties have selected ILYM to administer the settlement; the
duties of the settlement administrator are outlined in the
settlement agreement. The cost of administration will be paid out
of the settlement fund.
The parties ask the Court to certify a class for the purpose of
implementing the terms of the settlement. The parties ask the Court
to certify a Rule 23 class consisting of "[a]ll hourly, non-exempt
Quantum maintenance workers who worked in Washington at any time
between June 14, 2020 and June 14, 2023." The parties also ask the
Court to certify an FLSA collective of "[a]ll hourly, non-exempt
Quantum maintenance workers who worked for Quantum at any time
between June 14, 2020 and June 14, 2023."
The Court finds that (i) the proposed class meets the requirements
of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and (ii) the
Named Plaintiff is similarly situated to the other members of the
proposed settlement class. It is, therefore, appropriate to certify
the FLSA collective.
The Court also finds, among other things, that the settlement in
this case represents a fair and reasonable resolution. Accordingly,
the Court finds the proposed settlement appropriate for preliminary
approval.
The Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint Michael Josephson and Carl
A. Fitz of Josephson Dunlap, LLP, Richard Burch of Bruckner Burch
PLLC, and Michael C. Subit of Frank Freed Subit & Thomas LLP as
class counsel.
Judge Estudillo, however, finds that the proposed notice does not
include the full amount of the settlement fund, the amount sought
in fees, or information about the $5,000 incentive award. Nor does
the notice include the case name, the case number, or information
about the Court. The proposed notice also fails to mention a motion
for fees and fails to mention that class members may object to the
requested fees. Nor does the notice include information about how
and when class members will receive a copy of the attorney fee
motion or a placeholder for a website where class members may view
a copy of the fee motion.
Accordingly, the Court cannot find that the proposed notice to
class members satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 or due
process.
The parties propose using the percentage-of-recovery method,
indicating class counsel will receive 40% of the gross settlement
amount. The Plaintiff argues is a reasonable fee award, but
provides no evidence of special circumstances that would justify a
departure from the 25% benchmark, Judge Estudillo notes.
While substantially higher than the benchmark, the fee request may
not be so out of bounds as to justify denying preliminary approval
of the settlement, Judge Estudillo says. The parties are directed
to file a motion for attorney fees by the date that approved
notices to class members are mailed. The parties must also either
mail a copy of the attorney fee motion to class members or upload a
copy of the fee motion to a website established by the Settlement
Administrator by the date that approved notices to class members
are mailed. The parties should include an explanation of the
special circumstances justifying a departure from the benchmark 25%
award in the motion.
Accordingly, with the exceptions discussed, the Court grants the
Plaintiff's motion for approval of preliminary approval of the
settlement and class certification. The Court will not enter the
Plaintiff's proposed order given the deficiencies identified above
with respect to notice. The parties will file a new proposed notice
and a new proposed order that correct the deficiencies identified
in this order no later than July 18, 2024.
The Court defers the scheduling of a hearing on final approval of
the proposed class action settlement until after the parties submit
a proposed notice to class members that addresses the deficiencies
identified in this order.
The Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to amend his complaint
is granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 18, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ye2w3eft from PacerMonitor.com.
RON NEAL: Court Directs Opening Separate Cases
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN HOLMAN, SR., et
al., v. RON NEAL, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00529-GSL-JEM (N.D.
Ind.), the Hon. Judge Gretchen Lund entered an order:
(1) directing the clerk to open a separate case for Rodney S.
Perry, Sr., with his Complaints;
(2) directing clerk to open a separate case for Titus Aron-El
with
his Complaint;
(3) directing the clerk to open a separate case for Stanley
Holmes
with his Complaint;
(4) directing the clerk to directly assign these related, newly
opened cases pursuant to N.D. Ind. L.R. 40-1(e); and
(5) directing the clerk to also docket a copy of the Motion for
Preliminary Injunction in the newly opened cases for James
Burnett, Gregory A. Jones, Darcell Andre McCants, and
DeAndre
Moore, because they have each signed this motion.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u8wGHb at no extra
charge.[CC]
ROSS HARR: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Coyle Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Coyle v. Harr, et al.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01158-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 July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y4Ize3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Bryant Must File Response by July 5
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAD ERIC BRYANT, v. THE
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF SAGINAW COUNTY, SHERIFF WILLIAM
FEDERSPIEL, UNDERSHERIFF MIGUEL GOMEZ, LT. EBONY RASCO, SGT. BOBBY
JO VILLANUEVA, OFFICER NICHOLAS BROWN, OFFICER KENNETH TEMPLE,
OFFICER MICHAEL KING, OFFICER JAMES MOULTANE, and OFFICER DEVON
BARRON, Case No. 2:22-cv-12169-DPH-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge
Curtis Ivy, Jr. entered an order extending time to respond to
motions for summary disposition.
The parties have stipulated and agreed to extend the time for
Plaintiff to respond to Defendants reply to Plaintiffs Motion to
Certify Class Action to July 5, 2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zosoqi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Lucas, Esq.
SKUPIN & LUCAS, P.C.
Fairlane Plaza North
290 Town Center Dr., #324
Dearborn, MI 48126
Telephone: (313) 961-0425
Facsimile: (313) 961-1033
E-mail: jlucas@skupinandlucas.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Audrey J. Forbush, Esq.
Michael D. Hanchett, Esq.
PLUNKETT COONEY
111 E. Court Street, Suite 1B
Flint, MI 48502
Telephone: (810) 342-7014
Facsimile: (810) 232-3159
E-mail: aforbush@plunkettcooney.com
Mhanchett@plunkettcooney.com
SAN DIEGO DIALYSIS: Court Continues Pre-Trial Deadlines in Watson
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Watson v. San Diego
Dialysis Services, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00228 (S.D. Cal., Filed
Feb. 2, 2024), the Hon. Judge Linda Lopez entered an order granting
the parties' joint motion to continue certain pre-trial deadlines.
Accordingly, all discovery that relates to class certification
shall be completed by all parties on or before Oct. 11, 2024 .
Additionally, any motion for class certification shall be filed on
or before Nov. 8, 2024.
All other dates, deadlines, and requirements set forth in the
Court's14 Scheduling Order remain in effect.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.[CC]
SAZERAC COMPANY: Court Narrows Claims in Puig Consumer Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John E. Steele of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, grants in part and denies
in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned
VICTOR PUIG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAZERAC COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00856-JES-NPM (M.D. Fla.).
The matter comes before the Court on Sazerac Company, Inc.'s Motion
to Dismiss First Amended Class Action Complaint and the Supplement
to that motion. Plaintiff Victor Puig filed a Memorandum in
Opposition on April 25, 2024. With permission of the Court, Sazerac
filed a Reply on May 15, 2024.
For the reasons set forth in this Opinion and Order, the Court
grants in part and denies in part the motion to dismiss. Leave is
granted for the Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint.
The case centers around two Fireball beverage products that Sazerac
produces and sells. One product is a cinnamon whisky beverage with
an alcohol volume of 33% ("whisky beverage") sold in Florida liquor
stores. The other product is a cinnamon malt beverage with an
alcohol volume of 16.5% ("malt beverage") sold in Florida grocery
stores, gas stations, conveniences stores, and other similar
locations.
The First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleges that Plaintiff Victor
Puig prefers alcoholic beverages based on distilled spirits to
those based on brewing and fermentation, malt beverages, due to
reasons, including superior quality, and/or taste." The Plaintiff
asserts that he is familiar with the Fireball brand of Cinnamon
Whisky, which Sazerac began to also sell in miniature bottles.
The Plaintiff saw the Fireball Cinnamon at stores, such as grocery
stores, gas station convenience stores, and other similar
locations. He "figured" there would be no purpose for Sazerac to
sell anything other than the whisky beverage in a small bottle and
bought a bottle of the malt beverage expecting it to be whisky.
Despite his preference for distilled spirits, he continued to buy
this malt beverage product multiple times between 2022 and Oct. 8,
2023. He asserts that he either would not have paid as much for the
malt beverage, or would hot have bought it at all, absent Sazerac's
allegedly "false and misleading statements and omissions" about the
product he was buying.
The FAC asserts two claims against Sazerac. Count I alleges that
Sazerac violated Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
(FDUTPA) by making false and deceptive representations and
omissions with respect to the malt beverage and the presence of
whisky in the malt beverage. This allegedly caused the Plaintiff to
believe the malt beverage product was whisky or at least contained
whisky in more than a negligible amount, and to pay a premium price
for the malt beverage product. The FAC also alleges in Count II
that Sazerac's conduct violated Florida's False and Misleading
Advertising statute, Fla. Stat. Section 817.41.
Sazerac moves to dismiss the FAC with prejudice or, in the
alternative, to stay the case. Sazerac argues the FDUTPA claim is
precluded by its safe harbor provision, is not plead with
sufficient particularity, and is not plausible. Sazerac argues that
Count II should be dismissed for failure to plead with sufficient
particularity. Alternatively, in a footnote, Sazerac seeks to stay
or dismiss the case pursuant to the "first-filed" rule.
Mr. Puig responds that there are no valid grounds to dismiss or
stay the case.
Sazerac asserts that the FDUTPA claim must be dismissed because the
FDUTPA contains a "safe harbor" provision which precludes the claim
in this case. Sazerac argues that this safe harbor provision bars
the FDUTPA claim because the malt beverage has received
Certificates of Label Approval (COLA) from the Treasury
Department's Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB).
The Court concludes that the safe harbor provision precludes much,
but not all, of the FDUTPA claim in Count I. Judge Steele opines
Sazerac does not advance, nor is the Court aware of, any basis upon
which the Court can consider the COLA (which has not been submitted
to the Court) or the Declaration of Mary Tortorice. Therefore,
Judge Steele says this portion of the Sazerac's motion is
unpersuasive.
Judge Steele finds that Puig's FDUTPA claim satisfies Rule 9(b)'s
heightened pleading standard. Because the FAC contains sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face, this portion of Sazerac's motion is
denied.
Various federal label regulations are quoted throughout the FAC,
implying that Sazerac's malt beverage label violated regulations.
The FAC asserts these regulations prohibit consumer deception by
companies in the labeling of alcoholic beverages.
To the extent Puig attempts to assert per se FDUTPA violations by
quoting and citing federal labeling regulations, such efforts fail,
Judge Steele holds. These regulations do not provide Puig with
grounds to sue Sazerac under FDUTPA. To the contrary, these
regulations are inapposite or limit Puig's ability to sue Sazerac,
Judge Steele points out, among other things.
Judge Steele also holds that Sazerac's two-sentence first-filed
rule argument does not establish that there are actions previously
filed in other federal courts that are competing or parallel to
this litigation. This portion of Sazerac's motion is denied.
Accordingly, the Court rules that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
for Failure to State a Claim is granted in part and denied in part.
The First Amended Class Action Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice to filing a second Amended Complaint within fourteen (14)
DAYS of this Opinion and Order.
Judge Steele points out that any future amended complaint cannot
advance a FDUTPA claim based on the malt beverage's brand name,
statement of composition, alcohol content, or cited regulations
herein. It will also correct any scrivener errors.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated June 18,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2ystcn8y from
PacerMonitor.com.
SELENE FINANCE: July 22 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARISSA CRUZ, ROBERT
ALLAN MARTIN, and KATRINA MARTIN, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SELENE FINANCE,
LP, Case No. 2:23-cv-14297-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order granting an extension of the reply date up
to and including July 22, 2024, and other relief as this Court may
deem just and proper.
On May 20, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification. The Defendant filed a response in opposition to
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification on June 28, 2024.
The Plaintiffs' reply is currently due on July 8, 2024. Due to the
length of the response brief and the current holiday week with
people on vacation, Plaintiffs respectfully request a short 14-day
extension to fully consider and respond to Defendant's response in
opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. This
brings the deadline to July 22, 2024.
Selene operates as a residential mortgage company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iLWEss at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
E-mail: sharris@milberg.com
jcohen@milberg.com
- and -
Edward H. Maginnis, Esq.
MAGINNIS HOWARD
7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone: (919) 526-0450
Facsimile: (919) 882-8763
E-mail: emaginnis@maginnishoward.com
SERITAGE GROWTH: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned He v. Seritage Growth
Properties, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-05007, on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Seritage Growth
Properties ("Seritage" or the "Company") (NYSE: SRG) securities
between July 7, 2022 and May 10, 2024, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
If you suffered a loss on your Seritage investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/Seritage-Growth-Properties/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On August 14, 2023, after the market closed, Seritage revealed that
there was a "material weakness" in the Company's internal control
over financial reporting "due to a deficiency in the design of our
control over the identification of impairment indicators for
investments in real estate and documentation of evidence of
review." Moreover, the deficiency related "to the failure to
identify potential indicators of impairment related to development
projects in a timely manner."
On this news, Seritage's stock price fell $0.86, or 9.67%, to close
at $8.03 per share on August 15, 2023, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
Then, on May 10, 2024, after the market closed, Seritage released
its first quarter 2024 financial results, revealing it was
"adjusting [its] pricing projections for some of [its] assets." As
a result, the gross value of the Company's portfolio of assets was
reduced by at least $325 million.
On this news, Seritage's stock price fell $2.54, or 27.3%, to close
at $6.78 per share on May 13, 2024, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors:
(1) that the Company lacked effective internal controls
regarding the identification and review of impairment indicators
for investments in real estate;
(2) that, as a result, the Company had overstated the value
and projected gross proceeds of certain real estate assets; and
(3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Seritage securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]
SPORTS RESEARCH: $1.6-Mil. Class Suit Settlement Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLASSAURA reports on June 10, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California granted preliminary approval of a
settlement in a class action lawsuit involving Sports Research
Garcinia Cambogia ("Product"). Purchasers of Sports Research
Garcinia Cambogia may be entitled to a cash payment estimated at
$20 per household and should visit the class website for more
details on their rights, deadlines, and how to exercise them.
The Plaintiff who filed the lawsuit alleges that Sports Research's
Garcinia Cambogia Product label claiming to provide "weight
management," "appetite suppression" and/or "appetite control"
benefits is false and misleading because the Product does not
provide any such benefits.
Sports Research denies the allegations in the lawsuit, and the
Court has not made any ruling on the merits of the lawsuit. To
avoid the uncertainty and expense of further litigation, the
parties have reached a settlement that is further described in this
Notice.
The proposed Settlement will provide for $1,600,000.00 to be paid
into a Settlement Fund and eligible class members may receive
payments from this fund, with payments estimated at $20 per
household.
You are a class member, and may be entitled to a payment from the
Settlement Fund, if you purchased Sports Research Garcinia Cambogia
that was labeled with the words "weight management," "appetite
suppression" and/or "appetite control" ("Product") in the United
States during the time period from April 26, 2015 to June 10, 2024.
The class is limited to those who purchased the Product for
personal and household use, and not for resale, and who did not
receive a refund or return the Product.
You can file a claim to receive a payment from the settlement fund
at GarciniaClassAction.com, as well as get more detailed
information about this case, the settlement, and your options. If
you need help, you can also ask questions by mail by writing to
Garcinia Class Action, c/o Classaura, 1718 Peachtree St NW #1080,
Atlanta, GA 30309 or call 1-877-223-1433.
Your rights and options – and the deadlines to exercise them –
are only summarized in this press release. A Longform Notice
describes, in full, how to file a claim, object, or exclude
yourself, and provides other important information. For more
information and to obtain a Longform Notice, claim form or other
documents, visit GarciniaClassAction.com.
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Filed by: Classaura LLC
Phone: 877-223-1433 [GN]
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Court OK's Castaneda Bid for Class Cert
------------------------------------------------------------
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 granting the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification but limits the class period as specified by Mag
Judge Lindsay.
The Court directs the parties to re-file their cross-motions for
summary judgment in accordance with the following schedule:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for summary judgment on
by
Aug. 1, 2024
-- Defendants shall file their response to the Plaintiffs' motion
on
by Sept. 16, 2024.
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 July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A19WKm at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUPERIOR DRILLING: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Drilling Tools
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has
recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm
in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We
are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and
are investigating Superior Drilling Products, Inc. (NYSE: SDPI),
relating to its proposed merger with Drilling Tools International
Corp. for a combination of cash and Drilling Tools Stock.
Monteverde & Associates PC Logo
Click here for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/superior-drilling-products-inc/. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
TAZWOOD COMMUNITY: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Robinson
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robinson, v. Tazwood
Community Services Inc, Case No. 1:23-cv-01234-MMM-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.
Tazwood operates as a non-profit organization that focuses on
reducing the causes and alleviating the effects of poverty.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jw1Ljs at no extra
charge.[CC]
TD BANK: Mansaray Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMINATA MANSARAY,
individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and ABDUL MAJID KAMARA, v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No.
2:22-cv-05039-AB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order enlarging the time for the filing of Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification by 45 days, from July 19, 2024 to Sept. 3,
2024.
The Court entered the controlling Scheduling Order on Jan. 4, 2024.
Since that time, the parties have made progress in discovery and
have been exchanging information about the parties' claims and
defenses and the population of similarly situated individuals.
Moreover, the parties have engaged in multiple, in-depth
discussions about resolution of the litigation and are still
actively engaging in good faith negotiations.
The Plaintiff still requires additional information before she will
be able to move for class certification.
Counsel for the parties have met and conferred, and the Defendant
consents to the extension requested herein. The Plaintiffs do not
seek to disturb any other deadline in the Scheduling Order.
TD is an American national bank and the United States subsidiary of
the multinational TD Bank Group.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gGZ2UM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com
TEACHERS' RETIREMENT: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Oparaji Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kimba M. Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit styled MAURICE OPARAJI, Plaintiff v. TEACHERS' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-05212-KMW (S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff Maurice Oparaji, proceeding pro se, brings this action
against the Teachers' Retirement System of the City of New York
("TRS"), the Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York ("BOE"), and individual Defendants Patricia
Reilly, Sanford R. Rich and Melanie Whinnery1 (collectively,
"Defendants"). The Plaintiff asserts that (1) the Defendants are in
breach of contract for failing to comply with a Dec. 17, 2018
Pension & Stipulation Order ("Pension Order") in connection with
his status as a Gulino class member, and (2) the Defendants have
discriminated and retaliated against him because of his efforts to
enforce compliance with the Pension Order.
The Defendants move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). For the reasons set
forth in this Opinion and Order, the Court grants the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.
The parties disputed whether Melanie Whinnery, Executive Director
of the New York City Employees Retirement System, was served with a
summons at the proper address. The Plaintiff filed a Proposed
Certificate of Default against Ms. Whinnery on Feb. 21, 2024, which
the Court denied as deficient. In the interest of judicial
efficiency, however, the Court added Ms. Whinnery as a codefendant
in the case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.
The Plaintiff, a former BOE teacher, was a class member in the
prior Gulino class action brought against the BOE (Gulino v. Bd. of
Educ. of City Sch. Dist. of City of New York, 907 F. Supp. 2d 492
(S.D.N.Y. 2012) (Wood, J.), aff'd, 555 F. App'x 37 (2d Cir. 2014)
(summary order). The facts of the Gulino class action litigation
are fully set forth in previous opinions; this opinion mentions
only those facts necessary to understand this complaint.
As is relevant here, in 2012, the Court found that the BOE's use of
the "Liberal Arts and Sciences Test" ("LAST"), a test that
permanent teachers were required to pass as a condition of
employment, was discriminatory. After making this finding, the
Court ordered a two-stage remedial phase to determine the damages
that individual Gulino class members, including Plaintiff Oparaji,
were entitled to receive; see Gulino v. Bd. of Educ. of the City
Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y. (Gulino VI), No. 96-CV-8414, 2013 WL
4647190, at *6–8 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2013) (Wood, J.).
The first stage addressed "classwide issues, including calculation
of backpay, pension benefits and seniority," and the second stage
addressed "individual issues, including mitigation and the amount
of backpay to which each claimant is entitled." The Court appointed
a Special Master to oversee the two-stage remedial phase.
Hearings were held to calculate each Gulino class member's
counterfactual employment history (how long each would have been
employed as a BOE teacher absent the BOE's discriminatory use of
the LAST).
With respect to Plaintiff Oparaji, the Gulino parties determined
that absent the BOE's discrimination, he would have been employed
as a regularly appointed teacher for two years and nine months from
April 1998, to Feb. 16, 2021. Consistent with this determination,
on or about Feb. 19, 2021, the Court approved Plaintiff Oparaji's
individual Gulino judgment, which included $21,986 in back pay. The
Plaintiff then signed a settlement and release agreement in
connection with his Gulino judgment on or about Sept. 9, 2021.
On Dec. 27, 2021, the Plaintiff received an invoice in the amount
of $2,575.65 from TRS for Basic Member Contributions owed in
connection with his Gulino judgment. The Plaintiff paid the invoice
and received a "Welcome to TRS" letter and an email stating that he
would be notified in writing after TRS completed a review of his
TRS status following his updated Gulino service. The Plaintiff
alleges that--despite his repeated attempts to communicate with
TRS--he has not received a response regarding the status of his
pension relief.
The Plaintiff acknowledges that he signed a settlement agreement
releasing all claims stemming from or in connection with his status
as a Gulino class member. He contends, however, that he is not
"challenging the Gulino Judgment itself." Instead, he contends that
he is challenging TRS's use of coercion, intimidation and
retaliation to deny him of monetary relief he alleges he is owed in
connection with pension benefits he never received.
In addition, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have
discriminated against him on the basis of race, age and disability,
and retaliated against him in response to his efforts to recoup the
pension benefits he alleges he is owed. He claims that the Pension
Order grants this Court subject matter jurisdiction.
The Plaintiff asserts three causes of action against the
Defendants. Count One alleges breach of contract for a failure to
comply with the Pension Order; Count Two alleges retaliation for
participation in protected activity; and Count Three alleges
discrimination on the basis of race and age in violation of 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a).
The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims for several
reasons, including for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Judge Wood holds that the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim is
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Wood
opines that the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim fails to
establish federal question jurisdiction, and that the Plaintiff
fails to establish ancillary jurisdiction for his breach of
contract claim.
Judge Wood also holds that the Plaintiff's discrimination and
retaliation claims are dismissed for a failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. Judge Wood explains that the Plaintiff
fails to demonstrate that he exhausted Title VII's and the ADEA's
required administrative remedies. Because the Plaintiff has not
satisfied a necessary precondition for his Title VII and ADEA
claims, considering the merits of his discrimination and
retaliation claims would be premature.
For these reasons, the Court grants in its entirety the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.
Because pro se complaints should not be dismissed without granting
leave to amend at least once, the Court grants the Plaintiff leave
to amend. Any Complaint must identify each legal claim and set
forth a short, plain statement of the relevant facts supporting it.
In addition, should the Plaintiff choose to amend his Complaint, he
must demonstrate that (1) this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over any claims and (2) required administrative
remedies have been exhausted in connection with the requirements
set forth in this opinion and applicable laws.
Any motion to amend the Complaint must be filed by Aug. 17, 2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated June 18,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3ayj87pw from
PacerMonitor.com.
UIPATH INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set August 19
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming August 19, 2024 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired UiPath Inc. ("UiPath" or the "Company") (NYSE:
PATH) securities between December 1, 2023 and May 29, 2024,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your UiPath investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/UiPath-Inc-1/. You can also
contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn
more about your rights.
On May 29, 2024, UiPath released its quarterly financial results,
disclosing that the Company was experiencing "contract execution
challenges on large deals and certain sales compensation changes"
which it is "working to rectify." The Company stated that it had
"incentivized a little bit less the multiyear deals, which . . .
was an execution issue." The Company also announced that CEO Rob
Enslin is resigning from his position effective June 1, 2024, and
will be replaced by former CEO Daniel Dines.
On this news, UiPath's stock price fell $6.23, or 34%, to close at
$12.07 per share on May 30, 2024, thereby injuring investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that:
(1) UiPath's turnaround strategy had failed;
(2) Fruitless investments and inconsistent execution plagued
the Company's overhauled go-to-market strategy;
(3) UiPath's AI-powered Business Automation Platform suffered
from the Company's inability to adequately scale its AI-powered
tools and caused "confusion" among customers;
(4) As a result of the foregoing, UiPath experienced
significant difficulties closing and/or expanding large multiyear
deals; and
(5) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired UiPath securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 19, 2024
to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class
action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]
VALVE CORP: Dark Catt Bid to Seal Limited Information OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wolfire Games LLC, et al.,
v. Valve Corporation (VALVE ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No.
2:21-cv-00563-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Coughenour
entered an order granting Plaintiffs Dark Catt Studio Holdings,
Inc. and Dark Catt Studios Interactive, LLC's motion to seal
limited Information contained in the class certification report of
Dr. Steven Schwartz in support of Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on March 12, 2024.
Valve Corporation is an American video game developer, publisher,
and digital distribution company.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eLjTZR at no extra
charge.[CC]
VITALS CONSUMER: Bid to Withdraw Document Granted in Sweeton Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SWEETON v. Vitals Consumer
Services, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00088 (W.D. Mo., Filed Feb 8,
2023), the Hon. Judge Brian C. Wimes entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion to withdraw document.
In light of Plaintiffs' corrected motion for class certification,
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as initially filed
is no longer necessary, and is deemed withdrawn.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other
Personal Injury.
Vitals provides healthcare medical information solutions.[CC]
WEBMD LLC: Janick Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA M. JANCIK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WEBMD, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00644-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order to file under seal Exhibits 1, 4,
5, 9, 22, 25, 27 and 30 to the Declaration of Joshua D. Arisohn in
support of the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, and
portions Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification that reference
the above-listed exhibits.
Exhibits 1, 4, 5, 9, 22, 25, 27 and 30 to the Arisohn Decl. in
Support of the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification are
materials produced in this litigation, which WebMD has designated
"Confidential" or "Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only,"
pursuant to the Joint Protective Order.
As a result, the Plaintiff submits these documents under seal
pursuant to the process described in Part II(J)(2)(d)-(e) of
Appendix H to the Local Rules. WebMD has been served with this
Motion via the ECF system, and pursuant to Part II(J)(2)(e) of
Appendix H to the Local Rules, WebMD has the burden of establishing
good cause for sealing.
WebMD provides a full-service Internet healthcare portal.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 27, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=91OIfG at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com
pfraietta@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
- and -
H. Clay Barnett, III , Esq.
W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
Overlook II
2839 Paces Ferry Road SE, Suite 400
Atlanta, GA 30339
E-mail: Clay.Barnett@Beasleyallen.com
Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com
Mitch.Williams@Beasleyallen.com
WEST VIRGINIA: Judge Dismisses Jail Conditions Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
FOX 11 reports that a class-action lawsuit over alleged jail
conditions against West Virginia's governor and a cabinet secretary
was dismissed by a federal judge Tuesday, July 2.
U.S. District Judge Irene Berger dismissed the 2023 class-action
lawsuit on the grounds that West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice and
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Mark Sorsaia were not
responsible for the alleged issues detailed in the lawsuit, court
documents said.
The lawsuit alleged Justice and Sorsaia failed to "alleviate
pervasive conditions of overcrowding, understaffing and deferred
maintenance" at the state's facilities for more than a decade and
sought more than $270 million in deferred maintenance.
It also sought for the state to spend $60 million to fill staffing
vacancies at the time. Since then, the state has said it has
alleviated the staffing shortage enough to pull the West Virginia
National Guard members out of the state's jails and prisons.
Berger concluded in her ruling that the lawsuit did not establish a
"causal connection" between Justice and the alleged issues
experienced in the state's jails. The judge also said the
plaintiffs were not able to prove the alleged issues were caused by
action or inaction from Sorsaia.
The judge also noted that the court doesn't have the power to order
the governor to "perform discretionary acts" sought in the case and
that it was "speculative" as to whether a favorable ruling would
fix the inmates' alleged issues.
A similar lawsuit representing 9,200 inmates who spent time at
Southern Regional Jail over the course of about three years was
settled for a total of $4 million in November. [GN]
WICHITA, KS: Court Extends Deadline to Produce Expert Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clingerman v. Wichita,
Kansas, City of, Case No. 2:23-cv-02435 (D. Kan., Filed Sept. 26,
2023), Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion
to extend deadline for disclosing expert and expert reports for
class certification.
-- The Court will hold Plaintiff's deadline for disclosing expert
and
expert reports for class certification in abeyance pending
further
order of the Court.
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC]
YARDI SYSTEMS: Judge Dismisses Debt Collection Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Gibb of Accounts Recovery reports that a Magistrate judge in
Texas has recommended that a defendant in a Texas Debt Collection
Practices Act class-action lawsuit have its motion for summary
judgment granted. The defendant, Yardi Systems, Inc., a company
that provides software for property managers to allow tenants to
pay their rent online via a payment portal, was sued for charging
consumers a fee when paying via debit or credit cards. Among the
arguments raised by the plaintiff was that the defendant was a
collector because its portal software was a form used to collect
consumer debts.
The Background: The plaintiff's lease initially did not authorize
any service fees for rent payments. However, when the property
management company enabled online payments through the defendant's
platform, the plaintiff was informed of the available payment
options, which included no fees if payment was made by ACH/e-Check
and fee-based debit and credit card payments. Despite being aware
of the free payment option, the tenant chose to pay by debit card
multiple times, incurring a service fee each time. The plaintiff
claimed he chose to pay by debt card because he did "even exactly
know what that means, ACH/eCheck."
The Ruling: Judge Dustin M. Howell of the District Court for the
Western District of Texas ruled that the recurring monthly rent
payments did not qualify as "consumer debt" under the TDCA. The
judge emphasized that the TDCA is designed to regulate debt
collection practices related to obligations arising from breaches
of agreements or extensions of credit, not regular rent payments
made in compliance with a lease.
-- The plaintiff introduced a novel theory, arguing that the
defendant should be considered a "debt collector" because it
collected service fees for itself. However, the court found this
interpretation inconsistent with the TDCA's text, which requires an
entity to be collecting consumer debts to qualify as a debt
collector. The court emphasized that the service fees were not
consumer debts but transaction charges disclosed to the tenant
upfront.
-- The plaintiff's claim that the defendant's payment portal was
a "form" intended for debt collection was deemed too cursory and
unsupported by precedent, Judge Howell ruled. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***