/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240710.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, July 10, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 138
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Pasley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Spatz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Steketee Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
3M COMPANY: Studmire Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Toll Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Village of Walworth Sues Over Contaminated Water
3M COMPANY: Weisbrod Matteis Files 12 Lawsuits Over Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Williams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Wrenn Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Berni Suit Removed to C.D. California
APPLE INC: $490MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 17
ASR GROUP: Wood Antitrust Suit Moved From S.D. Cal. to D. Minn.
BALTIMORE CITY BOARD OF ELECTIONS: Hanna Files Suit in D. Md.
BANK OF AMERICA: N.D. California Dismisses Milliken Consumer Suit
BAUSCH & LOMB: Rask Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BERRY DUNN MCNEIL: Coulter Suit Transferred to D. Maine
CACTUS INC: Taylor Sues Over Irrevocable Resignation Requirement
CALIFORNIA: Court Denies Bid for Reconsideration in Moralez Suit
CDK GLOBAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Buraga Alleges
CENCORA INC: Johnson Sues Over Failure to Secure PII and PHI
CGB ENTERPRISES: C.D. Illinois Refuses to Dismiss Hayes Suit
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Trinity Medical Sues Over Untimely Processes
CIRCLE 9: GOP Seeks Interests on Untimely Payments of Gas Proceeds
D & A MCRAE INC: Soto Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct
DAIKIN COMFORT: Perry Suit Removed to N.D. California
ECONOMY PREMIER: Wilhelm Sues Over Deprivation of Stack Benefits
ELON MUSK: Watkins Sues Over Misleading Advertising and Sale
EVENTS MANAGEMENT: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
EVERNEST HOLDINGS: Butler Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
EZ FESTIVALS: Court Denies as Moot Bid to Dismiss Brockmole Suit
FAIR COLLECTIONS: Begum Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
FCA US: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Bernardoni Suit
FENIX INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Automatic Subscription Renewal
FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT: Hallman's Bid for Protective Order Denied
FORESTAL: Davydov Sues Over Construction Defects
FOUNDATION PARTNERS: Valle Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
FUTURE BARS: Herrera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GENERAL MOTORS: Torres Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia
INSURANCE AUTO: Leon Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations
JUST PANMACO: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
L'OREAL USA: Danso Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Shippley Suit Moved From Washington to Calif.
MATRIX ABSENCE: N.D. California Narrows Claims in Cook Class Suit
MDL 2700: Class Cert Bid Filing in PMC Suit Due Sept. 11
MDL 2700: Class Cert Bid Filing in Trastuzumab Suit Due Sept. 11
MDL 2700: Class Cert Bid Filing in VCII Suit Due Sept. 11
MDL 2873: Wisher Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
MDL 3040: Bid for Curative Class Notice in Pacifica Fire MDL Denied
MHC RECEIVABLES: Rodriguez-Ocasio Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
MTBC LTD: Palmer Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Proper Wages
NESTLE PURINA: Fields Sues Over Failure to Prevent Noxious Odors
NEW YORK: Roland Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
OTO DEVELOPMENT: Evans Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection
PRIME MEDICAL: Phillips Sue Over Pharmacy Staff's Unpaid Wages
SCOUT ENERGY: Williams Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access
SEMAINE HEALTH: Deas Sues Over Dietary Supplements' False Ads
SIRIUS XM: Woods Sues Over Music Plans' Deceptive Pricing Scheme
STR VENTURES: Fernandes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SWEET RICE: Ramirez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
TOYOTA MOTOR: Abeed Sues Over Drop in Share Price
TRC STAFFING: Elebyany Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
TRUIST BANK: Ruffin Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
TWILIO INC: Perry-Hudson Sues Over Wiretapping of Website Visitors
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges
UNIVERSAL BEAUTY: Dilanyan Sues Over Mislabed Beard Care Products
UST GLOBAL: Removes Awbrey Suit to W.D. Washington
WESCO INTERNATIONAL: Removes Alba-Pedilla Suit to N.D. Cal.
ZILLOW GROUP: Discloses Personal Info, Web Activity, Mata Claims
*********
3M COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda 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-03162-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: Pasley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Pasley, 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-03223-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 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: Spatz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Spatz, 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 13, 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 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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Steketee Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jennifer Steketee, for herself and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 1
D-101-CV-24-00569 was removed from the First Judicial District
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on
May 23, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00519-KK-JFR to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land.
3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational
conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian S. Colon, Esq.
SINGLETON SCHREIBER
6501 Americas Parkway NE, Suite 670
Albuquerque, NM 87301
Phone: (505) 270-2154
Email: bcolon@singletonschreiber.com
- and -
Damon J. Hudson, Esq.
SINGLETON SCHREIBER
643 Hwy 314 NW
Los Lunas, NM 87501
Phone: (505) 539-2768
Email: dhudson@singletonschreiber.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amanda E. Heitz, Esq.
Curtis J. Busby, Esq.
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
2929 N. Central Avenue, Ste. 1900
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: (602) 643-2311
Fax: (602) 248-0947
Email: amanda.heitz@bowmanandbrooke.com
curtis.busby@bowmanandbrooke.com
3M COMPANY: Studmire Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Studmire, 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-02995-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: Toll Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gary James Toll, 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-03166-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
thyroid disease as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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: Village of Walworth Sues Over Contaminated Water
------------------------------------------------------------
Village of Walworth, Wisconsin, and other similarly situated v. AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY;
CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; DAIKIN
AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION;
JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS
LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.
(f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:24-cv-02987-RMG (D.S.C.,
May 10, 2024), is brought to recover by this action the substantial
costs necessary to protect the public and restore its water
supplies, which are contaminated with the synthetic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including but not limited to
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA"), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid ("PFHxS"),
perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA),
perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA),
perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS), perfluorobutane sulfonate
("PFBS"), as well as all of their salts and ionic states, the acid
forms of the molecules and their chemical precursors, and any other
compounds the State regulates in the future.
The Plaintiff brings this action to address widespread
contamination of groundwater that provides drinking water to
Plaintiff with PFAS, to recover costs associated with the
contamination of drinking water and groundwater with PFAS, and
further seek abatement of the ongoing nuisance these chemicals
constitute in the environment, and for such other action as is
necessary to ensure that the PFAS that contaminate the stormwater,
surface water and aquifers supplying drinking water for Plaintiff
do not present a risk to the public. PFAS are persistent, toxic,
and bioaccumulative compounds when released into the environment.
PFAS have impacted stormwater, surface water and groundwater, and
now contaminate the water supplies used by Plaintiff.
The Defendants are companies that designed, manufactured, marketed,
distributed, and/or sold PFAS, the chemical precursors of PFAS,
and/or products containing PFAS, and/or their chemical precursors.
Defendants made products with PFAS including but are not limited
to, Teflon, Scotchgard, waterproofing compounds, stain-proofing
compounds, waxes, paper and cloth coatings, aqueous film-forming
foam ("AFFF"), a firefighting agent used to control and extinguish
Class B fuel fires, and fluorosurfactants used in the manufacture
of AFFF as well as telomer building blocks used to make
fluorosurfactants that were then used to manufacture other
PFAS-containing products, including AFFF. Collectively, Defendants'
PFOA, PFOS, precursors, products containing PFAS, AFFF, and other
products and intermediates containing PFAS are referred to herein
as "Fluorochemical Products."
The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed,
stored and/or sold Fluorochemical Products with the knowledge that
these toxic compounds would be released into the environment during
fire protection, fire training, and response activities, even when
used as directed and intended by defendants. The Defendants were
also aware that their Fluorochemical Products would be and have
been used, released, stored, and/or disposed of at, near, or within
the vicinity of Plaintiff's water supplies such that PFAS, and
their chemical precursors would enter the environment, migrate
through the soil, sediment, stormwater, surface water, and
groundwater, thereby contaminating the water that supplies
Plaintiff.
As a result of the use of Defendants' Fluorochemical Products for
their intended purpose, PFAS, and/or their chemical precursors have
been detected in Plaintiff's water supplies at levels exceeding or
approaching the Maine interim standards and the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") national drinking water
standards and lifetime health advisory levels. The Defendants knew
or reasonably should have known that their PFAS compounds would
enter the environment, contaminate soil, reach groundwater, pollute
drinking water supplies, render drinking water unusable and unsafe,
and threaten public health and welfare, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff owns and operates a water system that provides
drinking water to residents and commercial customers in Walworth,
Wisconsin.
The Defendants' Fluorochemical Products, including, but not limited
to, PFAS containing fluorochemicals/intermediates and AFFF, were
used at fire training facilities, and/or fire departments such that
those compounds traveled by stormwater, surface water, groundwater,
and infiltrated Plaintiff's Water System.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth A. Sansone, Esq.
SL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP PC
4 Park Street, Suite 300
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 227-6298
Facsimile: (415) 366-3047
Email: ksansone@slenvironment.com
- and -
Robert A. Bilott, Esq.
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800
Cincinnati, OH 45202-3957
Phone: (513) 381-2838
Facsimile: (513) 381-0205
Email: bilott@taftlaw.com
- and -
David J. Butler, Esq.
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
65 East State Street, Suite 1000
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: (614) 221-2838
Facsimile: (614) 221-2007
Email: dbutler@taftlaw.com
- and -
Kevin J. Madonna, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN MADONNA, PLLC
48 Dewitt Mills Road Hurley, NY 12443
Phone: (845) 481-2622
Facsimile (845) 230-3111
Email: km@kmadonnalaw.com
- and -
Gary J. Douglas, Esq.
Michael A. London, Esq.
Rebecca G. Newman, Esq.
Tate J. Kunkle, Esq.
DOUGLAS & LONDON, P.C.
59 Maiden Ln, 6th Fl,
New York, NY 10038
Phone: (212) 566-7500
Email: gdouglas@douglasandlondon.com
mlondon@douglasandlondon.com
rnewman@douglasandlondon.com
tkunkle@douglasandlondon.com
- and -
Ned McWilliams, Esq.
LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, RAFFERTY, PROCTOR, BUCHANAN, O'BRIEN &
MOUGEY, P.A.
316 S. Baylen St.
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 435-7138
Email: nmcwilliams@levinlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Weisbrod Matteis Files 12 Lawsuits Over Toxic Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Weisbrod Matteis & Copley PLLC filed 12 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 CO.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S.,
INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a UTC
FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.); CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT
CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY); FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; LION GROUP,
INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN &
COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO.,
INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS,
INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO
THE ANSUL COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX
CORPORATION); VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.;
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Each of the complaints alleges that
the Defendants caused 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, individually and collectively, designed, marketed,
developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on,
produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled,
used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or
TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with
knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained
highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused
Plaintiff significant and devastating injury.
All of the complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina. The complaints were filed
in May 9, 2024.
The Plaintiffs are:
Timothy Alban Barker, Sr. Case No. 2:24-cv-02917-RMG.
Mario J Bickham. Case No. 2:24-cv-02916-RMG.
Cedric L Christie. Case No. 2:24-cv-02920-RMG.
Dennis Rospert. Case No. 2:24-cv-02910-RMG.
Emerson L. Brown, III. Case No. 2:24-cv-02919-RMG.
Larry T. Raughton. Case No. :24-cv-02911-RMG.
Latoya L. Brown. Case No. 2:24-cv-02929-RMG.
Lawrence J. Panigot. Case No. 2:24-cv-02918-RMG.
Narciso Sanchez Duldulao, Jr. Case No. 2:24-cv-02912-RMG.
Robert J. Koch. Case No. 2:24-cv-02930-RMG.
Timothy T. Brown. Case No. 2:24-cv-02908-RMG.
Yvonne Young. Case No. 2:24-cv-02934-RMG.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of
PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq.
WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC
3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: (202) 499-7900
Facsimile: (202) 478-1795
- and -
Stephen A. Weisbrod, Esq.
Smith Tower
506 2nd Ave., Suite 1400
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 990-0390
- and -
Jim Hood, Esq.
1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 803-5001
3M COMPANY: Williams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leon Williams, 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-02979-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 and
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: Wrenn Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel Wrenn, 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-02988-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
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Berni Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Daniel Berni, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, and DOES 1 to
50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2410872 was removed from the Superior
Court of the San Bernardino County Superior Court, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on May
28, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01120.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges seven causes of action against
Amazon: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages and Liquidated Damages;
Failure to Pay Overtime; Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks;
Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Pay All
Wages Owed Upon Termination; Failure to Pay Business Expenses; and
Violation of California Business and Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Megan Cooney, Esq.
Andrew M. Kasabian, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92612-4412
Phone: 949.451.3800
Facsimile: 949.451.4220
Email: mcooney@gibsondunn.com
akasabian@gibsondunn.com
APPLE INC: $490MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 17
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
2019 Apple Securities Litigation:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
In re APPLE INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION
Case No. 4:19-cv-02033-YGR
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE PUBLICLY
TRADED SECURITIES OF APPLE INC. ("APPLE"), INCLUDING PURCHASERS OF
APPLE CALL OPTIONS AND SELLERS OF APPLE PUT OPTIONS, DURING THE
PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 2, 2018, THROUGH JANUARY 2, 2019, INCLUSIVE,
AND WHO SUFFERED DAMAGES BY DEFENDANTS' ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF
SECTIONS 10(B) AND 20(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
("CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS")
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on
September 17, 2024, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers at the United States District Court, Northern
District of California, Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building & U.S.
Courthouse, Courtroom 1 – 4th Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland,
CA 94612, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the
"Settlement") of the above-captioned action as set forth in the
Amended Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation") for $490 million
in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should
be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice; (3) to award Lead
Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as
defined in the Class Action Settlement Notice ("Notice"), which is
discussed below) and to award Representative Parties for their time
and expenses pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(4), and, if so, in
what amount, and (4) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED APPLE PUBLICLY TRADED
SECURITIES FROM NOVEMBER 2, 2018, THROUGH JANUARY 2, 2019,
INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS
ACTION.
To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (received no later than October 4,
2024) or electronically (no later than October 4, 2024). Your
failure to submit your Proof of Claim by October 4, 2024, will
subject your claim to rejection and preclude you from receiving any
of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action.
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired, Apple publicly traded
common stock or call options on Apple common stock, or sold put
options on Apple stock during the period from November 2, 2018,
through January 2, 2019, inclusive, and do not request exclusion
from the Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and any
judgment and release entered in the Action, including, but not
limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of
Claim.
You may review the Notice, which more completely describes the
Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to
object to the Settlement), access the Proof of Claim, and find the
Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for
the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other Settlement
documents, online at www.2019applesecuritiessettlement.com, or by
writing to:
2019 Apple Securities Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 301135
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1135
Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 1-800-449-4900
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com
IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS RECEIVED BY AUGUST 18, 2024,
IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL CLASS MEMBERS
WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY
PROOF OF CLAIM.
IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY LEAD COUNSEL FOR
AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED 25% OF THE SETTLEMENT
AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $3,000,000, PLUS INTEREST EARNED
THEREON AND AN AWARD TO REPRESENTATIVE PARTIES NOT TO EXCEED
$73,000 IN THE AGGREGATE PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4). ANY
OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT BY AUGUST 18, 2024, IN THE
MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.
DATED: JUNE 3, 2024
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at
www.2019applesecuritiessettlement.com.
Proof of Claim forms that are legibly postmarked no later than
October 4, 2024 will be treated as received on the postmark date.
Please be advised that the U.S. Postal Service may not postmark
mail which is not presented in person.
ASR GROUP: Wood Antitrust Suit Moved From S.D. Cal. to D. Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled WOOD RANCH MOORPARK, INC. et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASR GROUP
INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00818, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
on June 25, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Minnesota assigned Case No.
0:24-cv-02339-JWB-DTS to the proceeding.
The suit is brought over the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Sherman Antitrust Act by engaging in unlawful agreement to fix
prices for granulated sugar in the United States.
Wood Ranch Moorpark, Inc. is a restaurant operator located in
Moorpark, California.
ASR Group International, Inc. is a producer and seller of
granulated sugar based in West Palm Beach, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Aaron M. Olsen, Esq.
HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 2050
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 342-8000
Facsimile: (619) 342-7878
- and -
Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
Anthony M. Carter, Esq.
TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 278-2600
Facsimile: (310) 278-2640
Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com
acarter@tostrudlaw.com
- and -
Don Barrett, Esq.
Sterling Aldridge, Esq.
Katherine B. Riley, Esq.
David McMullan, Esq.
BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
404 Court Square N.
Lexington, MS 39095
Telephone: (662) 834-2488
Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
saldridge@barrettlawgroup.com
kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com
dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
- and -
Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
Two CityPlace Drive
St. Louis, MO 63141
Telephone: (314) 226-1015
Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com
BALTIMORE CITY BOARD OF ELECTIONS: Hanna Files Suit in D. Md.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baltimore City Board
of Elections, et al. The case is styled as Will J. Hanna, II, on
behalf of the citizens of Baltimore and others similarly situated
v. Baltimore City Board of Elections; Armstead Jones, Director of
the Baltimore City Board of Election; Maryland State Board of
Elections; Jared DeMarinis, State Administrator of Elections, Case
No. 1:24-cv-01537-JMC (D. Md., May 24, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Voting Civil Rights.
The State Board of Elections --
https://elections.maryland.gov/about/county_boards.html -- provides
all eligible citizens of the State convenient access to voter
registration.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
BANK OF AMERICA: N.D. California Dismisses Milliken Consumer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit styled AUSTIN MILLIKEN, Plaintiff v. BANK OF
AMERICA N.A., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-03709-AMO (N.D. Cal.).
The lawsuit is a putative class action involving allegations that
Defendant Bank of America, N.A. ("the Bank") charges improper
interest rates on consumer credit cards. The Bank's motion to
dismiss was heard before the Court on Feb. 22, 2024.
Plaintiff Austin Milliken brings this lawsuit against the Bank for
imposing excessive interest charges on cardholders in violation of
the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"). Milliken asserts a claim under
the TILA, as amended by the Credit Card Accountability
Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 ("CARD Act") and as
implemented by Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. Part 1026. He also brings a
claim under the unlawful prong of California's Unfair Competition
Law ("UCL").
Mr. Milliken, a resident of Healdsburg, California, holds a
variable-rate credit card issued by the Bank. The terms of the
Bank's variable-rate cards are disclosed in a Credit Card Agreement
that consumers agree to when applying for a card. Under the terms
of that Agreement, interest rates for variable-rate cards are tied
to -- and will increase or decrease along with -- the U.S. Prime
Rate, a publicly available benchmark interest rate.
Since March 2022, the Bank has adjusted the interest rate on his
variable-rate credit card at least 10 times. Milliken alleges that
the Bank applied the new interest rate to future amounts, as well
as to amounts he had charged earlier in the billing cycle in which
the interest rate adjusted.
Mr. Milliken contends that the Bank's application of the new Prime
Rate to purchases made earlier in the applicable billing cycle,
before the date of the interest rate change, rendered the Bank's
interest rate "proprietary" under the CARD Act rather than "tied
to" the U.S. Prime Rate and that, therefore, the retroactive
application of the Prime Rate to charges incurred before the index
changed violated the CARD Act. He claims that the improper rate
increases caused him to incur excessive interest during the
relevant period.
The Bank moves to dismiss the Complaint because its
variable-interest practices fall within the CARD Act's exceptions,
requiring dismissal of both the TILA and UCL causes of action.
The Bank argues that Milliken's TILA claim fails because the
interest rates it charged on variable-rate cards fell squarely
within an exemption for variable-rate credit cards in TILA.
The Court finds that the Bank's formula complies with a plain
reading of the statute, the regulations, and the relevant guidance.
The Bank's cardholder agreement provides for changes in the annual
percentage rate according to operation of an index that is not
under the control of the creditor and is available to the general
public (see Exception (b)(2)). The variable rate charged to
Milliken fluctuates monthly according to the Prime Rate.
Judge Martinez-Olguin further finds that the Bank's practice falls
within the other boundaries of Exception (b)(2). The Prime Rate is
a public index. Milliken does not argue that the Bank controls the
Prime Rate. Milliken does not argue that changes in the Prime Rate
are unavailable to the general public, nor could he where the
cardholder agreement expressly refers to the rate listed in The
Wall Street Journal, a newspaper of broad publication.
The Bank's application of a rate set as of the last index
publication date in a given month to the full billing cycle that
overlaps with that publication date does not divorce the index from
the rate, and does not mean that the rate is moving on its own,
untethered from the index, Judge Martinez-Olguin opines, among
other things.
Exception (b)(2) for variable rate cards plainly applies, Judge
Martinez-Olguin points out. Milliken fails to state a claim for
violation of the CARD Act and, accordingly, fails to state a claim
for violation of the TILA. Moreover, because Milliken's claim is
facially implausible and fails as a matter of law, the Court finds
amendment futile and dismisses it with prejudice.
Because the Court dismisses the TILA claim for the reasons stated,
there is no violation of law from which Milliken can borrow to the
UCL makes independently actionable. The Court, therefore, dismisses
the derivative UCL claim that relies on Milliken's pleading of a
TILA violation.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Bank's motion to dismiss.
The Plaintiff acknowledged at the hearing that no additional facts
could be alleged because the issue presented is one of statutory
interpretation; therefore, amendment would prove futile. Therefore,
the Court dismisses the case with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 20, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3mf8ejs8 from PacerMonitor.com.
BAUSCH & LOMB: Rask Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bausch & Lomb, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Valerie Rask, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., DOES 1 TO 100,
Case No. CGC24614787 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 20,
2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Bausch & Lomb -- https://www.bausch.com/ -- is an American-Canadian
eye health products company based in Vaughan, Ontari.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shounak S. Dharap, Esq.
ARNS DAVIS LAW
515 Folsom St., 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone: 415-495-7800
Email: ssd@arnslaw.com
BERRY DUNN MCNEIL: Coulter Suit Transferred to D. Maine
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Emily Coulter, individually, and on behalf of
other similarly situated consumers v. BERRY, DUNN, MCNEIL, &
PARKER, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00201 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maine on May 28, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00192-JAW to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC -- https://www.berrydunn.com/ --
provides accounting and consulting services. The Company offers
audit, business valuation, captive insurance, executive recruiting,
exit planning, information technology consulting, mergers and
acquisitions, and other professional services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Fornaro, Esq.
MATTHEW FORNARO PA - CORAL SPRINGS FL
11555 Heron Bay Blvd., Ste. 200
Coral Springs, FL 33076
Phone: (954) 324-3651
Fax: (954) 248-2099
Email: mfornaro@fornarolegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher Walden Lee, Esq.
WILSON ELSER LLP - MIAMI FL
100 SE Second Street, Suite 2100
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 374-4400
Email: christopher.lee@wilsonelser.com
CACTUS INC: Taylor Sues Over Irrevocable Resignation Requirement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Taylor, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of CACTUS, INC. v. CACTUS, INC., Case No. 2024-0561-
(Del. Chancery Ct., May 24, 2024), is brought seeking declaratory
relief invalidating the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement of the
Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws, effective May 15, 2024 (the
"Bylaws").
The Irrevocable Resignation Requirement allows the Company's board
of directors (the "Board") to usurp stockholders' exclusive right
to select the members of the Board. The Company has a "proxy
access" bylaw (the "Proxy Access Bylaw") pursuant to which the
Company will include the name of any person nominated for election
to director ("Stockholder Nominee") by a stockholder or group of
stockholders owning 3% or more of the Company's outstanding stock
("Eligible Stockholder"), along with certain required information,
collectively referred to as the "Notice of Proxy Access Nomination"
(as defined in the Proxy Access Bylaw) for that Stockholder
Nominee, in the Company's proxy statement for any annual meeting of
the Company's stockholders.
To comply with the Proxy Access Bylaw, a Stockholder Nominee is
required, pursuant to Section 2.10(G) of the Bylaws (the
"Irrevocable Resignation Requirement") to deliver to the Company an
irrevocable letter of resignation that only becomes effective if,
at a later unspecified date, the Board determines that either (a)
the information the Stockholder Nominee provided to the Company
pursuant to the Proxy Access Bylaw was untrue in any material
respect or omitted to state a material fact necessary in order to
make the statements made not misleading, or (b) such Stockholder
Nominee, or any stockholder or group of stockholders who nominated
such Stockholder Nominee, breached any obligations owed to the
Company under the Bylaws. Similar requirements do not apply to the
incumbent members of the Board or to their nominee
Irrevocable Resignation Requirement is contrary to 8 Del. C.
Section
141(k) ("Section 141(k)"), 211 ("Section 211"), and 141(b)
("Section 141(b)"). The Irrevocable Resignation Requirement also
impermissibly subverts the stockholder franchise. The Irrevocable
Resignation Requirement will continue to interfere with
stockholders' statutory and equitable rights to choose the
Company's directors. The Irrevocable Resignation Requirement unduly
restricts the stockholder franchise, is inequitable, and violates
Delaware law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is, and has continuously been, a Company stockholder
since at least September 2023.
The Defendant manufactures and sells pressure control and spoolable
pipe technologies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly A. Evans, Esq.
Irene R. Lax, Esq.
Robert Erikson, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305
Wilmington, DE 19807
Phone: (302) 499-3600
Email: kim@blockleviton.com
irene@blockleviton.com
robby@blockleviton.com
- and -
Jason Leviton, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 398-5600
- and -
Abbott Cooper, Esq.
ABBOTT COOPER PLLC
1266 East Main Street, Suite 700R
Stamford, CT 06902
CALIFORNIA: Court Denies Bid for Reconsideration in Moralez Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denies the Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration in the lawsuit captioned RUDOLPH MORALEZ, Plaintiff
v. RON DAVIS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-07860-BLF (N.D.
Cal.).
On Nov. 4, 2020, the Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed this pro se
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 198 against San
Quentin State Prison ("SQSP") Warden Ron Davis, among others. He
was twice granted leave to amend to correct various deficiencies in
the pleadings. However, the second amended complaint again failed
to remedy the deficiencies from the amended complaint.
Therefore, on Sept. 24, 2021, the Court dismissed the complaint for
failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted, and
entered judgment the same day.
On June 12, 2024, nearly three years later, the Plaintiff filed a
motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(6) and (d)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court first notes that it is doubtful that filing this Rule
60(b) motion over three years after judgment has been entered can
be considered a "reasonable time." But even if timeliness is not an
issue, Judge Freeman says the Plaintiff must show that the grounds
justifying relief are extraordinary to obtain relief under
subparagraph (6). Rule 60(b)(6) is a catchall provision that is
available only when Rules 60(b)(1) through (b)(5) are inapplicable,
and only when extraordinary circumstances justify reopening the
case.
The Plaintiff asserts that he has a learning disability in the area
of written language that prevented him from generating an
appropriate complaint against state employees for the violation of
his civil rights due to the Covid-19 outbreak at SQSP. He asserts
generally that he was wholly incapable of producing a competent
complaint and lacked competent help to do so "until now."
The Court finds the Plaintiff has failed to establish that
circumstances beyond his control prevented him from proceeding in a
proper fashion. First, the attached papers indicate that the
Plaintiff was assessed with a learning disability as far back as
2007 and received accommodations for this disability in prison.
Accordingly, Plaintiff was clearly aware of this disability long
before he filed this action in 2020, and it did not prevent him
from initiating such an action.
The Plaintiff also provides a letter from an attorney dated Feb. 3,
2022, advising him about the status of the class action, which his
firm had been pursuing related to the Covid-19 outbreak at SQSP.
The attorney advised the Plaintiff that he and his firm had removed
themselves from the case before state court and for the Plaintiff
to seek another attorney to pursue his claims in federal court. The
attorney also advised the Plaintiff about filing a timely action in
federal court (2 years from the date of injury) after properly
exhausting administrative remedies.
Despite this advice, Judge Freeman says the Plaintiff still waited
over two years before filing the instant motion for reconsideration
to reopen this action. The Plaintiff provides no explanation for
the lengthy delay in filing this motion nor has he established that
his long-existing learning disability was a "circumstance beyond
his control" that prevented him from doing so. Accordingly, the
motion for reconsideration is denied.
For these reasons, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration. The Plaintiff may appeal this matter to the Ninth
Circuit.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 20, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4ak88a75 from PacerMonitor.com.
CDK GLOBAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Buraga Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE BURAGA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CDK GLOBAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-05273 (N.D. IL., June 24, 2024) is an action against the
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
sensitive information of its customers.
According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of
the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a
foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that
Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired
by data thieves.
CDK Global LLC provides integrated information technology and
digital marketing solutions. The Company offers solutions that
automate and integrate critical workflow processes from pre-sale
targeted advertising and marketing campaigns to the sale,
financing, insurance, parts supply, and repair and maintenance of
vehicles. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Langley, Esq.
David S. Almeida, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (312) 576-3024
Email: david@almeidalawgroup.com
matt@almeidalawgroup.com
- and -
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 474-3800
Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
Email: daniel@slfla.com
CENCORA INC: Johnson Sues Over Failure to Secure PII and PHI
------------------------------------------------------------
Ivery Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CENCORA, INC. and THE LASH GROUP, LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-02227-CMR (E.D. Pa., May 24, 2024), is brought against
Defendants for their failure to properly secure and to safeguard
the personally identifiable information and personal health
information ("PII" and "PHI", collectively "Private Information")
for half a million people.
On February 21, 2024, Cencora "learned that data from its
information systems had been exfiltrated, some of which may contain
personal information" by an unauthorized third-party ("the Data
Breach"). Despite announcing the Data Breach at the end of
February, Cencora did not begin sending notice out to impacted
individuals until late May. Cencora has not yet disclosed details
about the nature of the attack, what types of PII was compromised,
or the number of individuals impacted. Plaintiff brings this class
action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address
Cencora's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private
Information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to
provide adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members.
As a result of the Data Breach, The Plaintiff spent time dealing
with the consequences of the Data Breach, which includes time spent
verifying the legitimacy of the Notice of Data Breach, and will now
need to dedicate time to self-monitor his accounts and credit
reports to ensure no fraudulent activity has occurred. Even with
the best response, the harm caused to The Plaintiff cannot be
undone. Defendants admits that The Plaintiff's Private Information
was exfiltrated by criminal third-parties. Thus, The Plaintiff's
and Class Members' information is already being misused by
cybercriminals, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff's Private Information was in the possession and
control of the Defendants at the time of the Breach.
Cencora is a pharmaceutical services company that provides
distribution solutions for doctor's offices, pharmacies, and animal
healthcare.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
Andrea L. Bonner, Esq.
SHUB AND JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (610) 477-8380
Email: jshub@shublawyers.com
bjohns@shublawyers.com
sholbrook@shublawyers.com
abonner@shublawyers.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe St., Ste. 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
CGB ENTERPRISES: C.D. Illinois Refuses to Dismiss Hayes Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sue E. Myerscough of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Illinois, Springfield Division, denies the motion to
dismiss the lawsuit entitled KYLE HAYES, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff
v. CGB ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a CONSOLIDATED GRAIN AND BARGE CO.,
and CONSOLIDATED TERMINALS AND LOGISTICS, CO., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-03296-SEM-KLM (C.D. Ill.).
The matter is before the Court on Defendant CGB Enterprises, Inc.'s
Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff Kyle Hayes' First Amended Complaint
states claims upon which relief can be granted under the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), so Defendant CGB's Motion
is denied, Judge Myerscough holds.
Defendant CGB operates grain silos, grain elevators, and affiliated
offices through Illinois. Consolidated Grain and Consolidated
Terminals are divisions of CGB.
During the course of his employment, the Plaintiff was assigned to
work for both Consolidated Grain and Consolidated Terminals. His
wages were paid by Consolidated Grain. From approximately August
2011 through November 2014, and from September 2016 through June
2021, CGB employed the Plaintiff at its Naples, Illinois office,
grain silo, and elevator. CGB required the Plaintiff to clock in
and out during the course of his employment, at least two times
each workday, using timeclocks located on CGB's premises ("CGB
Timeclocks").
In order to clock in or out, the CGB Timeclocks captured a scan of
the Plaintiff's fingerprints and converted the fingerprints to
electronic images. These electronic images were stored in the
electronic data files of at least one electronic data storage
system, controlled, owned, or operated by CGB. The electronic data
files of the fingerprint images were disclosed to others, including
third-party payroll services providers.
On Aug. 24, 2023, Plaintiff Kyle Hayes, individually and on behalf
of those similarly situated, filed a four-Count Class Action
Complaint in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Division,
Sangamon County, asserting that he used timekeeping technology to
clock in and out from work in a manner that violated the BIPA.
On Oct. 11, 2023, Defendants CGB Enterprises, Inc., Consolidated
Grain and Barge Co. ("Consolidated Grain"), and Consolidated
Terminals and Logistics, Co. ("Consolidated Terminals") removed
this action to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
Illinois. On Nov. 17, 2023, the Defendants moved to dismiss all
Counts for failure to plausibly state a claim for relief upon which
relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).
On Dec. 7, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for
Extension of Time to Respond and Leave to File a First Amended
Complaint. On Dec. 13, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Karen
McNaught allowed the Plaintiff's Motion and directed the Plaintiff
to respond to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or file an
amended complaint by Dec. 29, 2023.
On Dec. 29, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a four-Count Amended
Complaint. He alleges that CGB violated BIPA by: (1) capturing or
collecting his biometric data without first obtaining his informed,
written consent, under BIPA Section 15(b); (2) possessing his
biometric data without creating or following a publicly available
retention and destruction policy, under BIPA Section 15(a); (3)
disclosing or disseminating his biometric data without his consent,
under BIPA Section 15(d); and (4) failing to store, transmit, and
protect from disclosure his biometric data in accordance with the
reasonable standard of care in CGB's industry, under BIPA Section
15(e).
On Jan. 26, 2024, Defendant CGB moved to dismiss all Counts for
failure to state a claim for relief upon which relief can be
granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). On Feb. 16, 2024, the Plaintiff
filed his Response. On April 15, 2024, Defendant CGB filed its
Reply.
Defendant CGB argues that it is not a proper defendant because CGB
is a separate corporate entity from Consolidated Grain and
Consolidated Terminals.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint does
not constitute group pleading and provides sufficient notice to
Defendant CGB. Consolidated Grain and Consolidated Terminals are
named as divisions of CGB, not separate defendants. The Court also
finds that CGB is a proper defendant.
Judge Myerscough finds that the Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that
Defendant CGB "possessed," "collected," and "disseminated" his
biometric data. Judge Myerscough also finds, among other things,
that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendant CGB
violated BIPA Section 15(e), and has sufficiently alleges
entitlement to statutory damages.
Therefore, the Court denies Defendant CGB's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.
Because the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, the Court
rules that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's
Complaint is denied as moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated June 20,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3htp9d5f from
PacerMonitor.com.
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Trinity Medical Sues Over Untimely Processes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Medical Center, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., Case No.
5:24-cv-00674-HNJ (N.D. Ala., May 24, 2024), is brought to remedy
Defendant's failure to timely and adequately process and pay the
amounts due to medical providers for their services, including
Plaintiff.
On February 21, 2024, Defendant discovered its network was
improperly secured and inadequately protected. These failures
allowed cybercriminals to access highly confidential and sensitive
information, resulting in what is commonly known as a "Data
Breach."
As a result of these failures, Defendant CHANGE HEALTHCARE then
"disconnected its systems to prevent further impact." This
disconnection essentially foreclosed medical providers like
Plaintiff from essential services such as claim processing and
payment for goods and services. Defendant's security failures and
subsequent actions have harmed Plaintiff and similarly situated
providers across the United States by stopping and disallowing
payments for services and care, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an Alabama limited liability company.
CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC. is a healthcare company that provides
payment reimbursement and revenue services to medical providers
across the country.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
Douglas A. Dellaccio, Jr., Esq.
Adam W. Pittman, Esq.
CORYWATSON, P.C.
2131 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: (205) 328-2200
Fax: (205) 324-7896
Email: jtapley@corywatson.com
ddellacio@corywatson.com
apittman@corywatson.com
- and -
David J. Hodge, Esq.
MORRIS, KING & HODGE, P.C.
200 Pratt Avenue, NE
Huntsville, AL 35801
Phone: (256) 536-0588
Fax: (256) 533-1504
Email: dhodge@mkhlawyers.com
- and -
Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C.
2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205) 322-8880
Fax: (205) 328-2711
Email: chrish@pittmandutton.com
jonm@pittmandutton.com
CIRCLE 9: GOP Seeks Interests on Untimely Payments of Gas Proceeds
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOP, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Circle 9 Resources LLC and C9 SUBCO LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 4:24-cv-00296-MTS (N.D. Okla., June 20, 2024) is a class
action arising from Defendants' willful and ongoing violations of
Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act related to the interest
owed on untimely payments of proceeds derived from the sale of oil
and gas production to those legally entitled thereto.
The PRSA requires holders of proceeds derived from the sale of oil
and gas production, like Defendants here, to pay interest on
proceeds from the sale of oil or gas production or some portion of
such proceeds that are not paid prior to the end of the applicable
time periods provided by statute. The PRSA imposes automatic
interest on late payments. Compliance with the PRSA is not
optional, and the statute contains no demand requirement before an
owner is entitled to statutory interest.
The complaint alleges that Defendants know they are bound by
statute to pay interest on late payments but have consistently
ignored these obligations and violated the law. The Defendants do
not automatically pay the interest they owe on untimely payments of
O&G Proceeds. Instead, upon information and belief, the Defendants
have a policy of only paying statutory interest when those legally
entitled thereto demand it, despite the fact that no such demand
requirement exists, the suit says.
The Plaintiff is an Oklahoma limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Edmond, Oklahoma.
Circle 9 is an Oklahoma limited liability company with its
principal place of business located in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randy C. Smith, Esq.
RANDY C. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES
One Leadership Square, Suite 1310
211 North Robinson Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone (405) 212-2786
Facsimile (405) 232-6515
E-mail: randy@rcsmithlaw.com
- and -
Brady L. Smith, Esq.
Harry "Skeeter" Jordan, Esq.
BRADY SMITH LAW, PLLC
One Leadership Square, Suite 1320
211 N. Robinson Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 293-3029
E-mail: Brady@BLSmithLaw.com
Skeeter@BLSmithLaw.com
D & A MCRAE INC: Soto Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D&A McCrae, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Daniel Soto, on behalf of other members
of the public similarly situated and the State of California v. D&A
McCrae, Inc., Case No. BCV-24-101751 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty.,
May 24, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
D&A Mcrae, Inc. -- https://mcraetrans.com/ -- provides trucking
transportation services. The Company offers delivery and transfer
services of crude oil, as well as provides semi and super truck
configurations, body tank and pup, and fall protection
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ruben Escobedo, III, Esq.
WORKWORLD LAW
Chamber of Commerce Building
6907 El Camino Real, Ste. A
Atascadero, CA 93422-4386
Phone: 805-335-2476
Fax: 805-892-6213
Email: ruben@workworldlaw.com
DAIKIN COMFORT: Perry Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Perry, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTION,
INC. dba DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES DIST INC, a Texas corporation;
DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES MANUFACTURING, L.P. formerly GOODMAN
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, L.P., a Texas limited partnership; GOODMAN
DISTRIBUTION, INC. dba GOODMAN, an entity of unknown form; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. C24-00141 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra
Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on May 28, 2024, and assigned Case No.
4:24-cv-03204-KAW.
The Complaint alleged class action claims for purported unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, meal and rest break
violations, unreimbursed business expenses, inaccurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties, failure to maintain required
records, violation of Labor Code and violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Justin T. Curley, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 397-2823
Facsimile: (415) 397-4839
Email: jcurley@seyfarth.com
- and -
Jeffrey A. Nordlander, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 448-0159
Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
Email: jnordlander@seyfarth.com
ECONOMY PREMIER: Wilhelm Sues Over Deprivation of Stack Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brynley Wilhelm, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Economy Premier Insurance Company, an Illinois
corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-01270-SPL (D. Ariz., May 28, 2024),
is brought on behalf of all insureds who were deprived of their
right to stack benefits by the Defendant.
Under Arizona law, auto insurers must permit their customers to
stack policies or coverages for uninsured and underinsured
("UM/UIM") motor vehicle accident claims unless the insurers comply
with two simple requirements. First, they must include plain,
express, and unambiguous language disavowing the ability to stack
multiple policies or coverages.
The insurers can fulfill this notice requirement by either
including a "statement" in the policy "informing" the insured of
their "right to select one policy or coverage" as "applicable to
any one accident," or sending the insured, within thirty days of
being notified of the accident, written notice of her "right to
select one policy or coverage." Id. Defendant never satisfied
either requirement for any insured during the class period.
As a matter of uniform and standard practice and procedure,
Defendant Economy applied a single UM/UIM coverage limit to
Plaintiff's claim even though Defendant Economy neither included
plain, express, and unambiguous language disavowing the customer's
ability to stack multiple coverages on the policy nor informed the
class members of the right to select which coverage to apply to the
accident by including that right in the policy or timely advising
class members of that right in writing.
The Defendant, therefore, was responsible for stacking, and for
disclosing and providing UM/UIM coverage up to the stacked limits
required by Arizona law and the policies but failed to do so.
Defendant Economy breached its contractual and legal duties to
Plaintiff and other insureds, including underpaying the benefits
due, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff insured under an Economy Premier Assurance Company
policy purchased by Jonna and Daryl Wilhelm.
Economy is an insurance company incorporated under the laws of
Illinois, with its principal place of business in California, but
which does business in the state of Arizona.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert B. Carey, Esq.
John M. DeStefano, Esq.
E. Tory Beardsley, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: (602) 840-5900
Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
Email: rob@hbsslaw.com
johnd@hbsslaw.com
toryb@hbsslaw.com
ELON MUSK: Watkins Sues Over Misleading Advertising and Sale
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Watkins, Global Lease Group Inc., Prudhvi Samudrala, William
Wilson, Karen Kyutukyan, Rajeev Talreja, Giorgio Petruzziello, and
Drew Talreja, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. ELON R. MUSK, ELON MUSK REVOCABLE TRUST DATED JULY 22,
2003, and EXCESSION LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-11384-PBS (D. Mass., May
24, 2024), is brought by purchasers of expensive Tesla vehicles who
were swindled out of billions of dollars (at least tens of
thousands each) by the world's richest person, Elon Musk, in
connection with the advertising and sale of Tesla automobiles,
which are high-end electric vehicles ("EV").
The basis of their claims is that Musk falsely represented Tesla
driving ranges, instructed that other key facts about vehicle
driving ranges be withheld from consumers, took steps to manipulate
vehicles' dashboard range meters to display false driving ranges,
and then, to further avoid accountability, diverted consumer
complaints about their vehicles' inability to get the displayed
range.
Because of the critical importance of range to EV purchasers, this
scheme allowed Musk to sell millions of vehicles at higher prices,
crush competition, and make hundreds of billions of dollars for
himself, his trust, and his family office. Musk's conduct violated
a litany of unfair and deceptive trade practice laws, all of which
provide for personal liability because Musk personally formulated,
directed, implemented, controlled, and instructed the fraudulent
scheme.
These facts are not in dispute: Musk admitted to a government
regulator, he "engaged in false, exaggerated, and deceptive
advertising activities in manufacturing, importing, and selling our
electric vehicles." And because Musk perpetrated this fraud to
enrich his revocable trust, both defendants "Elon Musk Revocable
Trust dated July 22, 2003," and his family office, Excession, LLC,
are liable too, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased Teslas.
Musk is Chief Executive Officer of Tesla and has used the company
to defraud consumers, harming Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine,
Washington, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania,
California, Texas, and Florida residents who purchased Tesla
vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth D. Quat
QUAT LAW OFFICES
373 Winch Street
Framingham, MA 01701
Phone: 508-872-1261
Email: ken@quatlaw.com
- and -
Ryan D. Watstein, Esq.
Alexander D. Terepka, Esq.
WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP
1055 Howell Mill Road, 8th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30318
Phone: 404-782-0696
Email: ryan@wtlaw.com
alex@wtlaw.com
EVENTS MANAGEMENT: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Events Management,
Inc. The case is styled as Jose I. Soriano Rodriguez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public
v. Events Management, Inc. d/b/a McCall's Catering & Events, Does 1
through 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC24615022 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., May 28, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Events Management, Inc. doing business as McCalls Catering & Events
-- https://mccallssf.com/ -- is known for fabulous cuisine,
innovative event planning & design… and flawless execution.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maralle Messrelian, Esq.
MM LAW, APC
500 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 2000
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 818-810-7747
Email: maralle@messrelianlaw.com
EVERNEST HOLDINGS: Butler Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courtni Butler and Kristy Reneman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. EVERNEST HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a
EVERNEST, LLC, Case No. (), is brought to recover all available
relief, including unpaid compensation, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 ("EPA"), the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Plaintiffs and the Putative EPA Collective Members are those
similarly situated females who worked for Defendant, at any time
from May 24, 2021, through the final disposition of this matter,
who were not paid wages equal to their male counterparts in
violation of the EPA. Although Plaintiffs and the Putative EPA
Collective Members are of equal skill, ability, and responsibility,
and perform under similar working conditions, they were paid wages
significantly less than their male counterparts. The decision by
Defendant not to pay female employees a wage equal to their male
employee counterparts was neither reasonable nor in good faith.
The Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to pay Plaintiffs
and the Putative EPA Collective Members a wage equal to their male
counterparts' wages. the Plaintiffs and the Putative EPA Collective
Members seek to recover all unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and
other damages owed under the EPA.
The Plaintiff and the Putative FLSA Collective Members were
improperly classified as exempt from overtime and were not paid
overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 in each workweek
in violation of the FLSA. Although Plaintiff and the Putative FLSA
Collective Members routinely worked (and continue to work) in
excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiff and the Putative FLSA
Collective Members were not paid overtime of at least one and
one-half their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per workweek. the Defendant knowingly and deliberately
failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative FLSA Collective
Members overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates
of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Butler was employed by Defendant as a property
manager. The Plaintiff Reneman was employed by Defendant as a
business development manager.
Evernest is a property management company that manages "over 14,000
properties in Atlanta, Birmingham, Boulder, Chattanooga, Colorado
Springs, Columbus, Denver, Detroit, Fort Collins, Huntsville,
Jackson, Kansas City, Little Rock, Memphis, Murfreesboro,
Nashville, Orlando, St. Louis, Tampa, Toledo, and Tulsa."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Hughes, Esq.
2121 14th Street
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
Phone: (205) 523-0463
Email: dhughes@hardinhughes.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Blayne E. Fisher, Esq.
Lauren Braddy, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Shoreline Blvd., 6th Floor
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Phone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
blayne@a2xlaw.com
lauren@a2xlaw.com
EZ FESTIVALS: Court Denies as Moot Bid to Dismiss Brockmole Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York denied as moot the Defendants'
motion to dismiss complaint in the lawsuit titled BROCKMOLE, et
al., Plaintiffs v. EZ FESTIVALS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-08106-MMG-JW (S.D.N.Y.).
In December 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint
(the "Avchukov Complaint"). In March 2024, Defendants Avant Gardner
LLC, Jurgen Bildstein, EZ Festivals LLC, and Made Event LLC moved
to dismiss Counts 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of that Complaint.
On April 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint (the "Avchukov Amended Complaint"). On April
18th, the Defendants moved to strike the Avchukov Amended
Complaint, and in the alternative, moved to dismiss the Avchukov
Amended Complaint.
Thus, because the 2023 Avchukov Consolidated Complaint was amended,
Judge Willis holds that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss that
Complaint is now moot. Therefore, the Motion is denied. However,
the Defendants' Motion to Strike, or in the Alternative, to Dismiss
the Amended Avchukov Complaint remains pending.
The Clerk of the Court is requested to close Dkt. No. 49.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 20, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2s4uv5vv from PacerMonitor.com.
FAIR COLLECTIONS: Begum Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fair Collections &
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Nasreen Begum, on behalf of
herself and all similarly situated individuals v. Fair Collections
& Outsourcing, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00893-PTG-WEF (E.D. VA., May
28, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Fair Collections & Outsourcing (FCO) -- https://www.fco.com/ -- is
a leading national rental housing debt collections agency.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
James Patrick McNichol, Esq.
Matthew G Rosendahl, Esq.
Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 424-7570
Fax: (703) 591-9285
Email: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
casey@kellyguzzo.com
pat@kellyguzzo.com
matt@kellyguzzo.com
kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
FCA US: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Bernardoni Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David M. Lawson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and
Order granting the Defendant's motions to amend answer to complaint
and to compel arbitration in the lawsuit styled JEVECHIUS
BERNARDONI, BAHAR NAVAB, JUSTIN BINDER, and KATHERINE BINDER,
Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-12881-DML-EAS
(E.D. Mich.).
The Plaintiffs, married couples, allege in their complaint that
each couple purchased a Chrysler Pacifica Plug-in Hybrid minivan
manufactured by Defendant FCA US LLC. They contend that the
vehicles were defective because they have combusted spontaneously,
despite having received a corrective modification of the vehicles
following the defendant's recall notice.
The Defendant has filed a motion to compel Plaintiffs Justin and
Katherine Binder to submit their claims to arbitration per an
arbitration clause included in a purchase agreement that the
Binders executed with their dealer when buying their vehicle. The
Defendant also has filed a motion to amend its answer to plead the
arbitration clause as an affirmative defense to claims brought by
the Binders.
The Court heard oral arguments on the motions in open court on June
12, 2024. The Defendant has moved timely to amend its answer, and
its proposed amendment is not futile. The arbitration provision
contains a delegation clause relegating the question of
arbitrability to the arbitrator, and because the Defendant has not
engaged in conduct in this particular case that is inconsistent
with its reliance on the arbitration clause, Judge Lawson says the
motions will be granted.
The case is a tagalong matter to MDL 3040, a multidistrict action
involving 11 putative class actions with 69 named plaintiffs, who
have pleaded, cumulatively, more than 81 counts under the laws of
31 states. All those plaintiffs allege that their vehicles are
plagued with a similar defect, that is, that, either due to faults
in their design or problems during the manufacturing process, the
large battery plant incorporated into the powertrain of the
vehicles has a tendency spontaneously to enter a "thermal runaway"
state resulting in combustion or explosion of the vehicle.
The spontaneous ignition of the batteries, the plaintiffs say, may
occur unpredictably at any time, even when the vehicles are parked
and the ignition is off. Due to the risk of spontaneous fires, the
plaintiffs say that they are unable to drive or leave the vehicles
unattended with peace of mind, and they are forced to seek parking
locations far removed from structures or other vehicles due to the
risk of damage to any nearby property if the vehicles suddenly
burst into flames.
The plaintiffs in the MDL generally do not contend that their
vehicles have immolated. Instead, they contend that the vehicles
are worth considerably less than they paid because of the practical
implications of the defect.
On Nov. 13, 2023, Plaintiffs Jevechius Bernardoni, Bahar Navab,
Justin Binder, and Katherine Binder filed their complaint pleading
similar causes of action as the consolidated plaintiffs based on
the same alleged battery fire risk defect. The new plaintiffs are
two married couples, who bought class vehicles in California. Both
couples have alleged that their class vehicles had the Defendant's
recall fix applied, and afterward they experienced battery fires
that destroyed the vehicles and damaged nearby residential
property, due to the vehicles being parked in the garage or
driveway of their respective residences at the time of the fires.
The Bernardoni pleadings do not indicate that any Plaintiffs
suffered personal injury other than emotional trauma relating to
the immolation of the vehicles and endangerment of their family and
residence.
Plaintiffs Justin and Katherine Binder bought their 2017 Chrysler
Pacifica Hybrid on Sept. 29, 2017, from Walnut Creek Chrysler Dodge
Jeep Ram in Walnut Creek, California. It is undisputed that the
purchase agreement that the Binders signed included an arbitration
clause. The sales contract indicates that it is governed by
"Federal law and California law."
The Bernardoni complaint pleads claims of strict product liability,
negligence, and negligent misrepresentation under California law.
Some of the plaintiffs in the MDL action also signed dealer
agreements that contained arbitration clauses. The Defendant moved
to compel arbitration in those cases. On Feb. 5, 2024, the Court
issued an opinion denying the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration in those cases, concluding that the Defendant had
waived the right to avail itself of the arbitral forum by seeking
dispositive rulings from the Court on the merits of all claims
pleaded in the consolidated master complaint (CMC), In re Chrysler
Pacifica Fire Recall Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 22-3040, 2024 WL
416370, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 5, 2024).
The Defendant appealed that ruling, and the Court stayed the
proceedings as to the 18 plaintiffs involved in that appeal. The
appeal remains pending in the Sixth Circuit.
In the meantime, in the Bernardoni lawsuit, the Defendant had filed
its answer to the separate complaint on Jan. 5, 2024. However, on
Feb. 9, 2024, the Defendant filed its motion to amend its answer to
assert the arbitration agreement as an affirmative defense to the
Binders' claims and a motion to compel arbitration.
This case has been consolidated into the MDL, although the
Plaintiffs here do not seek to join the putative class. The Court
initially established a timeline for discovery and motion practice
relating to class certification and the merits of the claims in the
main case, and that schedule has been enlarged several times at the
parties' joint request.
As it stands presently, the schedule calls for the parties to file
motions challenging experts relating to class certification by June
10, 2024 (which they have done), the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is due by Sept. 11, 2024, all discovery must be
completed by Jan. 31, 2025, and dispositive and expert motions
concerning merits questions must be filed no later than Feb. 28,
2025.
To start, the Defendant seeks to amend its answer to add the
arbitration affirmative defense. The Plaintiffs resist the motion
to amend by reiterating their opposition to the motion to compel
arbitration: that the Defendant waived its right to compel
arbitration by waiting until after filing its answer and engaging
in discovery to file its arbitration motion. They also argue
futility, citing the Court's previous ruling on a motion to compel
arbitration as to some of the plaintiffs in the main MDL action,
and they contend that the defendant delayed too long before seeking
the amendment.
Judge Lawson finds the Defendant did not "unduly delay" seeking to
amend its affirmative defenses because it sought to amend promptly
after it learned about the arbitration agreement upon receiving a
copy of the purchase contract in response to a subpoena. Judge
Lawson points out that the Defendant's assertion of the arbitration
defense is not futile; the question of the arbitration clause's
applicability must be determined by
the arbitrator, as explained below. And the issue of waiver or
forfeiture of the defense is a merits question that does not
preclude amendment of the answer.
Moreover, contrary to the Plaintiffs' argument, Judge Lawson says
there is no evidence in the record suggesting that the Defendant
acted with any improper motive where its motion to compel
arbitration was filed in this case promptly at the outset of the
litigation before the Defendant sought any dispositive relief from
the Court relating to the newly consolidated claims.
This tag-along action is in its infancy, discovery only recently
commenced, and no dispositive motion practice has yet occurred. The
Plaintiffs have not identified any way in which they will be
significantly prejudiced by the amendment, Judge Lawson points out.
The Defendant's motion to amend its answer will be granted.
The Defendant also argues that the delegation clause in the
arbitration agreement consigns to the arbitrator all questions
about the arbitrability of the Plaintiffs' claims, which must be
addressed in the first instance in the arbitral forum.
Alternatively, it contends that if the Court decides the question
of arbitrability, the arbitration agreement is valid and covers the
Plaintiffs' claims, and the agreement may be invoked by the
Defendant as a non-signatory.
The Plaintiffs take issue with the applicability of the delegation
clause, but their main argument is that the Defendant waived its
right to compel arbitration by waiting until after it filed an
answer and engaged in discovery before asserting that defense.
The Court considered the scope of a dealer agreement's arbitration
clause with nearly identical language in Harper v. General Motors,
LLC, No. 21-12907, 2023 WL 2586298, (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2023).
Judge Lawson finds the Plaintiffs have not established any good
grounds to avoid the same result in this case, on indistinguishable
facts, in the same procedural posture.
In this instance, just as in Harper, Judge Lawson explains the
contract language unambiguously delegates to the arbitrator all
threshold questions of arbitrability. This case is an even clearer
call than Harper because here the Plaintiffs do not dispute the
existence or validity of the purchase contract containing the
arbitration clause. Instead, they merely argue that the claims are
not subject to arbitration. But that is an argument that they
agreed to have an arbitrator address, not this Court.
Notably, the clause here, as in Harper, conspicuously contemplates
arbitration of disputes about the involvement of third parties.
Instead, the clause plainly delegates to an arbitrator all
questions about "the interpretation and scope" of "this Arbitration
Provision" -- in its entirety -- and "the arbitrability of the
claim or dispute." This Court so held in Harper, construing
identical contract language. The Court reaches the same result
here. All of the Plaintiffs' arguments about the scope of the
arbitration clause must be presented to an arbitrator to consider.
The contract in question delegates to an arbitrator all questions
of arbitrability, and the Defendant has not waived its right to
seek diversion to the alternative forum, Judge Lawson holds, among
other things. The Defendant has satisfied the requirements for
obtaining leave to amend its answer to assert the arbitration
affirmative defense.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's motion for leave to
amend its answer to the complaint, and its motion to compel
arbitration.
Judge Lawson rules that the dispute concerning Plaintiffs Justin
Binder and Katherine Binder only will be submitted to arbitration
in accordance with the contract, and their case in this Court is
stayed. Nothing in this order or in the related docket entry will
be considered a dismissal of this matter.
After the arbitration has concluded, either party may apply to the
Court to dissolve the stay and reopen proceedings relating to the
Binder Plaintiffs for the purpose of enforcing, confirming, or
vacating, as appropriate, the arbitral award. The Court will retain
jurisdiction to review and enforce or vacate the arbitral award.
The case as it pertains to Plaintiffs Jevechius Bernardoni and
Bahar Navab will proceed as a tagalong case to MDL 3040, and the
case management benchmarks as established in that matter in
Pretrial Order No. 7, except insofar as they pertain to class
certification, will govern the management of this case (In re
Chrysler Pacifica Fire Recall Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 22-3040, ECF
No. 113).
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated June 20,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5ea9rmen from
PacerMonitor.com.
FENIX INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Automatic Subscription Renewal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. FENIX INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; FENIX INTERNET LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-03713 (N.D. Cal., June 20, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendants seeking to obtain injunctive
and monetary relief for the Plaintiffs and all other similarly
situated OnlyFans customers in California, who entered an automatic
renewal plan without receiving the pre- and post-subscription
disclosures that are required by the California's Automatic Renewal
Law.
The Defendants own and operate the popular sexual content platform
"OnlyFans," through which consumers can subscribe to the OnlyFans
accounts of one or more among thousands of different performers,
known as content creators. Consumer subscriptions are the
cornerstone of Defendants' revenue model. Yet in violation of
California's ARL, by failing to clearly and conspicuously advise
its customers that their initial subscription to a creator will be
automatically renewed, OnlyFans tricks its customers into making
recurring payments, triggering a charge to the customer's debit or
credit card ranging from $4.99 to $49.99 for the following month,
says the suit.
Fenix International Limited is a business entity incorporated and
registered in England and Wales, with its headquarters in
London.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark W. Poe, Esq.
Randolph Gaw, Esq.
Victor Meng, Esq.
Flora Vigo, Esq.
GAW | POE LLP
4 Embarcadero, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 766-7451
E-mail: mpoe@gawpoe.com
rgaw@gawpoe.com
vmeng@gawpoe.com
fvigo@gawpoe.com
FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT: Hallman's Bid for Protective Order Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska denies without prejudice the
Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order, Corrective Notice, and
Equitable Estoppel in the lawsuit entitled BRITTNEY HALLMAN, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
8:24-cv-00222-JFB-JMD (D. Neb.).
On June 14, 2024, Plaintiff Brittney Hallman filed a putative class
action complaint against Defendant Flagship Restaurant Group
alleging wage-related violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law. Six days later, on June 20, she
filed her motion seeking a protective order.
Ms. Hallman alleges the Defendant's director of operations has
improperly contacted prospective class members to dissuade them
from joining the lawsuit and has contacted Hallman herself to
encourage her to dismiss her lawsuit. She asks the Court to:
(1) issue a protective order prohibiting the Defendant, or its
agents, employees, and assigns, from contacting the named
Plaintiff or the putative class members without the prior
knowledge and consent of either the Plaintiff's counsel or
the Court;
(2) order that a corrective notice be issued to all
prospective class members, at the Defendant's expense;
(3) equitably estop the Defendant from raising a statute of
limitations defense to FLSA claims arising on or after
June 18, 2021.
Judge Bataillon notes that Hallman does not explain the basis for
her request for relief. Ordinarily, a protective order would be
discussed during the parties' required conference pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Such a conference has not
occurred because Hallman has not served the Defendant yet.
To the extent Hallman may want an earlier protective order, Judge
Bataillon finds she has not shown that she has attempted to confer
with the Defendant about it prior to contacting the Court and
filing her motion.
Alternatively, Judge Bataillon says it is possible Hallman is
seeking relief under either the rule governing class actions,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, or the rule governing
injunctive relief, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.
Judge Bataillon opines that Hallman has presented no evidence upon
which the Court could make factual findings or base a ruling under
Rule 23(d). Likewise, if the Court were to treat Hallman's motion
as one seeking injunctive relief, it lacks adequate support.
As explained, Judge Bataillon notes that the Defendant has not yet
appeared in the case, yet Hallman provides neither verified facts
nor an explanation of why she cannot serve the Defendant. The Court
notes Hallman includes a copy of a cease-and-desist letter sent to
the Defendant, thus, indicating she has the ability to serve and
provide notice of this lawsuit and motion to the Defendant.
Even if the injunction were not requested ex parte, Judge Bataillon
finds Hallman has failed to provide the Court with adequate
information and evidence upon which it could issue an injunction.
Because injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy, the movant
bears the burden of establishing the propriety of issuing a
preliminary injunction.
Judge Bataillon also opines that Hallman has provided no analysis
or information regarding any of the factors under Dataphase Sys.,
Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981), and has
not met her burden of showing a temporary restraining order or
preliminary injunction is warranted. It seems to the Court that
Hallman's request is premature but may be warranted at a later
stage in the case. If Hallman deems it appropriate to re-file her
motion at a later date, she is cautioned to ensure it meets the
requirements of the applicable rule(s) of civil procedure.
Accordingly, the Court rules that the Plaintiff's Motion for
Protective Order, Corrective Notice, and Equitable Estoppel is
denied without prejudice to reassertion at a later date.
The Plaintiff is ordered to serve the Defendant and provide it with
notice of this lawsuit. Thereafter, the Plaintiff and the Defendant
will engage in a pre-answer meet and confer regarding how the
parties may contact prospective class members.
If the parties cannot agree on the parameters for contact with
prospective class members, they may either contact the magistrate
judge to set a conference to discuss entry of a disputed protective
order or the Plaintiff may file a properly supported motion seeking
injunctive relief or an order under Rule 23(d) at that time.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated June 20,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3c8s74fj from
PacerMonitor.com.
FORESTAL: Davydov Sues Over Construction Defects
------------------------------------------------
ALBERT DAVYDOV, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE FORESTAL, THE
INDIVIDUAL BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE FORESTAL, JOSHUA MUSS,
individually, and as Partner of MIDFOREST PARTNERSHIP, MICHAEL
KOSTRON, individually, and as an individual Board of Manager
member, KEW FOREST PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, PIROZZI MANAGEMENT, ALL
AREA REALTY MANAGEMENT, MICHAEL LAGO, individually, and as agent of
ALL AREA REALTY, PRECISION ASSET MANAGEMENT, KELLY OCCIPINTI,
individually, as the CEO of Precision Asset Management, ANDREW
TROIA, individually, as attorney to the Forestal Board of Managers,
THE CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS, THE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF GREATER NEW YORK; GREATER NEW YORK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY;
TOWER INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC.; CASTLEPOINT INSURANCE
COMPANY; ALLIED WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY; DONBGU INSURANCE CO., LTD.
(U.S. BRANCH), AND NATIONAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH,
PA., ORIENTAL BANK OF NEW YORK, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04390
(E.D.N.Y., June 20, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
for common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, conspiracy, unjust
enrichment, declaratory judgment, and violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations and the New York Penal Law.
The complaint alleges that Defendants, acting in concert and with a
common purpose or plan relative to each enterprise, intentionally
and knowingly made omissions that constituted fraudulent statements
of material fact to by submitting or causing to be submitted
business records and legal documents that contained false
representations of material fact concerning the ventilation systems
to purchasers of condominium units, and insurance companies who are
named Defendants in this cause of action, and ultimately contracted
for insurance agreements without disclosing serious construction
defects and city code violations.
The false statements of material fact include the representations
in each and every claim described herein that: 1) the Forestal
Building did not have any serious defects, when it did have serious
defects; 2) the Forestal Building did not have any serious defects
that would impede it being eligible specifically for insurance
coverage, when it did; 3) the Forestal Building did not have any
serious defects that would warrant disclosure to a unit purchaser,
when it did, says the suit.
The Plaintiff has been injured in its business and property by
reason of Defendants' alleged conduct in that it collectively has
paid common charges of hundreds of thousands of dollars, in which
were incorporated false and fraudulent charges for insurance
premiums, assessments resulting from bank loans, and which
cumulatively resulted in a highly inflated "common expense" being
levied by the Board of Managers since on or about February 2023,
the suit asserts.
Forestal Condominium is a condominium building located in Forest
Hills, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Rykaczewski, Esq.
97-77 Queens Boulevard, 9th Floor
Rego Park, NY 11374
Telephone: (201) 953-4450
Facsimile: (718) 897-5667
E-mail: regoparkattorney@gmail.com
- and -
Karen Cigna, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN CIGNA
26 Court St.
New York, NY 11242
Telephone: (718) 852-7572
FOUNDATION PARTNERS: Valle Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FOUNDATION PARTNERS
GROUP, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Catherine Valle, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated v. FOUNDATION PARTNERS
GROUP, LLC, DOES 1 TO 100, Case No. CGC24614800 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Francisco Cty., May 20, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Business Tort."
Foundation Partners Group -- https://foundationpartners.com/ -- is
a portfolio company that owns and operates funeral homes and
cemeteries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Win Pham, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: 310-432-0000
Email: wpham@lelawfirm.com
FUTURE BARS: Herrera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FUTURE BARS, INC., et
al. The case is styled as Carolina Herrera, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. FUTURE BARS, INC., DOUG
DALTON, BRIAN SHEEHY, DOES 1 TO 100, Case No. CGC24614862 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 22, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Future Bars Inc. -- https://www.futurebars.com/ -- is a Wineries &
Breweries, Food, Beverages & Tobacco, and Manufacturing
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
WYNNE LAW FIRM
80 E Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ste. 3G
Larkspur, CA 94939-1709
Phone: 415-461-6400
Fax: 415-461-3900
GENERAL MOTORS: Torres Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors LLC.
The case is styled as Michael Torres, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, OnStar LLC,
LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., Verisk Analytics, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-02295-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 24, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
General Motors Company -- https://www.gm.com/ -- is an American
multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in
Detroit, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
Jeremy K. Robinson, Esq.
Patricia Camille Guerra, Esq.
CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT &PENFIELD, LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 238-1811
Email: gmb@cglaw.com
camille@cglaw.com
- and -
James Cameron Tribble, Esq.
John Raymond Bevis, Esq.
Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
THE BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Phone: (770) 227-6375
Email: ctribble@barneslawgroup.com
Bevis@barneslawgroup.com
Roy@barneslawgroup.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Edward Alexander Marshall, Esq.
ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP
171 17th Street NW, Suite 2100
Atlanta, GA 30363
Phone: (404) 873-8536
Fax: (404) 873-8537
Email: edward.marshall@agg.com
INSURANCE AUTO: Leon Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hector Leon, individuals, on behalf of himself, all aggrieved
employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys
General v. INSURANCE AUTO AUCTIONS, INC., an Illinois corporation,
and DOFS 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV13338 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., May 28, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), Cal Labor Code for the
Defendant's failure to pay minimum and overtime wages.
The Defendant has had a consistent policy and/or practice of:
failing to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours
worked; failing to pay minimum wage; failing to provide rest breaks
and cool-down rest periods; failing to provide uninterrupted meal
breaks and second meal breaks; failing to pay wages due upon
termination including vacation wages; failing to reimburse for
required business expenses; failing to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a "Yard Attendant II" until February
2024.
INSURANCE AUTO AUCTIONS, INC. is an Illinois corporation authorized
to do business and doing business in California with the capacity
to sue and to be sued, and doing business, in the county of Los
Angeles, State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq
KOUL LAW FIRM, APC
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
Email: nazo@koullaw.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
Garen Majarian, Esq.
MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Phone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
Email: Sahagii@aol.com
garen@majarianlawgroup.com
JUST PANMACO: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUST PANMACO, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04687 (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2024) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for the failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.justusajeans.com, to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights
Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when
Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on January 12,
2024 to access Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an
effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers
that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods,
content, and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the
Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs,
the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with
the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the
perfume that Plaintiff wished to acquire from the Website, says the
suit.
Just Panmaco, Inc. operates as a clothing company.[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
L'OREAL USA: Danso Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------
CHARITY DANSO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. L'OREAL USA, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04692 (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2024) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for the failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.valentino-beauty.us,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights
Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when she
attempted multiple times, most recently on May 7, 2024 to access
Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for
Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full
and equal access to online goods, content, and services. Due to
Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is
compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to
understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus
denied the benefit of purchasing the perfume that Plaintiff wished
to acquire from the Website, says the suit.
L'Oreal USA is a French multinational personal care company.[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
LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Shippley Suit Moved From Washington to Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Tana Lin of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington, Seattle, grants the Parties' stipulated motion to
transfer venue in the lawsuit titled PATRICIA SHIPPLEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, a foreign company doing business
in Washington State, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00813-TL (W.D.
Wash.).
The Parties agreed to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.
Plaintiff Patricia Shippley, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and Defendant loanDepot.com, LLC, by and
through their counsel, jointly bring this stipulated motion to
transfer this action to the Central District of California pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404)(a) and Local Civil Rule 7(d)(1).
The Defendant makes this stipulated motion while reserving all
rights to challenge the claims asserted against it on any and all
grounds, including all jurisdictional, substantive, and procedural
rights and defenses it has with respect to any claim that the
Plaintiffs has asserted.
On May 9, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against loanDepot
in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County,
and the matter was assigned Case No. 24-2-10416-0. On June 7, 2024,
loanDepot removed this action to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.
Nearly five months prior to the filing of the Plaintiffs'
Complaint, on Jan. 19, 2024, a related case alleging claims arising
out of a cybersecurity incident experienced by loanDepot in January
2024, captioned Isaiah v. loanDepot, Inc., Case No. 8:24-cv-00136,
was filed in the Central District of California. Since that time,
the Isaiah action has been consolidated with twenty-one other class
actions in the Central District of California, before Judge David
O. Carter, In re loanDepot Data Breach Litigation, Case No.
8:24-cv-00136-DOC-JDE (C.D. Cal.) (the "Consolidated Action").
Judge Lin finds that venue is proper in the Central District of
California because loanDepot resides in that judicial district,
having its principal place of business in Irvine, California. The
Central District of California has subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). As evidenced by
the twenty-one cases already consolidated in Central District of
California, the Plaintiff could have brought the action there.
While the precise causes of action alleged vary across the
complaints, Judge Lin finds the plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Action purport to represent nationwide classes of individuals,
including impacted Washington residents, who seek damages and other
relief in connection with the January 2024 cybersecurity incident,
including for alleged breaches of common-law, statutory, and
contractual duties to reasonably protect consumer data.
Judge Lin also finds that the interests of justice favor transfer,
as it would preserve judicial resources and promote judicial
efficiency by avoiding duplicative litigation and further the
convenience of the parties, including because many of the relevant
witnesses, records, and documents are located in Irvine,
California, within the Central District of California. Finally, the
Parties have conferred and agree to transfer this matter to the
Central District of California.
A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order dated June
20, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydxcctkm from
PacerMonitor.com.
Timothy W. Emery -- emeryt@emeryreddy.com -- Patrick B. Reddy --
reddyp@emeryreddy.com -- Brook E. Garberding --
brook@emeryreddy.com -- Paul Cipriani -- paul@emeryreddy.com --
EMERY REDDY, PLLC, in Seattle, WA 98101, Attorneys for Plaintiff
Patricia Shippley.
Christopher B. Durbin -- cdurbin@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP, in
Seattle, WA 98101-1355, Attorneys for Defendant loanDepot.com,
LLC.
MATRIX ABSENCE: N.D. California Narrows Claims in Cook Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Casey Pitts of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned ALICE COOK,
Plaintiff v. MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-05690-PCP (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff Alice Cook brings this action against her employer,
Matrix Absence Management, Inc. She asserts several California
Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claims based on her
alleged misclassification as an exempt employee.
Matrix administers disability and leave of absence claims for its
employer clients. Ms. Cook began working as a claims examiner for
Matrix in 2014. This job involved reviewing disability and leave of
absence claims to determine whether claimants were eligible for
benefits based on set guidelines. Matrix classified Ms. Cook as an
exempt, salaried employee in this position.
Ms. Cook claims she was misclassified. As a result, she alleges
that from 2014 through 2023, Matrix did not pay her overtime wages
for overtime hours, did not provide meal or rest breaks, and did
not itemize the hours she worked on her wage statements. She
alleges that she regularly worked 10–12 hours on weekdays and
several hours each weekend. She contends that Matrix gave her a
list of tasks every morning with strict deadlines, and that meeting
these deadlines often required her to skip rest and meal breaks and
to work overtime hours.
In 2020, two other Matrix employees filed a putative class action
against Matrix in Arizona. They alleged that Matrix had
misclassified them as exempt and brought claims for failure to pay
overtime wages. Class certification was denied. The case then
settled and was dismissed. One week later, in September 2023,
Matrix reclassified Ms. Cook as non-exempt.
Ms. Cook filed this lawsuit in California state court the next
month. She asserts five claims under the California Labor Code: (1)
failure to pay overtime wages, (2) failure to pay minimum wages,
(3) failure to provide required meal periods, (4) failure to
provide rest breaks, (5) failure to furnish wage statements. She
also asserts a sixth claim for violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL).
After Matrix removed the case to this Court in November 2023, Ms.
Cook filed an amended complaint. Matrix then moved to dismiss her
claims for failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to
furnish wages statements, and UCL violations.
Matrix argues that Ms. Cook has not supported her meal and rest
period claims with factual allegations that satisfy Rule 8. This
argument fails, Judge Pitts holds.
Judge Pitts opines that Ms. Cook's allegations, by contrast, are
more than sufficient. She does not simply allege that Matrix
operated in a way that denied its employees meal and rest breaks
without alleging that she herself was not provided such breaks.
Instead, Ms. Cook asserts that she was not given required meal and
rest breaks and explains why she did not receive these breaks.
Whether this actually happened is a factual question she must prove
at a later stage. But at the pleading stage her allegations
suffice.
Ms. Cook also asserts that as a result of her misclassification and
Matrix's alleged failure to pay overtime and meal/rest period
premium wages, her wage statements were inaccurate and incomplete.
On this basis she brings a claim under Section 226 of the
California Labor Code, which requires accurate wage statements and
allows for statutory penalties if an employer knowingly and
intentionally fails to provide such statements.
Matrix first argues that this claim should be dismissed to the
extent it is derivative of Ms. Cook's meal and rest period claims.
Because Matrix's motion to dismiss those claims is denied, this
parallel challenge to the wage statement claim also fails, Judge
Pitts holds.
As currently formulated, Ms. Cook's complaint suggests (even if it
does not explicitly allege) that Matrix knew the facts underlying
its alleged wage statement violations. But under Naranjo v.
Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 15 Cal. 5th 1056, ––––, 320
Cal. Rptr. 3d. 646, 667 (2024), Judge Pitts says this is not
enough. Ms. Cook's complaint does not allege that Matrix's failure
to provide timely and accurate wage statements was knowing or
intentional. Accordingly, Judge Pitts rules, her wage statement
claim is dismissed with leave to amend.
Ms. Cook's final claim is for a violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law, which prohibits unfair competition, including in
the form of unlawful business practices. Her claim under the UCL's
unlawful prong is based on her allegedly unlawful misclassification
as an exempt employee and the ensuing Labor Code violations.
Because the Court lacks equitable jurisdiction to consider the
merits of Ms. Cook's UCL claim and is remanding it to state court,
Judge Pitts holds that Matrix's motion to dismiss this claim is
denied as moot.
For these reasons, the Court rules that Matrix's motion to dismiss
is granted as to Ms. Cook's wage statement claim but otherwise
denied. The UCL claim is severed and remanded to California state
court.
An amended complaint, if Ms. Cook chooses to file one, will be due
July 11, 2024. Matrix's answer to Ms. Cook's original complaint or
response to her amended complaint will be due Aug. 1, 2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 20, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/s6pkkv2n from PacerMonitor.com.
MDL 2700: Class Cert Bid Filing in PMC Suit Due Sept. 11
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pikeville Medical Center
v. Genentech, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00251(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 Pikeville 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=ahLSMT at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2700: Class Cert Bid Filing in Trastuzumab Suit Due Sept. 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: MDL 2700 Genentech Herceptin
(Trastuzumab) Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 4
4:22-cv-00251-GKF-JFJ (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:
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=jXUwYD at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2700: Class Cert Bid Filing in VCII Suit Due Sept. 11
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Virginia Cancer Institute
Incorporated v. Genentech Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00207 (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 Virginia Cancer 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=0DGKKH at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2873: Wisher Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
DARRYL WISHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-03672-RMG (D.S.C., June 25, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the
suit.
The Wisher case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 815-9000
Facsimile: (216) 274-9365
MDL 3040: Bid for Curative Class Notice in Pacifica Fire MDL Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David M. Lawson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and
Order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for a curative class notice in
the lawsuit titled IN RE: CHRYSLER PACIFICA FIRE RECALL PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 2:22-cv-03040-DML-EAS (E.D. Mich.),
MDL No. 3040.
The Plaintiffs in this multidistrict litigation allege that
Defendant FCA US LLC manufactured and sold them Chrysler Pacifica
Plug-in Hybrid minivans that are defective because they have been
known to combust spontaneously. They filed a voluminous
consolidated master complaint (CMC), which pleaded 81 causes of
action sounding in breaches of express and implied warranties and
violations of various state laws governing consumer sales,
deceptive marketing, and unfair trade practices.
The Plaintiffs acknowledge that FCA conducted a voluntary recall of
the class vehicles based on the fire risk, but they allege that the
measures implemented by the recall are insufficient to cure the
problem, because the recall remedy consists merely of a software
patch intended to "monitor" the battery system for conditions that
may lead to thermal runaway, and no repair or replacement of the
battery pack is offered unless Chrysler deems it "necessary" after
an inspection. And they have submitted affidavits from two vehicle
purchasers whose vehicles have caught fire even after their
dealerships installed the remedial patch.
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to order Defendant FCA to send a
"curative notice" to the proposed (as yet uncertified) class of
vehicle owners to counter allegedly misleading communications by
the Defendant, which the Plaintiffs say downplay the safety hazard
that the vehicles present.
The Court heard oral arguments on the motion in open court on June
12, 2024. Because the Plaintiffs have not shown that any of their
cited authority permits the Court to issue such notices at this
stage of the litigation, Judge Lawson denies the motion.
Judge Lawson notes that the Plaintiffs rely exclusively on Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d) as the authority for the curative
notice they seek. Let's examine the text of the rule. The case law
on application of the rule is not very expansive. The leading case
is Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89 (1981).
The Gulf Oil Court's focus was not so much on compelled
communication, as the Plaintiffs seek here, but on the limitations
imposed on parties within the class proceeding, Judge Lawson says.
Judge Lawson says the Plaintiffs' request is somewhat unusual in
the context of Rule 23 in that they ask the Court to send out a
"curative notice" to prospective members of a class (or classes)
that do not yet exist, based on their contention -- hotly disputed
by the Defendant and touching on liability questions at the heart
of this litigation -- that the Defendant's NHTSA-approved recall
notice "implying" that the class vehicles are safe to operate
normally after application of the recall software patch exposes
vehicle owners to an ongoing risk of catastrophic fires with the
potential to harm persons or property.
The Plaintiffs base their demand on the anecdotal accounts from two
vehicle owners who experienced fires after the recall remedy was
applied. But they have not cited any legal authority for the
remarkable proposition that the Court has authority under Rule
23(d) to send a "curative notice" to potential class members,
before the requirements for class certification have been
established (or even considered by the Court), which essentially
endorses the Plaintiffs' position on disputed issues of fact at the
heart of the litigation, Judge Lawson opines.
As mentioned, Judge Lawson explains that the case law on point is
thin with little treatment in appellate rulings or from the Supreme
Court, save for the Gulf Oil decision. However, other federal
courts confronted with similar requests to authorize
pre-certification "curative notices" emphatically have rejected
such requests as far exceeding the Court's limited authority under
Rule 23(d).
Certainly, Judge Lawson notes, the concerns advanced by the
Plaintiffs are serious and worthy of attention from the appropriate
authorities. However, as the Defendant points out, National Highway
Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA) already has opened
a "Recall Query" concerning the effectiveness of the recall remedy
and the extent of the ongoing battery fire risk posed by the
Defendant's vehicles, which was prompted by the reports of
post-recall fires.
Any automaker initiating a recall is subjected to ongoing oversight
by NHTSA to ensure the effectiveness of the recall, with potential
sanctions from the agency if its efforts to ensure vehicle safety
are found wanting. Judge Lawson points out that the plaintiffs have
offered no information suggesting that NHTSA has shirked its duty
to monitor the effectiveness of the recall and to take appropriate
follow up action should the notice and corrective actions
previously initiated be found insufficient to address the public
safety risk posed by the subject vehicles.
Judge Lawson also finds that the Plaintiffs have not established
that their proposed notice would serve any of the purposes for a
permissible "curative notice" under Rule 23(d), and federal courts
routinely have rejected similar proposed notices that effectively
endorse a party's litigating position on disputed issues,
especially prior to formal class certification.
Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion for a curative
class notice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated June 20,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/duxjdp4f from
PacerMonitor.com.
MHC RECEIVABLES: Rodriguez-Ocasio Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Luis A. Rodriguez-Ocasio, Felicia Ann Earle,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MHC
Receivables LLC, FNBM LLC, Credit Asset Sales LLC, Resurgent
Acquisitions LLC, LVNV Funding LLC, John Does 1-10, Case No. ESX L
002788 24 was removed from the Superior Court of Essex County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
May 28, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-06493-EP-MAH to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.
MHC Receivables, LLC is a startup company that was incorporated in
Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM, LLC
411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 273-7117
Fax: (201) 273-7117
Email: ykim@kimlf.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Austin Patrick O'Brien, Esq.
1795 Riverside Dr., Apt. 2k
New York, NY 10034
Phone: (574) 298-0859
Email: Austin.obrien@jrobbinlaw.com
MTBC LTD: Palmer Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Proper Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
JUDY PALMER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. MTBC LTD, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00146-H
(N.D. Tex., June 21, 2024) arises from the Defendant's unlawful
labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff
in accordance with the FLSA in that they failed to pay Plaintiff
time and one-half regular hourly rate for working weekly hours
worked in excess of 40 overtime hours. The Defendant misclassified
Plaintiff as exempt from FLSA requirements and paid Plaintiff on a
salaried basis with no regard to the number of hours Plaintiff
actually worked. The Plaintiff brings this action as a collective
action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant during the three years
prior to the filing of this suit through approximately March 2021
to January 2024 and was misclassified as a salaried office
specialist.
MTBC Ltd. is doing business in Austin, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katherine Serrano, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
E-mail: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com
NESTLE PURINA: Fields Sues Over Failure to Prevent Noxious Odors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Fields, and Lorena Ortiz, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated V. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE CO. a Missouri
Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-01500-STV (D. Colo., May 28, 2024),
is brought against the Defendant's failures to prevent noxious
off-site odors and has negligently and knowingly failed to properly
design, operate, repair, and/or maintain the Facility and its
associated operations, thereby causing the invasion of Plaintiffs'
property by noxious odors on unusually frequent, intermittent and
ongoing reoccurring occasions.
The Plaintiffs' property has been and continues to be physically
invaded by noxious odors. The noxious odors which entered
Plaintiffs' property originated from Defendant's Facility. The
emissions produced by Defendant's cooking process are noxious and
highly odiferous. Defendant has acknowledged that the Facility is
the source of the odors invading the Plaintiffs' property.
Despite Defendant's representations, the odors caused by the
Facility have been and continue to be dispersed across all public
and private land in the class area. A properly designed, operated,
and maintained pet food manufacturing Facility will adequately
capture, remove, and dispose excess noxious emissions and will not
emit noxious odors into the ambient air as fugitive emissions.
Defendant is required to control its odorous emissions by, among
other things, operating and maintaining the Facility in a manner
that adequately captures, controls, and mitigates odorous emissions
so as to prevent them from escaping into the ambient air
surrounding the Facility and implementing other reasonably
available odor mitigation, elimination, and control systems at the
Facility.
The Defendant has failed to install, maintain, operate, develop,
and/or implement adequate odor mitigating strategies, processes,
technology, and equipment to control its odorous emissions from the
Facility and prevent those odors and emissions from invading the
homes and properties of Plaintiffs and the putative Class, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs reside within 1 mile of the Facility's property
boundary and suffer serious discomfort because of the Defendant's
noxious odor.
The Defendant operates an industrial pet food manufacturing
facility surrounded by residential properties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven D. Liddle, #Esq.
Laura L. Sheets, #Esq.
LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON, P.C.
975 E. Jefferson Ave
Detroit, MI 48207
Phone: (313) 392-0015
Email: sliddle@lsccounsel.com
lsheets@lsccounsel.com
ncoulson@lscounsel.com
- and -
R. Keith Fuicelli, #Esq.
FUICELLI & LEE, P.C.
1731 Gilpin Street
Denver, CO 80218
Phone: (303) 355-7202
Fax: (303) 355-7208
Email: keith@coloradoinjurylaw.com
NEW YORK: Roland Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------
LEO P. ROLAND, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, SARENA TOWNSEND, in
her individual capacity, and RUBEN BENITEZ, in his individual
capacity, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04447 (E.D.N.Y., June 23,
2024) brings class and individual claims against the Defendants for
violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, the New York City Human Rights Law, and Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act.
The Plaintiff brings the First Cause of Action on behalf of the
FMLA Notice Classes for interference violations of the FMLA, as a
class action, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), (c)(4), against the City
for injunctive relief.
He additionally brings this action, as a class action, on behalf of
the members of the FMLA Denial Classes who were not offered and/or
provided unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation of their
disability, simultaneous with, in addition to, and/or as an
alternative to FMLA leave.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings the Third, Fourth, Eighth, Ninth
Causes of Action on behalf of the Failure to Accommodate Class for
failure to accommodate, interference, and/or obligation to engage
in a cooperative dialogue violations of the Rehabilitation Act and
the NYCHRL.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant City in New York City
Department of Correction from May 26, 2011 through November 11,
2022, when Defendant City constructively discharged him. The
Plaintiff is a Black male and his ethnicity and/or national origin
is Haitian and Puerto Rican.
City of New York is a municipal corporation or entity created and
authorized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cyrus E. Dugger, Esq.
THE DUGGER LAW FIRM, PLLC
28-07 Jackson Ave., 5th Fl.
Long Island City, NY 11101
Telephone: (646) 560-3208
Facsimile: (646) 390-4524
E-mail: cd@theduggerlawfirm.com
OTO DEVELOPMENT: Evans Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LeShawn Evans, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OTO Development, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-05165 (N.D. Ill., June 20, 2024) seeks redress and
curtailment of Defendant's alleged unlawful collections,
obtainments, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive
and proprietary biometric identifiers and/or biometric information
in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Plaintiff worked for OTO's hotel in Chicago, Illinois within the
five years prior to filing this Complaint and had his biometric
information processed via a fingerprint scan as part of the time
clock procedure for timekeeping and payroll purposes.
According to the complaint, OTO has collected and stored the facial
geometry of each employee who was required to use the fingerprint
scanning technology as part of OTO's timeclock procedure.
Allegedly, the Defendant failed to permanently destroy Plaintiff's
fingerprint scans following each time punch or at the conclusion of
Plaintiff's employment. Additionally, OTO collected, stored, and
used Plaintiff's biometric information without ever receiving a
written release executed by Plaintiff which would consent to or
authorize OTO to do the same, says the suit.
OTO Development LLC operates as a homebuilders. The Company
provides hotel development and management services, as well as
offers labor analysis on a weekly basis, profit and loss on a
monthly basis, social media and reputation monitoring, and
budgeting and forecasting services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave. Suite 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
11 1/2 N. Franklin Street
Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com
PRIME MEDICAL: Phillips Sue Over Pharmacy Staff's Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Phillips, Joseph J. Azzata, Joseph T. Azzata, and other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. Prime Medical
Supplies, Inc, a Florida Corporation, and, Louis Sitaras,
individually. JLMS Holdings, LLC, a Florida Corporation, and
Salvatore Lantieri, Defendants, Case No. 9:24-cv-80760 (S.D. Fla.,
June 21, 2024) is an action against the Defendants to recover money
damages for Plaintiffs' unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Phillips worked for the Defendants from September 8, 2020
and continuing through January 19, 2024 as head pharmacist in
charge of dispensing prescriptions to various third parties around
the U.S.
Plaintiffs Joseph J. Azzata and Joseph T. Azzata worked as Licensed
Pharmacy Technicians and managers processing insurance claims,
packaging and labeling prescribed mediation and tracking inventory,
from December 4, 2017 and continuing through January 31, 2024, and
from December 4, 2017 and continuing through January 22, 2024,
respectively.
Prime Medical Supplies, Inc. is a provider of home care and
rehabilitation equipment and supplies.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven L. Ehrlich, Esq.
Franklin Jara, Esq.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
9150 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400
P.O. Box 569015
Miami, FL 33256
Telephone: (786) 268-6415
Facsimile: (305) 373-2294
E-mail: steven.ehrlich@csklegal.com
franklin.jara@csklegal.com
SCOUT ENERGY: Williams Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access
------------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA WILLIAMS and STEPHEN VAUGHT, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01588-S (N.D. Tex., June 25, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of California
Civil Code.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within its
network systems following a data breach. The Defendant also failed
to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals
about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the
Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through
access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties,
says the suit.
Scout Energy Management, LLC is an investment company with its
principal place of business located in Dallas, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
SEMAINE HEALTH: Deas Sues Over Dietary Supplements' False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
HAYLAH DEAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff v. SEMAINE HEALTH CO., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-at-00775
(E.D. Cal., June 20, 2024) seeks to redress the false, misleading,
and deceptive advertising and packaging claims that Defendant has
made in connection with the sale of its purportedly "clinically
proven" dietary supplement marketed under the name "Semaine PMS and
Period Support."
According to the complaint, the front of the packaging for PMS &
Period Support prominently claims that the product is "clinically
studied," a representation repeated on the website and in
advertisements. The packaging assures consumers that it reduces
cramps, lessens bloating, increases energy, and boosts mood. The
Defendant's website adds the claims that the product is the "first
clinically-studied supplement for rapid relief," that consumers can
take "as needed," that it "works like a plant-based OTC," and that
it is "clinically proven to combat inflammation for lasting relief
up to six hours."
Contrary to these false claims, Defendant's purported "clinical
study" does not support its representations that the ingredients in
PMS & Period Support either individually or in combination
"rapidly" relieve PMS symptoms or combat inflammation for "lasting
relief of up to six hours." By making these false claims, Defendant
has defrauded consumers, including Plaintiff, into purchasing a
product at a premium price that they believed to be clinically
proven to be effective to relieve specific PMS symptoms when, in
fact, PMS & Period Support does not, the suit alleges.
Semaine Health Co. is a health and wellness company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Denlea, Esq.
Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
Steven R. Schoenfeld, Esq.
Catherine H. Friesen, Esq.
2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410
White Plains, NY 10604
Telephone: (914) 331-0100
Facsimile: (914) 331-0105
E-mail: jdenlea@denleacarton.com
jcarton@denleacarton.com
sschoenfeld@denleacarton.com
cfriesen@denleacarton.com
- and -
Michael D. Braun, Esq.
KUZYK LAW, LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 800
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (213) 401-4100
Facsimile: (213) 401-0311
E-mail: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com
SIRIUS XM: Woods Sues Over Music Plans' Deceptive Pricing Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE WOODS and SHERRY TAPIA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-03799 (N.D. Cal., June 25, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of California
Civil Code and California Business and Professions Code.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive pricing
scheme of falsely advertising its music plans at lower prices than
it actually charges. The Defendant fails to include in its
advertised prices the amount of its invented "U.S. Music Royalty
Fee," which increases the true plan price by 21.4 percent above the
advertised price for the plans. The Defendant's sign-up process,
automatic renewal process, and policy of not sending monthly or
ongoing billing notices or invoices are deliberately designed to
prevent subscribers from learning of the U.S. Music Royalty Fee. As
a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions, the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated California subscribers suffered
damages, says the suit.
Sirius XM Radio Inc. is a provider of satellite radio and
internet-only streaming plans, with its principal place of business
in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
HATTIS & LUKACS
11711 SE 8th St., Suite 120
Bellevue, WA 98005
Telephone: (425) 233-8650
Email: dan@hattislaw.com
pkl@hattislaw.com
STR VENTURES: Fernandes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ignetius Fernandes and Mauricio Fernandes, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Afzal Shekhani,
STR Ventures, Inc., d/b/a Ella Food Mart, Sindlo, Inc., Thomson
Enterprises, Inc., Panama, Inc., ATJ Ventures, Inc., Vibgyor
Enterprises, Inc., Y.S.R. Enterprise, Inc., Anu Enterprise, Inc.,
Mash, L.C.C., Carter Stores, Inc., DVS Ventures, Inc., New
Greenhouse Enterprise, Inc., 11501 Tanner Realty, Inc., 1541
Richwood Realty, Inc., Prime Spot Realty, LLC, 747 Kress Street,
LLC, 11850 Tidwell Realty, Inc., 15405 Tomball Realty, Inc.,
Tomball Parkway Business, Inc., Lil Bear Business, Inc., 6611
Bellfort Realty, Inc., 191 Greenspoint Enterprise, Inc., Longdale
Business, Inc., 2700 North Main Realty, LLC, 12123 Jersey Realty,
LLC, West Jersey Business, Inc., 610 Long Drive, Inc., 7025 South
Loop East Realty LLC, AJ Truck Stop LLC, 6422 Denver Harbor, LLC,
6422 Lyons, LLC, Tidwell Ralston Business, Inc., 8807 Leycrest
Realty LLC, and 11037 Market Business, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:24-cv-02327 (S.D. Tex., June 20, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants seeking to recover Plaintiffs' unpaid overtime that
is required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The complaint alleges that Defendants had a business plan that
includes paying non-exempt hourly employees the same hourly rate
for all hours worked, even the hours that they work over 40 per
workweek. The Defendants' failure to pay the overtime premium
required by law allows them to gain an unfair advantage over
competitors who follow the law in their employment practices, says
the suit.
The Plaintiffs worked for Shekhani in a gas station/convenience
store run by Shekhani's company STR Ventures, Inc. in a convenience
store premises owned by the same company. Plaintiffs Ignetius
Fernandes Mauricio Fernandes worked as cashiers from 2018 until
March of 2023 and from June of 2019 until March of 2023,
respectively.
STR Ventures operates convenience stores and/or gasoline stations
in Houston, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
PO Box 10099
Houston, TX 77206
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
SWEET RICE: Ramirez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER TIRADO RAMIREZ, an individual, on behalf of herself and
all other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown,
Plaintiff v. SWEET RICE CHICAGO INC., an Illinois corporation,
KOMANE PURANANDA, an individual, and TITAYA PURANANDA, an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05185 (N.D. Ill., June 21,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago
Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave Ordinance.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay her, and other
similarly situated employees, overtime compensation for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek.
Plaintiff Ramirez is a current employee of Defendants' Sweet Rice
restaurant located in Chicago, Illinois. She has worked as a food
preparer, appetizer cook and kitchen staff employee at Defendants'
restaurant since approximately April, 2022.
Sweet Rice Chicago Inc. is an Illinois corporation that operates
the Sweet Rice restaurant and is engaged in selling and serving
prepared food and beverages to customers for consumption on and off
its premises.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
NOLAN LAW OFFICE
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 322-1100
E-mail: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Abeed Sues Over Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------
ISLAM ABEED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; KOJI SATO; YOICHI
MIYAZAKI; AKIO TOYODA; and KENTA KON, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-05284 (C.D. Cal., June 24, 2024) is a class action on
behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded Toyota securities between June 23, 2022 and June 2,
2024 (the "Class Period"), the Plaintiff seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that during the Class
Period, the Defendants, individually and in concert, directly or
indirectly, disseminated or approved false statements, which they
knew or deliberately disregarded were misleading in that they
contained misrepresentations and failed to disclose material facts
necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.
Had the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class been aware
that the market price of the Company's securities had been
artificially and falsely inflated by the Defendants' misleading
statements and by the material adverse information which the
Defendants did not disclose, they would not have purchased the
Company's securities at the artificially inflated prices that they
did, or at all, says the suit.
Toyota Motor Corporation manufactures, sells, leases, and repairs
passenger cars, trucks, buses, and their related parts worldwide.
The Company also operates financing services through their
subsidiaries. Toyota Motor builds homes, produces pleasure boats,
and develops intelligent transportation systems including radar
cruise control and electronic toll collection systems. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
TRC STAFFING: Elebyany Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADHAM ELEBYANY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRC STAFFING SERVICES, INC. d/b/a TRC TALENT
SOLUTIONS, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02689-VMC (N.D. Ga., June
20, 2024) arises out of Defendant's failures to implement
reasonable and industry standard data security practices to
properly secure, safeguard, and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and
Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it
had acquired and stored for its business purposes.
The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted
cyberattack to compromise Defendant's network that, upon
information and belief, contained personally identifiable
information of Plaintiff and other individuals. The Data Breach
occurred between March 25, 2024, and April 12, 2024. The Defendant
began sending notice letters to Class Members on May 24, 2024.
According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of
Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
individuals' PII. Had it properly monitored its property, it would
have discovered the intrusion sooner rather than allowing
cybercriminals a period of unimpeded access to the PII of Plaintiff
and Class Members. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and
Class Members are now at a current, imminent, and ongoing risk of
fraud and identity theft, says the suit.
TRC Staffing Services, Inc. is a staffing agency that works with
businesses and prospects to develop employment opportunities and
assist businesses with their employment needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen Tullos Oliver, Esq.
Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 60060
Telephone: (770) 227-6375
E-mail: roy@barneslawgroup.com
ktullos@barneslawgroup.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
TRUIST BANK: Ruffin Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN RUFFIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRUIST BANK, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00582-FDW-SCR (W.D.N.C., June 21, 2024) is a class action
against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
sensitive information of its customers, including Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information
-- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding
that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted,
compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach.
According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of
Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
consumers' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The
Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because
of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendant
collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data
thieves, says the suit.
Through this Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms
on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose
PII was allegedly accessed during the Data Breach.
Truist Bank is a commercial bank, headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5003
E-mail: sharris@milberg.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com
TWILIO INC: Perry-Hudson Sues Over Wiretapping of Website Visitors
------------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHON PERRY-HUDSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TWILIO, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-03741-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 21, 2024) is a class action suit
brought against Twilio, Inc. for wiretapping the electronic
communications of Plaintiff and similarly situated visitors of
keeps.com.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant intercepted communications
sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members, including
communications containing personally identifying information and
protected health information. The Plaintiff brings this action for
legal and equitable remedies resulting from these illegal actions.
On or around May 8, 2024, the Plaintiff visited keeps.com to
purchase prescription hair loss medication. As part of the purchase
process, the Plaintiff answered a series of questions related to
his physical health.
Twilio, Inc. is an American cloud communications company based in
San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: bscott@bursor.com
jwilner@bursor.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Scott R. Drury, Esq.
DRURY LEGAL, LLC
6 Carriage Lane
Highwood, IL 60040
Telephone: (312) 358-8225
E-mail: scott@drurylegal.com
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF SOUTH JERSEY, P.C.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INCORPORATED, and CHANGE
HEALTHCARE, INC., and UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC., and OPTUM,
Defendants, Case No. : Case No. 24-cv-02443 (D. Minn., June 24,
2024) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its
customers.
According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of
the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a
foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that
Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired
by data thieves.
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated owns and manages organized health
systems. The Company provides employers products and resources to
plan and administer employee benefit programs. UnitedHealth serves
customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Goodwin
Daniel E. Gustafson (#202241)
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Roberta Liebenberg, Esq.
Gerard A. Dever, Esq.
Mary L. Russell, Esq.
FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, RPC
One South Broad St., Suite 2300
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 567-6565
Email: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
gdever@finekaplan.com
mrussell@finekaplan.com
- and -
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
1133 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (917) 438-9102
Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
- and -
Jack Meyerson, Esq.
Matthew Miller, Esq.
MEYERSON & MILLER
1600 Market Street, Suite 1305
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (609) 703-0414
Email: jmeyerson@meyersonlawfirm.com
mmiller@meyersonlawfirm.com
UNIVERSAL BEAUTY: Dilanyan Sues Over Mislabed Beard Care Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL DILANYAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL BEAUTY PRODUCTS, INC.
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-05200 (C.D. Cal., June 20, 2024) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf
of similarly situated consumers, against the Defendant for unjust
enrichment, breach of express warranty, and violations of the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California False
Advertising Law, and the California Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant falsely and misleadingly
labels a line of its beard care products with the following claims:
"Made with Natural Ingredients" and/or "Natural" in an effort to
increase profits and to gain an unfair advantage over their
lawfully acting competitors. Contrary to the Products' Natural
Representations, the Products actually contain numerous
non-natural, synthetic, artificial, and/or highly processed
ingredients. Through falsely, misleadingly, and deceptively
labeling the Products, the Defendant sought to take advantage of
consumers' desire for truly natural products. Yet Defendant has
done so at the expense of unwitting consumers, as well as
Defendant's lawfully acting competitors, over whom Defendant
maintains an unfair competitive advantage, says the suit.
Universal Beauty Products, Inc. is a beauty product supplier
headquartered in Glendale Heights, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Valter Malkhasyan, Esq.
Erik Pogosyan, Esq.
MALK & POGO LAW GROUP, LLP
1241 S. Glendale Ave, Suite 204
Glendale, CA 91205
Telephone: (818) 484-5204
E-mail: valter@malkpogolaw.com
erik@malkpogolaw.com
UST GLOBAL: Removes Awbrey Suit to W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of DYLAN AWBREY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UST GLOBAL
INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the
Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Kings (Case
No. 24-2-11388-6 SEA) to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington on June 24, 2024, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-00914 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
Richard A. Jones.
UST Global Inc. provides IT services. The Company mainly offers
end-to-end IT services and solutions for Global 1000 companies. UST
Global provides services throughout worldwide. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Clarence M. Belnavis
Ryan R. Jones
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-2308
Facsimile: 206-682-7908
Email: cbelnavis@fisherphillips.com
rjones@fisherphillips.com
WESCO INTERNATIONAL: Removes Alba-Pedilla Suit to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of JOEL JOSE DE ALBA-PEDILLA,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
vs. WESCO INTERNATIONAL INC.; STAND PETERSON, Defendants, filed a
notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Contra Costa (Case No. C24-01297) to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June
24, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:24-cv-03767 to the proceeding.
WESCO International, Inc. distributes electrical products and other
industrial maintenance, repair, and operating supplies. The Company
also provides integrated supply services. WESCO operates branches
and distribution centers in the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico,
Guam, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and Singapore, which serve
customers worldwide. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel C. Whang, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
Email: dwhang@seyfarth.com
- and -
Lilah J. Wylde, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 397-2823
Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
Email: lwylde@seyfarth.com
ZILLOW GROUP: Discloses Personal Info, Web Activity, Mata Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
GUILLERMO MATA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-01095-DMS-VET (S.D. Cal., June 25, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Video Privacy Protection
Act and California Invasion of Privacy Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's disclosure of the personally
identifiable information and prerecorded video viewing activity of
the Plaintiff and similarly situated online real estate marketplace
subscribers to third parties. Specifically, the Defendant uses
third-party code to track prerecorded videos its subscribers watch
and sends that data to its third-party code vendors along with
subscribers' PII, all without their valid consent. As a result of
the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members
suffered damages, says the suit.
Zillow Group, Inc. is an online real estate marketplace owner and
operator, doing business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ani Nazaryan, Esq.
KERKONIAN DAJANI, LLP
Ventura Blvd., Ste. 203
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (312) 416-6180
Email: anazaryan@kerkoniandajani.com
- and -
Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
KINGSBURY LAW LLC
8 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 2600
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 291-1960
Email: tim@kingsburylawllc.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***