/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240716.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, July 16, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 142
Headlines
3M CO: Faces Meyer Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M CO: Fire Fighters Assoc. Alleges Injury From Toxic Chemicals
3M CO: Krupinsky Alleges Firefighters' Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Briggs Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Bright Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Geiss Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Kehl Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Laws Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
A.G. CONSULTING: FLSA Collective Action Conditionally Certified
ADOBE INC: Faces Securities Suit Over Failed Merger Deal
AFFILIATED DERMATOLOGISTS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
AIG INSURANCE: Not Obliged to Defend Ponzi Scheme Suit, Court Says
AIR TRANSAT: Court Authorizes Airline Ticket Refund Class Action
ALL MY SONS: Court Awards $600.7K in Attorneys' Fees in Vega Suit
ALLEGIANT AIR: Flores Privacy Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK: Fact Discovery in Chavez Due Nov. 1
ALPHA PRIME: Melancon Sues Over Brownie Bites' Protein Content
AMAZON.COM: Class Cert Bid Filing in Waithaka Extended to August 2
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Bid to Transfer Venue in Nachison Suit Denied
AMERICAN CRUISE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Amended to August 30
APPLE INC: E-Book Readers Eligible for Payout of $15MM Class Deal
APPLE INC: Faces Philbrook Antitrust Class Suit in New Jersey
APPLE INC: Herrerias Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
APPLE INC: Kane Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
APPLE INC: Kouyate Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
APPLE INC: Kyndberg Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
APPLE INC: Miller Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
APPLE INC: Schwartz Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
ARROW MIRROR: Osorio Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under FLSA
ASCENSION HEALTH: Fails to Protect Customer Data, Juracek Alleges
ASIAN WORLD: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Fernandez Says
AT&T INC: Telford Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
BARNABY LTD: Tatola Sues Over Disclosure of Private Info
BATTLE CREEK: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage Under FLSA, Kale Alleges
BAY AREA REAL ESTATE: Wins Bid to Stay Proceedings in Grace Suit
BEN & JERRY'S: Court Dismisses Tyrnauer's Claims
BLENDJET INC: Lawyers Seek to Intervene in Illinois Action
BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY: Peach Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA
BLUEPRINT MEDICINES: Johnson Sues for Irrevocable Resignation Bylaw
BOLT BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
BOZZUTO'S INC: Loiseau Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
BRILLIANT EARTH: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Solis Says
BUFFALO JACKSON: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
C3.AI INC: Objection to Bids to Dismiss Reckstin Suit Due July 15
CALIFORNIA: Martinez Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
CAPSTONE GREEN ENERGY: Faces Spitzer Suit Over SEC Disclosures
CASIO AMERICA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Liz Class Suit Says
CHOICE FINANCIAL: Robertson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
CITIZENS DISABILITY: Shutler Suit Seeks to Certify Class
CJ BERRY: Individual Arbitration Bid in Browden Suit Due July 22
CLAYTON CHRISTIAN: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Response Brief
CLEAN HARBORS: Fogg Suit Seeks Class Certification
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Reset to May 16, 2025
COMANCHE COUNTY HOSPITAL: Whitmore Suit Removed to W.D. Okla.
CONNECTICUT: Court Grants Sanders' Bid to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS: Faces Den Heuvel Data Breach Suit in Minn.
CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS: Kamrath Sues Over Unprotected Info
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Aberman Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Ammons Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Slayman Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio
CONTINUUM HEALTH: Conner Data Breach Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
COOK CANADA: Court Approves IVC Filter Products Class Settlement
CROSBY BOOT: Espinal Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website
CUTELY COVERED: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Karin Suit Alleges
DELTA SHOE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fernandez Claims
DFS SERVICES: Mitchener Suit Removed to N.D. California
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Overcharging Class Action
DREAMING GODDESS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brown Says
DRIVE SALLY: Faces Hood Suit Over Private Data Breach
DUNKIN' DONUTS: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Surcharge Suit
ECMD INC: Chestnut Suit Removed to C.D. California
EMILY MINNICK: Court Narrows Claims in May Suit
EVANS FOOD: Mayorga Suit Removed From State Court to C.D. Cal.
EVOLVE BANK: Faces McLaughlin Data Breach Class Suit in W.D. Tenn
EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Adewole Says
EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Meadows Says
EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Mason Says
EXCELSIOR MINING: Court Denies Shareholder Class Certification
FIRST AMERICAN: Class Settlement in Kimble Suit Gets Final Nod
FIRST NATIONAL BANK: Alford Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Mast Oppose Class Cert Bid by July 26
FOR WELLNESS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fernandez Says
FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Bolton Suit
FORM I-9 COMPLIANCE: Faces Mijangos Tort Suit in C.D. California
FORTUNA LI: Agnone Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Miller Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Murray Suit Says
GARAGE CARS: Seeks to Extend Time to File Class Cert Bid Opposition
GARDEN STATE: Perez Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA and NJWHL
GATE GOURMET: Removes Abrajano Suit to N.D. California
GATOS SILVER: $3-Mil. Securities Class Settlement Gets Court OK
GENERAL MOTORS: Davids Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
GENTLEMEN'S BARBERSHOP: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Layne Claims
GLEIBERMAN PROPERTIES: Johnson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GLOBAL E-TRADING: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Docs Under Seal
GLOSKN LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Suarez Class Suit Says
GOLDEN STATE: Plong Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal.
GOODYEAR TIRE: Curran Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
GOODYEAR TIRE: Price Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
GPB HOLDINGS: Court Stays All Deadlines, Proceedings in DeLuca Suit
GRAPHIC IMAGE: Brown Sues Over Website's Accessibility Barriers
GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Cicchi Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
HEAVENLY FOOT: Bautista Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
INSTANT URGENT: Harvey Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
J.G. WENTWORTH: Simpson Seeks to Amend Scheduling Order
JAMES G. DAVIS: Soliz Seeks to Conditionally Certify Action
JDM DELIVERIES: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
JELD-WEN INC: Gonzalez Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Band-Aid PFAS Class Action Lawsuit
JOMASHOP INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Liz Suit Alleges
JOSE GARZA: Seeks More Time to File Summary Judgement Response
KAMAN & CUSIMANO: Oie Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
KENT SECURITY: Pulliam Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
KINGSBOROUGH ATLAS: Bazan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
KNIGHT HAWK: Class of Underground Miners Certified in Dye Suit
KRG KINGS: Court Awards $159K in Damages in McDonnell FLSA Suit
LAKOU BRANDS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Layne Suite Alleges
LANDSCAPE WAREHOUSE: Uriarte-Limon Sues Over ADA Non-Compliance
LAYALI BOUTIQUE: Gaspa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
LENS.COM INC: Gonneville Suit Transferred to D. Nevada
LENS.COM INC: Nail Suit Transferred to D. Nevada
LILY HOSPICE: Krause Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA, WWPCL
LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Hunter Suit Moved From Missouri to California
LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Hunter Suit Transferred to C.D. California
LUG USA: Bilbao Alleges Violations of FTSA's Caller ID Rules
M&T BANK: Family Appeals Denied Class Cert. Bid to 3rd Circuit
MADE MAN BARBERSHOP: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Colak Alleges
MADONNA CICCONE: Lipeles Sues Over Deceptive Advertisement
MAGMA PRODUCTS: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
MARK III CONSTRUCTION: Andres et al. Allege Labor Law Violations
MCKESSON CORP: Padilla Suit Removed From State Ct. to N.D. Cal.
MEDIAALPHA INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
MINNESOTA: Braxton Files Suit in D. Minnesota
MONSTER BEVERAGE: McCormick Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
MOVITA JUICE BARS: Escajeda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MULTI-COLOR CORP: Bid to Remand Figueroa Suit to State Court Denied
MULTIPLAN INC: Hillside Recovery Center Alleges Conspiracy
NATERA INC: Parties Seek Extension of Case Management Deadlines
NESTED BEAN: Massari & Salameh Sue for Undisclosed Risk of Products
NORDSTROM INC: Bradfield Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
OBI SEAFOODS: Class Settlement in Paunovic Suit Has Prelim. Nod
OMAHA HOUSING: Faces Bush Suit Over Grievance Policy
ONEMAIN FINANCIAL: Matuch Sues Over Unlawful Debt Communication
ONTARIO: Correction System Faces Class Suit Over Lockdowns
OPTOTRAFFIC LLC: Faces Lavender Suit Over Unlawful Fund Collection
OPW FUELING: Canales Appeals Denial of Counsel Disqualification Bid
PANERA LLC: Donovan Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Mehring Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Overstreet Sues Over Alleged Oil Conspiracy
PFIZER CORP: Rothschild Has Until July 18 to Amend Complaint
PHILIPS RESPONICS: Faces EU Suit Over Toxic Foam in Respirators
PORTSIDE TOWERS: Tenants File Class Suit Over Rent Overcharges
PRIME FINANCE: Giannettino Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
PROFESSIONAL PARKING: Mary Sues Over Unlawfully Obtained Info
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Bid to Dismiss Alexander Class Suit Granted
QUEBEC: Court OKs Suit Over Health, Social Services Management
QUEENLY INC: Competello Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
QUMPUS INC: Lewis Sues Over Caller ID Rules Violations
REDFIN CORP: Court Grants Bid to Stay Jutla Suit for 60 Days
RETAIL SERVICES: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Faces Class Suit Over Death of Detainee
RJMS CORPORATION: Chatman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ROBERT BLAISE TRETTIS: Goldsboro Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
ROOTED STRONG: Vargas Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
RYMAN HOSPITALITY: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Tucker Alleges
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Homeless People Sues Over Illegal Raids
SCHINDLER ELEVATOR: Nazar Suit Removed to S.D. California
SCOTT ENERGY COMPANY: Dye Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
SEALY INC: Liu Class Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
SHEPLERS INC: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SKIN CLUB: Gillespie Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
SKINNY'S CANTINA: Faces Davila et al. Labor and Human Rights Suit
SNOWFLAKE INC: Chaidez Sues Over Unprotected Private Information
SNOWFLAKE INC: Faces Suit Over Inadequate Data Security Practices
SONDER HOLDINGS: Park Sues Over Securities Law Breaches
SOUTHERN WINE: Settles Late Fees Class Action for $5.5 Million
SPORT SQUAD: Tomberlin Sues Over False Representations
SURMODICS INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to GTCR LLC
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Antitrust Suit in Massachusetts Court
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Settles Antitrust Suit in Pennsylvania Court
TC4 CONCEPTS: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum Wages, Meyer Says
TEACHERS FEDERAL: Appeals Court Uphold Lower Court's Ruling
TESLA INC: Chin Sues Over Alleged WARN Act Violations
TOUGH TRAVELER: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Karim Says
TOYOTA MOTOR: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set August 23
TRADER JOE'S: Customer Sues Over Gluten Free Bagels
TRANSUNION LLC: Kaplan Balks at Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
UNDER ARMOUR INC: Settles Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures
UNIVERSITY & STATE: Class Settlement in Cortes Gets Final Nod
UPS INC: Employee Discloses Hostile Work Environment, Racism
US HOME PROS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Murillo Alleges
VALLEY PACIFIC: Moore Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VICTORIA GOLD: Supreme Court Approves Class Action Settlement
VIRGINIA: Faces Puryear Class Action Suit Over Illegal Detention
WEEE! INC: S.D.N.Y. Refuses to Transfer Jia Suit to N.D. California
WHOLE EARTH: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Sababa Affiliates
[*] B.C. Supreme Court Certifies 'Sham' Consultant Class Action
*********
3M CO: Faces Meyer Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
William Myers v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case
No. 2:24-cv-03759-RMG (D.S.C., June 28, 2024) is a class action
seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals
collective known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
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, the Plaintiff
contends.
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 includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. 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.
Mr. Myers is a resident and citizen of Ocala, Florida. He 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. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a
result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendants include 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.).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and -
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
3M CO: Fire Fighters Assoc. Alleges Injury From Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------------
UNIFORMED PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION OF CONNECTICUT,
STAMFORD PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS LOCAL 786, FAIRFIELD FIRE FIGHTERS
ASSOCIATION, IAFF LOCAL 1426, STRATFORD PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS,
IAFF LOCAL 998, HAMDEN PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS, IAFF LOCAL 2687,
CITY OF GROTON FIRE FIGHTERS UNION, IAFF LOCAL 1964, PETER BROWN,
PAUL ANDERSON, STEVE MICHALOVIC, DAN TOMPKINS, and NELSON HWANG,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY (F/K/A MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING
COMPANY), EIDP, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY,
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CORTEVA, INC., , ELEVATE TEXTILES, INC.,
GENTEX CORPORATION, GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC; W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES, INC., FIRE-DEX GW, LLC, HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA,
INC., INTERTECH GROUP, INC., LION GROUP, INC., MILLIKEN & COMPANY,
MORNING PRIDE MANUFACTURING L.L.C., PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.,
SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and STEDFAST USA,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01101 (D. Conn., June 25, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendants for harm resulting from
the use of and dependence upon certain personal protective
equipment containing hazardous levels of toxic, carcinogenic
chemicals.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, including
the design, manufacture, distribution, and sale of the
PFAS-contaminated turnout gear and/or the per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances-contaminated components of turnout gear, Plaintiffs,
Plaintiffs' members, and Class members have been exposed to
hazardous levels of PFAS chemicals through the dermal absorption,
ingestion, and inhalation of chemicals, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs are the UPFFA, a statewide labor organization
representing all Professional Firefighters in the state of
Connecticut, five local fire fighter unions, which together
represent the uniformed fire fighters currently serving the cities
and towns of Stamford, Fairfield, Easton, Stratford, Hamden, and
Groton, Connecticut, and five individual fire fighters.
3M Co. is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the
fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer
goods.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
Jennifer Sclar, Esq.
Kate Sayed, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
One Landmark Square, Floor 15
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 325-4491
E-mail: isloss@sgtlaw.com
jsclar@sgtlaw.com
ksayed@sgtlaw.com
3M CO: Krupinsky Alleges Firefighters' Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Krupinsky v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2 2:24-cv-03800-RMG
(D.S.C., July 1, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and
firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
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 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, 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 or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting, says the suit.
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. 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.
Plaintiff Jeffrey Krupinski is a resident and citizen of
Indialantic, Florida. 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.
The Plaintiff was diagnosed with bladder cancer and prostate cancer
as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. Through this
action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive
damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages
sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or
TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases
during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendants include 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.); and W.L.
GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[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
Telephone: (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
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Briggs Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jasper Briggs, 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-03313-RMG (D.S.C., May 31, 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
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Bright Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
--------------------------------------------------------
Eddie Lynn Bright, and other similarly situated v. 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., Case No. 2:24-cv-03244-RMG (D.S.C.,
May 29, 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 extremely
hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and
other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires").
AFFF 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, 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.
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 and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was
diagnosed with kidney cancer and liver cancer as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing
chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is 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 -
Jim Hood, Esq.
Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq.
1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 803-5001
3M COMPANY: Geiss Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Geiss, and other similarly situated v. 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., Case No. 2:24-cv-03315-RMG (D.S.C.,
May 31, 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 extremely
hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and
other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires").
AFFF 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, 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.
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 and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was
diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing
chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is 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 -
Jim Hood, Esq.
Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq.
1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 803-5001
3M COMPANY: Kehl Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
----------------------------------------------------------
Staci Leann Kehl, and other similarly situated v. 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., Case No. 2:24-cv-03279-RMG (D.S.C.,
May 31, 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 extremely
hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and
other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires").
AFFF 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, 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.
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 and/or TOG 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 and/or TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing
chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is 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 -
Jim Hood, Esq.
Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq.
1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 803-5001
3M COMPANY: Laws Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
----------------------------------------------------------
David Laws, Jr., and other similarly situated v. 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., Case No. 2:24-cv-03230-RMG (D.S.C.,
May 29, 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 extremely
hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and
other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires").
AFFF 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, 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.
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 and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was
diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF and/or TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing
chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is 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 -
Jim Hood, Esq.
Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq.
1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 803-5001
A.G. CONSULTING: FLSA Collective Action Conditionally Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IVAN KOVALEV and MINTIWAB
HILL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
A.G. CONSULTING ENGINEERING, P.C., Case No. 1:22-cv-05954-MKV
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered an order:
-- conditionally certifying a FLSA collective action for:
(i) current and former "field employees," (ii) who were
employed
between July 13, 2019 and the present, (iii) were paid on an
hourly basis, (iv) worked in excess of 40 hours per week, (v)
were either not paid the required overtime rate, or were
required
to perform unpaid pre- or post-shift work in excess of 40 hours
per week, and (vi) opt in to this action;
-- approving the Plaintiffs' Proposed Notice of Pendency of
Collective Action form;
-- directing, within 14 days of this Order, the Defendant to
produce
to the Plaintiffs, in s, in Excel spreadsheet format, a list of
the names, last-known mailing and e-mail addresses, and
telephone
numbers for all individuals who meet the criteria for the
conditionally-certified collective action;
-- issuing notice of the collective action to potential opt-in
plaintiffs by mail and email.
The Plaintiffs shall be permitted to send a reminder notice to
collective action members 45 days prior to the close of the opt-in
period.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have made a modest factual
showing that there is a group of potential opt-in plaintiffs who
may be similarly situated to the Plaintiffs with respect to whether
a violation of the FLSA has occurred.
AG offers complete engineering services including HVAC, plumbing,
fire protection, electrical, civil and structural design and
construction management services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eXrkhZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
ADOBE INC: Faces Securities Suit Over Failed Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
Adobe Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-q report for the quarterly
period ended May 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 26, 2024, that on October 20, 2023, a securities
class action captioned "Pembroke Pines Firefighters & Police
Officers Pension Fund et al. v. Adobe, Inc. et al.," Case No.
1:23-cv-09260, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York naming Adobe and certain of its
current and former officers as defendants.
The Securities Action purports to be brought on behalf of
purchasers of the company's stock between July 23, 2021 and
September 22, 2022. The complaint, which was amended on February
23, 2024, alleges that certain public statements made by Adobe
during the Class Period related to competition from its
unsuccessful merger with Figma, Inc. and the adequacy of Adobe's
existing offerings to counter harms Adobe may have faced due to
Figma's growing market position were materially false and
misleading.
Action sought unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief.
Adobe Inc. is a software company based out of San Jose,
California.
AFFILIATED DERMATOLOGISTS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
PETER FIORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AFFILIATED DERMATOLOGISTS & DERMATOLOGIC
SURGEONS P.A., Defedendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-06720-JXN-JSA (D.N.J.,
June 5, 2024) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its
customers. The case is assigned to Judge Julien Xavier Neals and
referred to Magistrate Judge Jessica S. Allen.
According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of
the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a
foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that
Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired
by data thieves, says the suit.
Affiliated Dermatologists & Dermatologic Surgeons P.A. provides
dermatology services and treatments dealing with acne, cysts,
melanoma, and rosacea in Morristown, NJ. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jared Ross Cooper, Esq.
ROBINSON & YABLON, P.C.
232 Madison Avenue, Suite 909
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 725-8566
Facsimile: (212) 725-8567
Email: jcooper@ryinjury.com
AIG INSURANCE: Not Obliged to Defend Ponzi Scheme Suit, Court Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Gambrill, writing for Canadian Underwriter, reports Ontario's
Court of Appeal has confirmed AIG Canada doesn't have to pay legal
costs to defend a class action lawsuit related to an alleged Ponzi
scheme involving real estate funds.
That's because of a material misrepresentation by the insured, the
court ruled.
A lower court determined AIG had to pay for the insured's legal
defence because there was no material misrepresentation of the
facts. The motions judge came to this conclusion based on an AIG
underwriter's response to a broker's email, which the court found
to be vague and imprecise.
But the insured's email was not the only indication of a material
misrepresentation, regardless of how the underwriter responded to
it, the appellate court ruled.
In a 3-0 decision, a panel of Appeal Court judges found the
insurer's retroactive denial of coverage was justified, because the
insured never did provide the information AIG required to write the
risk. The court awarded AIG the more than $1 million it had already
paid out in legal defence costs.
In Davies v. AIG Insurance Company of Canada, released last week,
AIG issued D&O policies to the Davies real estate companies. John
Davies is the principal.
Davies and his spouse, Judith Davies, "are named defendants in two
lawsuits alleging that Mr. Davies and his associates used the
Davies Companies (and other corporate vehicles) to operate a Ponzi
scheme," as the Appeal Court decision describes the issue.
"The claims further allege that the Davies Companies' purported
real estate developments were funded by millions of dollars in
syndicated mortgages advanced by individual investors and that the
Davies (and others) misappropriated those monies."
These claims have not been proven in court. The Davies deny the
allegations.
Initially, AIG paid out defence costs for the class action lawsuit
based on the D&O policies they issued to the Davies companies.
Later, they abandoned this coverage position, claiming the
insured's applications for coverage contained a material
misrepresentation. Specifically, AIG argued, the insured failed to
disclose that syndicated mortgages were the source of financing for
the Davies Companies.
At issue was how to interpret a broker's email, in which the client
responded to the underwriter's questions about financing.
Back in 2015, leading up to issuance of the D&O policies, the
Davies companies' insurance broker sent an email to AIG's
underwriting group. The broker attached the 2013-14 financial
statements of the Davies companies.
AIG's underwriter observed the financial statements contained
companies unfamiliar to the insurer. Plus, they "reflected a
significant amount of inter-company loans and almost $40 million in
long-term debt to external lenders," as the Appeal Court noted.
"However, the financial statements did not disclose the identity of
the external lenders."
AIG sent a note to the client through the broker with the following
queries:
-- Regarding the inter-company loans, [AIG] were hoping to get an
understanding as to who the loan facility is that is providing to
the current [Davies] companies.
-- Please provide the terms of the loans from outside sources.
On May 28, 2015, the broker replied he had spoken with the client
the previous day. He summarized the clients' responses as follows:
Question: "Regarding the inter-company loans, [AIG] were
hoping to get an understanding as to who the loan facility is that
is providing to the current companies".
Answer: "Balfor will go shoulder to shoulder for covenants, the
remaining loans provided by mezzanine and construction financing.
Memorandum of understanding and term sheet from a lender on board.
Kingset (sp?) Capital in Toronto. John Love's company. $500MM
funds. All schedule A banks in funds."
A motions judge described the email as lacking "detail or
precision." He also noted a "complete absence of any mention of
syndicated mortgages as the method of financing being used by John
Davies in his real estate developments."
Nevertheless, the motions judge found, although "the absence of
syndicated mortgages is troubling," its wording was "insufficient
to conclude a misrepresentation had occurred."
Furthermore, since the AIG underwriter did not seek clarity around
the questions, AIG could not then claim that any misrepresentation
was 'material,' the motions judge found. AIG "cannot merely rely on
its interpretation of what was not clear," he ruled.
AIG appealed, and the Court for Appeal of Ontario overturned the
motion judge's decision.
"The applications judge's materiality determination was fatally
flawed because he failed to consider the misrepresentation when
making that determination," the Appeal Court ruled. "Instead, he
focused on the email and [the AIG underwriter's] response to it."
But considered on the whole, AIG's basic position was consistent
throughout, the Appeal Court found. The insurer needed further
information about the companies' financial backing. It could not
provide a quote without the information. And the insurer would not
have agreed to coverage if it knew the true source of the Davies
companies' financial backing.
"The Davies Companies failed to disclose to AIG, at any point in
the process culminating in the issuance of the policies, that they
were financed by way of syndicated mortgages," the Appeal Court
ruled. "There is no question that was a material misrepresentation,
viewed both objectively and subjectively." [GN]
AIR TRANSAT: Court Authorizes Airline Ticket Refund Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claude Marseille, Ad. E. and Cristina Cataldo, writing for Blakes,
report that In an appellate ruling in Lachaine v. Air Transat AT
inc. (Air Transat), the Quebec Court of Appeal (QCA) authorized a
class action that claimed a refund from various airlines
(Respondents) after airplane tickets and travel packages were
cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The QCA allowed the class
action to proceed despite the Respondents' stated commitment to
establish voluntary refund programs for their customers.
The QCA's ruling in this matter raises the question of the effect
that implementing a voluntary refund program may have on an
application to authorize a class action in Quebec.
Procedural Background
Following the cancellation of all flights from Canada due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, the appellants, Messrs. Lachaine and Bonnier
(Appellants), were offered a travel credit subject to certain
conditions rather than the reimbursement of their airline tickets
or travel packages. The Appellants filed a class action claim on
behalf of all individuals who had purchased or held airline tickets
or travel packages with the Respondents and whose tickets or
packages had been cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic without
reimbursement. They sought a full refund of the amounts for the
cancelled tickets and packages, as well as C$250 for trouble and
inconvenience.
The judge refused to authorize the class action because of (i) the
great disparity in the contractual frameworks applicable to the
members of the proposed class, which meant that no common issue
could be identified; and (ii) the implementation of voluntary
refund programs by the Respondents, which extinguished the members'
main cause of action as well as their ancillary causes of action
for interest or damages. The judge, referring to the decisions
rendered in Apple Canada Inc. v. St-Germain (Apple), Perreault v.
McNeil PDI inc. (Perreault) and Paquette v. Samsung Electronics
Canada Inc. (Paquette), concluded that the Respondents'
announcement of the creation of voluntary refund programs
extinguished the Appellants' and class action members' cause of
action regarding the reimbursement of their airline tickets and
travel packages, and that they no longer had an arguable case to
assert against the Respondents.
The QCA disagreed with the judge's ruling and overturned the
authorization judgment.
Common Issues
The QCA noted that the requirements set out in article 575(1) of
Quebec's Code of Civil Procedure concerning the existence of common
issues in members' claims must be interpreted liberally. A judge
need only identify a single issue that would make it possible for
"not insignificant" progress to be made in resolving the individual
claims of class action members. According to the QCA, the judge
erred in his analysis by seeking common answers to the issues
raised in respect of the various contracts rather than identifying
at least one common issue. The diversity of answers to an
identified common issue cannot prevent the authorization of a class
action.
Voluntary Refund Programs
The appeal raised the issue of whether the Respondents' announced
commitment to create voluntary refund programs for their customers
extinguished the class members' main cause of action. According to
the QCA, the case at hand differed from those cited by the judge,
namely Apple, Perreault and Paquette, in that each of the judges in
the latter cases appeared to have had the benefit of examining the
scope and terms of the voluntary refund programs in their entirety
and had been satisfied that the respective class members' claims
had been met. However, in Air Transat, the Respondents had not
filed any written refund policy in evidence. Therefore, the judge
had no detailed information on such programs that would allow him
to conclude that all class members had been or were going to be
reimbursed, and that they no longer had an interest in the action.
The QCA added that the judge had also erred in law in deciding that
the announcement of the creation of the voluntary refund programs
extinguished the class members' ancillary causes of action. The
extinguishment of the right to reimbursement of airline tickets or
travel packages did not extinguish the claim for interest, which
was a distinct claim. Contrary, once again, to the decisions
rendered in Apple, Perreault and Paquette cited by the judge, the
customers' reimbursement by the Respondents was not done prior to
the class action filing or immediately or promptly thereafter. In
Apple, Perreault and Paquette, it had been determined that allowing
the claims to continue would run counter to the specific objectives
of a class action, which should not be used in cases that lead
nowhere and for which the respondents have diligently fulfilled
their responsibilities. In Air Transat, several months (and in one
case, over a year) had elapsed between the class action filing and
the Respondents' announcement of the creation of the refund
programs. According to the QCA, the extinguishment of the main
cause of action did not appear to have extinguished the class
members' entitlement to interest resulting from the Respondents'
delay in repaying the amounts owed, as well as to damages.
The QCA also found that Mr. Lachaine no longer had the requisite
capacity to properly represent the class members, as the issuer of
the credit card with which he had purchased his travel package had
fully and diligently reimbursed the amount of his purchase. Mr.
Bonnier is, therefore, now the only person appointed as
representative plaintiff.
Proposed Global or National Class
It should be noted that the QCA rejected the global or national
class proposed by the Appellants as the latter had merely invoked
common law rules and various consumer protection laws to justify
the proposed class. Such broad and imprecise allegations are
insufficient to establish an arguable legal syllogism in support of
a global or national class action claim. The QCA determined that
the group would, therefore, be limited to Quebec consumers only.
Conclusion
This ruling by the highest court in Quebec provides important
information for companies that are targeted by class actions and,
in appropriate cases, are considering creating a voluntary refund
program for their customers. In its decision, the QCA confirmed
that a company's undertaking to set up a refund program may be
sufficient for a class action authorization to be denied, provided
that:
(i) proof of the terms of the program is filed at the
authorization stage (which implies, incidentally, that the court
should authorize such evidence at the authorization stage);
(ii) such evidence allows the court to conclude that all class
members have been or will be reimbursed for their purchases and
that they no longer have an interest in the action; and
(iii) the company implements its program immediately or promptly
after the class action filing, or prior to same. Otherwise, even if
members are reimbursed, the class action may still be authorized to
allow members to claim interest and damages for trouble and
inconvenience. [GN]
ALL MY SONS: Court Awards $600.7K in Attorneys' Fees in Vega Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Raner C. Collins of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona grants in part the Plaintiff's Application for
Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and awards a total of $600,700 in
attorneys' fees in the lawsuit captioned Jose A. Vega, Plaintiff v.
All My Sons Business Development LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:20-cv-00284-RCC (D. Ariz.).
Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's Application for
Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The Plaintiff also submitted his Bill of
Costs. The Defendants filed an Objection to the Bill of Costs and
the Plaintiff filed his Response.
On July 2, 2020, the Plaintiff brought a Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 Class Action and Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
Collective Action on behalf of himself and similarly situated
"helpers" (i.e., movers) who worked for Defendants All My Sons
Business Development LLC, All My Sons Moving & Storage of Tucson,
and All My Sons Moving & Storage of Phoenix (collectively "All My
Sons").
The parties engaged in discovery and disclosure, litigated the
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify FLSA Collective Action, the
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Rule 23 Class, the Defendants' Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings, engaged in the formal notice
procedures for class and collective actions, participated in
mediation, and ultimately negotiated a Settlement Agreement.
On Feb. 1, 2022, the Court granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion
to Certify FLSA Collective Action and Motion to Certify Rule 23
Class. As requested, the Court conditionally certified a collective
action for violations of the FLSA's overtime and minimum wage
requirements. The collective consisted of helpers at All My Sons
Tucson. The Court also certified, pursuant to Rule 23, an Unpaid
Wages Class of helpers at All My Sons Tucson to seek unpaid wages
owed under A.R.S. Sections 23-350–65.
However, the Court declined to certify a class consisting of
helpers from All My Sons Tucson and Phoenix, who were seeking paid
sick time, because the Court found the claim for paid sick time
could not proceed. The Court determined that there is no private
right of action to seek civil penalties for violations of Section
23-375(A) or (C), and noted that neither the Arizona Supreme Court
nor the Arizona Court of Appeals have determined whether an
individual employee may recover the civil penalties contemplated by
Section 23-375(E) and Section 23-364(F).
Finally, the Court's Order declined to dismiss Defendant All My
Sons Business Development, LLC, as a party and instructed the
Defendants to file a separate motion to dismiss, which they did
not.
On Jan. 17, 2024, the Court approved the parties' Settlement
Agreement. The Settlement Agreement awarded $150,000 for the class
and provided that the Plaintiff and Class Counsel are eligible for,
and are statutorily entitled to, their reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and A.R.S. Section
23-364(G).
The Plaintiff filed an Application for Attorneys' Fees and Costs
seeking an award of $644,860 in attorneys' fees, $4,165.13 in
taxable costs, and $5,888.80 in non-taxable costs.
The parties do not appear to dispute that the Plaintiff is the
"prevailing party" in this case. The Court agrees. The Settlement
Agreement is judicially enforceable because it required the Court's
approval and resulted in an order directing the Clerk of Court to
dismiss the case. The Settlement Agreement also materially altered
the legal relationship between the parties because the Plaintiff
and the Class now have a legally enforceable settlement requiring
the Defendants to compensate them for unpaid wages. This resolution
constitutes relief on the merits.
Accordingly, the Court finds the Plaintiff is eligible for, and
entitled to, his reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b).
Class Counsel billed at an hourly rate of $400 and worked over
1,693 hours (approximately $677,200). However, the Plaintiff only
seeks $644,860 in fees, which he says reflects his attempts to
reduce Class Counsel's lodestar to account for any duplicative or
even potentially high billing, as well as removing entries of
timekeepers, who had minimal involvement in this litigation.
The Defendants argue the fees are unreasonable because the
Plaintiff was not successful on all his claims and partial success
justifies only a partial fee award. Specifically, the Defendants
object to fees related to attempts to include the defunct All My
Sons Mesa location in the lawsuit; attempts to certify a class for
the All My Sons Phoenix location, including the deposition of the
Phoenix Manager and pleadings related to Phoenix; attempts to
certify a class of drivers; and litigation on the paid sick time
claim.
The Court will award the Plaintiff $600,700 in attorneys' fees.
Judge Collins opines that Class Counsel's $400 hourly rate is
reasonable and comparable to the hourly rate in similar cases in
this district. The Court will reduce the fees by the agreed upon
amount of $44,160 related to the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings. But it will not further reduce Class Counsel's hours
because they are otherwise reasonable.
The Court does not find that the Settlement Agreement prohibited
recovery of nontaxable costs. On the contrary, the relevant portion
of the Settlement Agreement seems to specifically contemplate that
the Plaintiff would receive the costs provided for under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) and A.R.S. Section 23-364(G). The $5,888.80 in
non-taxable costs are not otherwise unreasonable. Accordingly, the
Court will award the Plaintiff $5,888.80 in non-taxable costs.
The Plaintiff's Bill of Costs seeks $4,165.13 in taxable costs. The
Defendants object because they assert the Plaintiff seeks to
recover taxable costs for work related to "overreaching" in this
case.
The Court does not find that the Defendants' arguments are a basis
to reduce the taxable costs that the Plaintiff seeks. The Court
further notes that All My Sons Business Development, LLC, is also a
party to the Settlement Agreement. The Court will, however, make a
$175.02 reduction to the fees of the Clerk because they are not
taxable.
Accordingly, the Court rules as follows. The Plaintiff's
Application for Attorneys' Fees and Costs is granted in part. The
Plaintiff is awarded a total of $600,700.00 in attorneys' fees and
$5,888.80 in non-taxable costs.
The Clerk of Court is directed to tax costs in the amount of
$3,990.11.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 24, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mwr2fx2t from PacerMonitor.com.
ALLEGIANT AIR: Flores Privacy Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALEJANDRO FLORES, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLEGIANT AIR, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 24CV02655, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Santa Barbara, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on June 27,
2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-05454 to the proceeding.
The case arises out of Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act in connection with its improper
disclosure of customers' personal information to Meta Platforms,
Inc. d/b/a Meta (Facebook).
Allegiant Air is an American airline headquartered in Las Vegas,
NV. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Marie E. Christiansen, Esq.
VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 204-7700
Facsimile: (424) 204-7702
E-mail: mchristiansen@vedderprice.com
- and -
Blaine C. Kimrey, Esq.
Jeanah Park, Esq.
Bryan K. Clark, Esq.
VEDDER PRICE P.C.
222 N. LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 609-7500
Facsimile: (312) 609-5005
E-mail: bkimrey@vedderprice.com
jpark@vedderprice.com
bclark@vedderprice.com
ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK: Fact Discovery in Chavez Due Nov. 1
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MINERVA CHAVEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No.
3:22-cv-00166-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Pettit
entered a scheduling order regulating discovery and other pre-trial
proceedings in a class action case.
On June 25, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for class
certification. Accordingly, the Court held a Case Management
Conference on July 3, 2024 before Magistrate Judge Michelle M.
Pettit.
The Parties must file a joint motion seeking Court approval of
Class Notice and Notice Plan by July 31, 2024.
The deadline for mailing of the Class Notice, consistent with the
terms of the approved Notice Plan, shall be seven (7) days after
Court approval of the Class Notice and Notice Plan.
The deadline for putative class members to opt out of the class
shall be 45 days after the mailing of the Class Notice.
On or before Dec. 13, 2024, each party must comply with the
disclosure provisions in Rule 26(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory
or rebuttal evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(c) by Jan. 10,
2025. Any reply briefs by designated experts shall be provided to
opposing counsel by Jan. 31, 2025.
All fact discovery must be completed by all parties on or before
Nov. 1, 2024. All expert discovery must be completed by all parties
on or before Jan. 31, 2025.
A Mandatory Settlement Conference will be conducted on May 14, 2025
at 9:30 a.m. in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Michelle M.
Pettit. Counsel or any party representing himself or herself must
submit confidential settlement briefs directly to the magistrate
judge’s chambers by May 5, 2025. All parties are ordered to read
and to fully comply with the Chamber Rules of the assigned
magistrate judge.
All other dispositive motions, including those addressing Daubert
issues, must be filed on or before February 28, 2025. Please be
advised that counsel for the moving party must obtain a motion
hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who will hear the
motion. Motions in Limine are to be filed as directed in the Local
Rules, or as otherwise set by Judge Battaglia.
Allstate provides marine, fire, marine, business, credit, and
casualty insurance products and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k5gpfY at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALPHA PRIME: Melancon Sues Over Brownie Bites' Protein Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY MELANCON, DANIEL JAMES RUCHMAN, and CASSEY WATSON,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. ALPHA
PRIME SUPPS, a Florida limited liability company, Case No.
0:24-cv-61135 (S.D. Fla., June 28, 2024) contends that all flavors
of protein brownie bites (banana nut, glazed chocolate doughnut,
cinnamon roll, chocolate cookie monster, peanut butter chocolate,
cookie dough, birthday cake blondie, blueberry cobbler, and cookies
'n cream flavors), which are manufactured, packaged, labeled,
advertised, distributed, and sold by the Defendant, are misbranded
and falsely advertised because they contain far fewer grams of
protein per serving than stated upon their labels.
Each flavor of the Product states on the front label that it
contains 19 grams of protein in each brownie. This claim is
repeated in the "Nutrition Facts" panel on the back label, and on
the Alpha Prime website at
https://alphaprimesupps.com/pages/prime-bites. These labels and
website claims regarding protein content are false. AOAC method
testing conducted at the undersigned's direction by an independent,
third-party laboratory reveals that the protein content in the
Products is overstated, with the shortfalls ranging from 10% at the
high end (or 17 grams of protein in a bar claiming to contain 19
grams) to 23% at the low end (or 14.7 grams of protein in a bar
claiming to contain 19 grams of protein), the lawsuit says.
Because the Products are "Class I" foods as defined in 21 C.F.R.
section 101.9(g)(3), no shortfall in protein content is permitted
under federal labelling regulations. Instead, pursuant to that
provision, "the nutrient content ... must be formulated to be at
least equal to the value for that nutrient declared on the label,"
the lawsuit adds.
Melancon attempts to eat a healthy diet in order to maintain his
weight and meet fitness goals and tracks his protein intake as part
of his fitness plan. He purchased the chocolate glazed doughnut and
cookie dough flavor Products from a Nutrition Corner in Short Pump,
Viginia on May 17, 2024; the blueberry cobbler and cookie dough
flavor Products on April 20, 2024; and the peanut butter chocolate
and cookies 'n cream flavor Products from a Vitamin Shoppe on
August 22, 2023. Melancon believes and avers that he purchased the
Products at other times during the Class period but has not
retained receipts for those purchases.
Alpha Prime formulates, manufactures, distributes, and sells a line
of protein-infused brownies.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William J. Cook, Esq.
COOK LAW, P.A.
610 E. Zack Street, Suite 505
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 489-1001
Facsimile: (813) 489-1008
E-mail: wcook@cooklawfla.com
susan@cooklawfla.com
- and -
Charles C. Weller, Esq.
CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
11412 Corley Court
San Diego, CA 92126
Telephone: (858) 414-7465
E-mail: legal@cweller.com
AMAZON.COM: Class Cert Bid Filing in Waithaka Extended to August 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNARD WAITHAKA, et al.,
v. AMAZON.COM INC. and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No.
2:19-cv-01320-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Coughenour entered
an order extending the Plaintiff's time to submit a motion for
class certification and Defendants' time to submit a motion to
compel arbitration from July 5, 2024, to Aug. 2, 2024.
the court also extends the deadline for Opposition briefs from Aug.
5, 2024 to Sept. 3, 2024 and the deadline for reply briefs from
Aug. 20, 2024 to Sept. 18, 2024.
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qcCDy5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
Michael C. Subit, Esq.
FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS
LLP
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104-1729
Telephone: (206) 682-6711
Facsimile: (206) 682-0401
E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com
- and -
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Jeremy Abay, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
hlichten@llrlaw.com
jabay@llrlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew DeCarlow, Esq.
Richard G. Rosenblatt, Esq.
James P. Walsh, Esq.
Michael E. Kenneally, Esq.
John S. Battenfeld, Esq.
Max C. Fischer, Esq.
Brian D. Fahy, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 274-6400
Facsimile: (206) 274-6401
E-mail: andrew.decarlow@morganlewis.com
richard.rosenblatt@morganlewis.com
james.walsh@morganlewis.com
michael.kenneally@morganlewis.com
jbattenfeld@morganlewis.com
max.fischer@morganlewis.com
brian.fahy@morganlewis.com
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Bid to Transfer Venue in Nachison Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Casey Pitts of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies the Defendant's motion to transfer
venue in the lawsuit titled ARI NACHISON, et al., Plaintiffs v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00530-PCP
(N.D. Cal.).
In this putative nationwide class action, the Named Plaintiffs
allege that Defendant American Airlines, Inc. ("AA") wrongfully and
unilaterally terminated their AAdvantage program accounts resulting
in the total loss of the Plaintiffs' accrued airline miles. AA
moves to transfer the Plaintiffs' lawsuit to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas.
AAdvantage is a frequent flyer reward program offered by AA where
members can earn "miles" that are redeemable for program benefits
associated with air travel, such as purchasing and upgrading
flights or renting cars and hotels. Miles may be obtained through
various methods including direct purchases from AA or booking
flights through AA. AAdvantage members may also earn miles by
obtaining and using AA-branded credit cards issued by Citibank or
Barclays. The contracts governing AAdvantage accounts and
promotional materials are drafted and administered at AA's
headquarters in Texas.
This lawsuit involves AAdvantage members, who applied for and used
multiple Citi-AAdvantage and Barclays-AAdvantage credit cards after
receiving promotional materials from AA. According to the
Plaintiffs, some Citi-AAdvantage credit card applications included
"Offer Availability" restrictions limiting enrollment bonuses to
customers, who hadn't received an enrollment bonus in the last 48
months, while others (including those that the Plaintiffs
purportedly filled out) did not.
The Plaintiffs allege that the "Offer Availability" section in
their applications included no restriction on the number of credit
cards customers could apply for or receive. They further allege
that AA terminated their AAdvantage accounts after concluding that
they had engaged in fraud or improper conduct by taking advantage
of multiple Citi-AAdvantage or Barclays-AAdvantage credit card
promotions. They each received emails notifying them that their
AAdvantage accounts had been terminated due to "violations of the
General AAdvantage Program Conditions" "related to the accrual of
ineligible miles and benefits; through fraud, misrepresentation,
and/or abuse of the AAdvantage Program."
The Plaintiffs contend that customers whose AAdvantage accounts
were terminated lost all miles accrued to that point and any
tickets they had purchased but not yet used were cancelled. On the
basis of these allegations, the Plaintiffs assert claims for breach
of contract and unjust enrichment and seek to represent a
nationwide class. The original complaint included eight Plaintiffs:
four residing in California, two in Michigan, and two in
Connecticut.
On March 4, 2024, AA moved to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction the claims brought by six of the eight Plaintiffs: the
four who resided outside California at all times relevant to their
claims and the two who are currently California residents but who
resided elsewhere when their AAdvantage accounts were created and
terminated.
On March 6, 2024, AA moved under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) to
transfer venue from this Court to the Northern District of Texas.
On March 28, 2024, the four Plaintiffs residing outside of
California voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a). On May 2, 2024,
the Court heard AA's motions to dismiss and transfer. The Court
orally granted AA's motion to dismiss the claims brought by the two
Plaintiffs, who did not reside in California when their accounts
were created and terminated, leaving only two Plaintiffs in the
case, the Nachisons. On the same date, the Court heard and
submitted AA's motion to transfer.
As an initial matter, Judge Pitts notes, transfer is available only
if this action could have been brought in the district to which AA
seeks transfer. Applying this test, Judge Pitts says it is clear
that this action could have been brought in the Northern District
of Texas because the sole Defendant in this case (AA) resides in
Fort Worth, Texas, in the Northern District of Texas.
Even if an action could have been brought in a different district,
Judge Pitts points out that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section
1404(a) is appropriate only if it would promote convenience and the
interests of justice, as determined by evaluating several factors,
including the location where the relevant agreements were
negotiated and executed, citing Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211
F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000).
On balance, Judge Pitts notes, the Jones factors do not clearly
favor transferring this matter to the Northern District of Texas.
Ultimately, Judge Pitts finds AA has identified at most two Jones
factors that favor transfer, and they do so only ever so slightly.
Given that the other factors are either neutral or more strongly
weigh against transfer, Judge Pitts holds AA has not satisfied its
burden to demonstrate that convenience and the interests of justice
clearly favor transferring this matter to the Northern District of
Texas.
For these reasons, the Court denies American Airlines' motion to
transfer venue.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 24, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mwvc2s35 from PacerMonitor.com.
AMERICAN CRUISE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Amended to August 30
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kirk v. American Cruise
Lines, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01057 (D. Con., Filed Aug 8, 2023),
the Hon. Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an order granting joint
motion to modify scheduling order.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification Aug. 30,
2024
due by:
-- Opposition to class certification due by: Sept. 30,
2024.
-- Reply re: Class Certification due on: Oct. 11,
2024
-- Fact discovery shall be completed by: Oct. 18,
2024
-- Disclosure of affirmative expert reports due by: Nov. 18,
2024
-- Disclosure of rebuttal expert reports due by: Dec. 16,
2024
-- Depositions of expert witnesses shall be Jan. 31,
2025
completed by:
-- All discovery shall close by: Feb. 14,
2025
-- The parties may jointly file such Feb. 21,
2025
a request by:
-- Dispositive motions due by: March 14,
2025
-- Responses to dispositive motions due by: April 11,
2025
-- Replies to dispositive motions due by: May 2, 2025
-- Joint trial memorandum is due by: July 2,
2025
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.[CC]
American Cruise is the largest river and small-ship cruise line in
the U.S.A. with its headquarters in Guilford, Connecticut.[CC]
APPLE INC: E-Book Readers Eligible for Payout of $15MM Class Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Jiang of Toronto Star, reports that if you're an avid reader
who bought at least 12 ebooks in the years between 2010 and 2017,
you could be eligible for a payout from a more than $15 million
class-action settlement involving claims of a price-fixing
conspiracy among publishers and tech giants.
The lawsuit alleged Apple, Apple Canada and various major
publishers of ebooks conspired to "fix, maintain, increase or
control the price of ebooks" sold in Canada -- leading the price of
the products to be artificially inflated between 2010 and 2017,
according to the class action settlement's website.
Although the publishers denied the allegations and none of the
claims have been proven in court, the defendants agreed to pay out
$15.175 million to settle the case. Here's how you can sign up.
Who's eligible for the ebook class action settlement
Claimants who bought 12 or more eligible ebooks from Google,
Amazon, Sony, Kobo or iTunes between April 1, 2010 and March 10,
2017 using a Canadian account will receive a variable payment,
depending on the number of books purchased and the price paid for
the products.
Eligible ebooks include those published or distributed by Hachette,
Harper Collins, MacMillan, Penguin and Simon & Schuster between the
dates above. Excluded are ebooks published or distributed by
Penguin Random House Canada Limited after Dec. 31, 2014.
How can I submit a claim?
People who purchased 12 or more of the ebooks using a Canadian
account with Google, Amazon or Sony -- or whose iTunes or Kobo
Account is not associated with a currently valid email address --
must submit a claim by Sept. 23, 2024. You can submit a claim using
this online form.
Readers whose iTunes or Kobo account remains linked to a valid
email address are automatically enrolled and will receive a payment
without the need to do anything. You'll have received an email
about the settlement if you're among those automatically enrolled.
How will I get my money?
People who submitted a claim through the online form will receive a
mailed cheque for the amounts owed to the address provided during
the claims process.
People with a currently active iTunes or Kobo account will
automatically get credits deposited in their account -- although
these funds are forfeit if the account is closed before the
transfer is made.
If your iTunes account isn't active or not used within a year prior
to when the data was reviewed, but is still linked to a valid email
address, you'll automatically get paid via e-transfer.
Payments are not expected to be made until the fall of 2024. [GN]
APPLE INC: Faces Philbrook Antitrust Class Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
GENE PHILBROOK and KERRY PHILBROOK, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. APPLE INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-07379
(D.N.J., June 28, 2024) is a class action suit brought by the
Plaintiffs Gene Philbrook and Kerry Philbrook, on behalf of
themselves and in a representative capacity on behalf of a Class of
direct purchasers of iPhones in the United States.
The Plaintiffs claims against Apple under Section 2 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act of 1890, 15 U.S.C. section 2, and Sections 4 and 16
of the Clayton Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 15 & 26, for
relief from Defendant's attempted and actual monopolization of the
market for the sale of Smartphones in the United States from at
least as early as March 21, 2020, through the date by which the
anticompetitive effects of its violations of law shall have ceased
but in any case, no earlier than the present.
The allegations made by the United States Department of Justice and
the States of New Jersey, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maine,
Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the District
of Columbia.
On March 21, 2024, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
and a number of State Attorneys General filed what has been
described as a "landmark" antitrust case against Apple. The DOJ
alleges Apple monopolized the markets for Smartphones and
Performance Smartphones.
The DOJ and the States seek injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs bring
this action as a private attorney general to supplement government
enforcement through a private right of Action under Sections 4 and
16 of the Clayton Act to recover treble damages and other relief
under federal law on behalf of consumers in the United States who
purchased iPhones directly from Apple, such as at an Apple Store or
the Apple website.
Allegedly, Apple's U.S. market share by revenue is over 70 percent
in the Performance Smartphone market -- a more expensive segment of
the broader Smartphone market where Apple's own executives
recognize the company competes -- and over 65 percent for all
Smartphones. Over the last decade, Apple increased its share of
Smartphones sold in the United States most years. Through the same
period, Apple collected more than half the revenue for all
Smartphones sold in the United States.
Apple has allegedly abused and continues to abuse its monopoly
through the overarching scheme revealed by the DOJ, with the
purpose and the effect of charging and receiving artificially high
prices and fees from consumers in the United States, says the
suit.
Apple Inc. is an American multinational corporation and technology
company headquartered in Cupertino, California [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq.
Vincent Briganti., Esq.
Raymond P. Girnys., Esq.
Peter A. Barile III., Esq.
Peter Demato., Esq.
Nicole A. Veno., Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBEG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
E-mail: pstphillip@lowey.com
vbriganti@lowey.com
rgirnys@lowey.com
pbarile@lowey.com
pdemato@lowey.com
nveno@lowey.com
APPLE INC: Herrerias Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Anali Herrerias, Mariah Nayeri, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01752 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on June 24, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07194 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/ -- is an American
multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gayle Meryl Blatt, Esq.
Jeremy Keith Robinson, Esq.
Patricia Camille Guerra, Esq.
CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 238-1811
Fax: (619) 544-9232
Email: gmb@cglaw.com
jrobinson@cglaw.com
camille@cglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Cynthia Richman, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN, & CRUTCHER
1050 Connecticut Ave. Nw
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 955-8234
Email: crichman@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Daniel Glen Swanson, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 229-7430
Fax: (213) 229-6430
Email: dswanson@gibsondunn.com
APPLE INC: Kane Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lisa Johnston Kane, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-02193
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey on June 24, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07196 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/ -- is an American
multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Aaron Paul Arnzen, Esq.
Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
Phone: (858) 914-2001
Fax: (858) 914-2002
Email: aarnzen@bottinilaw.com
achang@bottinilaw.com
fbottini@bottinilaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Cynthia Richman, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN, & CRUTCHER
1050 Connecticut Ave. Nw
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 955-8234
Email: crichman@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Daniel Glen Swanson, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 229-7430
Fax: (213) 229-6430
Email: dswanson@gibsondunn.com
APPLE INC: Kouyate Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Moussa Kouyate, David Freifeld, Jarell Brown,
Michele Kielbasa, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-03135 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on June 24, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07197-JXN-LDW to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/ -- is an American
multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alison Elizabeth Chase, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone: (805) 456-1496
Fax: (805) 456-1497
Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 3rd Ave, Ste 3200
Seattle, WA 98101-3052
Phone: (206) 623-1900
Fax: (206) 623-3384
Email: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Liza M. Walsh, Esq.
Douglas E. Arpert, Esq.
WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP
Three Gateway Center
100 Mulberry Street, 15th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (973) 757-1100
Email: lwalsh@walsh.law
darpert@walsh.law
APPLE INC: Kyndberg Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kendra Kyndberg, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No.
0:24-cv-01107 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey on June 24, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07193 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/ -- is an American
multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
DANIEL C. HEDLUND, Esq.
Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
Mary M. Nikolai, Esq.
Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC-MN
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 333-8844
Fax: (612) 339-6622
Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com
mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Barbara P. Berens, Esq.
Kari S. Berman, Esq.
Berens & Miller, PA
80 S. 8th St. Ste. 3720
Mpls, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 349-6171
Fax: (612) 349-6416
Email: bberens@berensmiller.com
kberman@berensmiller.com
- and -
Cynthia Richman, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN, & CRUTCHER
1050 Connecticut Ave. Nw
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 955-8234
Email: crichman@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Daniel Glen Swanson, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 229-7430
Fax: (213) 229-6430
Email: dswanson@gibsondunn.com
APPLE INC: Miller Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christopher Miller, Angela Boykin, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-01988 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on June 26, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07291 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust.
Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/ -- is an American
multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Blair Elizabeth Reed, Esq.
Laurence D. King, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (415) 772-4700
Email: breed@kaplanfox.com
lking@kaplanfox.com
- and -
Matthew Brian George, Esq.
601 California Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: (415) 981-4800
Email: mbg@girardgibbs.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Cynthia Richman, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN, & CRUTCHER
1050 Connecticut Ave. Nw
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 955-8234
Email: crichman@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Daniel Glen Swanson, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 229-7430
Fax: (213) 229-6430
Email: dswanson@gibsondunn.com
APPLE INC: Schwartz Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Zachary Schwartz, Bernadette Lionetta, on behalf
of themself and all others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case
No. 3:24-cv-02213 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey on June 24, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07195 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/ -- is an American
multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher Eric Stiner, Esq.
Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 W Olive Ave Ste 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Phone: (310) 474-9111
Fax: (310) 474-8585
Email: cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com
rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
Theodore Walter Maya, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
10728 Lindbrook Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 474-9111
Fax: (310) 474-8585
- and -
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
125 Maiden Lane, Suite 5c
New York, NE 10038
Phone: (917) 336-0171
Fax: (917) 336-0177
The Defendant is represented by:
Cynthia Richman, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN, & CRUTCHER
1050 Connecticut Ave. Nw
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 955-8234
Email: crichman@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Daniel Glen Swanson, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 229-7430
Fax: (213) 229-6430
Email: dswanson@gibsondunn.com
ARROW MIRROR: Osorio Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
DARBIN OSORIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARROW MIRROR & GLASS, INC. d/b/a ARROW GLASS
INDUSTRIES, JOSEPH KINSELLA and LIU'S GLASS SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
4:24-cv-02489 (S.D. Tex., July 1, 2024) seeks redress for
Defendants willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act as a
collective action to recover unpaid overtime and/or minimum wages
owed to Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employed by
Defendants within the past three years.
The proposed members of the collective are current and former
employees of Defendants who were paid straight time and not paid
overtime at the statutory rate directed by the FLSA. The Defendants
employ over 60 laborers in its Houston facility to manufacture and
install glass for their customers' projects. Many or all laborers,
including Plaintiff, were allegedly required to work more than 40
hours in a week.
The Defendants has a high rate of turnover for its employees.
Accordingly, on information and belief, the collective membership
would include more than 70 employees. The Plaintiff and members of
the proposed collective are not exempt workers under the FLSA, says
the suit.
Arrow Mirror and Glass Inc. provides glass installation
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Dore, Esq.
JUSTICIA LABORAL LLC
6232 N. Pulaski Road, Suite 300
Chicago, IL. 60646
Telephone: (773) 415-4898
E-mail: jdore@justicialaboral.com
ASCENSION HEALTH: Fails to Protect Customer Data, Juracek Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK JURACEK, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated persons v. ASCENSION HEALTH, Case No. 4:24-cv-00905 (E.D.
Mo., July 1, 2024) seeks monetary damages, restitution, and/or
injunctive relief for the proposed Class, defined as:
"All natural persons in the United States whose Personally
Identifiable Information and/or Protected Health Information was
compromised as a result of the Data Breach."
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately
protect customer data, resulting in the Data Breach. In the course
of its business, Defendant collects names, phone numbers, Social
Security numbers, physical addresses, driver’s license
information, insurance, and medical information from its
subscribers like Plaintiff. It also maintains medical records
subject to the requirements and standards of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).
Ascension, according to its own website is as "one of the nation's
leading non-profit and Catholic health systems, with a Mission of
delivering compassionate, personalized care to all with special
attention to persons living in poverty and those most vulnerable."
As Defendant has now admitted, "On May 8, Ascension detected
unusual activity in our network systems, which we have determined
is due to a ransomware attack. We continue to diligently
investigate and address this ransomware attack, working closely
with industry-leading cybersecurity experts to assist in our
investigation and recovery efforts."
On May 9, 2024, Ascension first disclosed on its website that its
networks had been compromised in a cyberattack that was first
detected on May 8, 20204 (the "Data Breach"). But Ascension made no
efforts to alert the millions (on information and belief) of
consumers and patients whose private information was exfiltrated
and it has yet to notify consumers to this day. Affected
individuals have still not received any definitive statement from
Ascension whether its personal and health information has been
compromised.
As of June 30, 2023, Asension has over $40 billion in assets and in
the year ending June 30, 2023, it has operating revenue exceeding
$28 billion.6 Ascension’s balance sheet indicates cash and cash
equivalents exceeding $1 billion as of March 31, 2024.
Plaintiff Mark Juracek is a citizen of and is domiciled in the
state of Michigan. The Plaintiff is a consumer who has obtained
health insurance coverage from Ascension. The Plaintiff provided
confidential and sensitive PII and PHI to Ascension, in connection
with Ascension's provision of its services. Defendant obtained and
continues to maintain Plaintiff's PII and PHI and has a legal duty
and obligation to protect that PII and PHI from unauthorized access
and disclosure.
As a result of the Data Breach and the release of his PHI and PII,
which he expected Defendant to protect from disclosure, Plaintiff
has suffered emotional distress, including anxiety, concern, and
unease about unauthorized parties viewing and potentially using his
PHI and PII, the suit says.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John F. Garvey, Esq.
Colleen Garvey, Esq.
Ellen A. Thomas, Esq.
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
701 Market Street, Suite 1510
St. Louis, MO, 63101
Telephone: (314) 390-6750
E-mail: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com
cgarvey@stranchlaw.com
ethomas@stranchlaw.com
gstranch@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
Karin B. Swope, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
999 N. Northlake Way, Suite 215
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) (206) 970-8181
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com
kswope@cpmlegal.com
ASIAN WORLD: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Fernandez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASIAN WORLD OF MARTIAL ARTS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04882 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2024) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.awma.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation
of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Asian World Of Martial Arts, Inc. offers a wide variety of martial
arts supply items across the US. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
AT&T INC: Telford Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Peter Telford, individually and behalf of all
others similarly situate v. AT&T Inc., DIRECTV, Case No.
3:24-cv-00798 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on June 24, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01571-E to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Torts/Pers Injury for Other
Personal Injury.
AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- is an American multinational
telecommunications holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP
31365 Oak Crest Dr., Ste. 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Phone: 805-270-7100
Fax: 805-270-7589
Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
- and -
Debra Nicole Guntner, Esq.
Bryan Frederick Aylstock, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 E. Main Street, Ste. 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: nguntner@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
BARNABY LTD: Tatola Sues Over Disclosure of Private Info
--------------------------------------------------------
STELLA TATOLA, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public, Plaintiff v. BARNABY LTD., LLC, and
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-03789 (N.D.
Cal., June 25, 2024) is a class action seeking to enjoin Barnaby's
disclosure and communication to Microsoft of private and
confidential information without consent, and to recover
compensation for injured Class Members.
According to the complaint, Barnaby's websites allow consumers to
view a diverse catalogue of adult toys and products, and consumers
like Plaintiff visit the websites to confidentially shop for those
products. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and other Barnaby website users,
and constituting the ultimate violation of privacy, Barnaby allows
an undisclosed third-party, Microsoft, to intercept, read, and
utilize for commercial gain consumers' private information about
their sexual practices and preferences, gleaned from their activity
on Barnaby's websites. This information includes but is not limited
to product searches and purchase initiations, as well as the
consumer's unique Microsoft identifier, says the suit.
Barnaby sells adult toys and products aimed at enhancing sexual
wellbeing and pleasure through https://www.goodvibes.com and
https://www.babeland.com websites.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
Melanie R. Monroe, Esq.
Trevor Flynn, Esq.
Caroline S. Emhardt, Esq.
Peter Grazul, Esq.
FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC
2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 215-1741
E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com
mmonroe@fmfpc.com
tflynn@fmfpc.com
cemhardt@fmfpc.com
pgrazul@fmfpc.com
BATTLE CREEK: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage Under FLSA, Kale Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrija Kale, Jordan Smith, David Hawkins, Brian Hire, Alec Miller,
Tammy Williams, Bobbie Brust, Owen Slabach, and Micah Graff, on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. Battle Creek
Pizza, Inc., KB Pizza Co., Kevin Hershock, Doe Corporation 1-10;
John Doe 1-10,, Case No. 1:24-cv-00677 (W.D. Mich., June 28, 2024)
alleges that the Defendants willfully failed to compensate the
Plaintiffs and similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and M.C.L.A. Section
408.414.
The Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the FLSA and the
M.C.L.A. Section 408.414 by failing to adequately reimburse
delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby
failing to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wages
for all hours worked. All delivery drivers at the Defendants'
stores, including the Plaintiffs, have been subject to the same
employment policies and practices, including policies and practices
with respect to wages and reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses,
the suit says.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated former delivery drivers who elect to opt in
pursuant to FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) to remedy violations of
the FLSA wage and hour provisions by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs
also bring this action on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated former delivery drivers in Michigan, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23, to remedy violations of M.C.L.A.
Section 408.414 and M.C.L.A. Section 408.472 by the Defendants and
based on the Defendants' unjust enrichment.
Mr. Kale and Mr. Smith worked at Battle Creek Pizza stores as
delivery drivers beginning in February 2019 and beginning in
January 2020, respectively.
Battle Creek owns and operates approximately eleven Hungry
Howie’s pizza restaurants, including at least five pizza
restaurants in the Battle Creek, Michigan area.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bradley K. Glazier, Esq.
Robert M. Howard, Esq.
CUNNINGHAM DALMAN, PC
321 Settlers Road
Holland, MI 49423
Telephone: (616) 459-8835
E-mail: brad@cunninghamdalman.com
- and -
Frank Raimond, Esq.
RAIMOND & STAINES, LLC
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 884-9636
E-mail: frank@raimondstaines.com
- and -
Allen Wong, Esq.
ALLEN WONG PLLC
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (646) 801-8778
- and -
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 202-0710
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
BAY AREA REAL ESTATE: Wins Bid to Stay Proceedings in Grace Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the unopposed motion to stay
proceedings in the lawsuit titled Christina Grace, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Bay Area
Real Estate Information Services, Inc.; Marin Association of
Realtors; North Bay Association of Realtors; Northern Solano County
Association of Realtors, Inc.; Solano Association of Realtors,
Inc.; RE/MAX Holdings, Inc.; Anywhere Real Estate Inc.; Vanguard
Properties, Inc.; Twin Oaks Real Estate Inc.; Windermere Real
Estate Services Company Inc.; Rapisarda & Fox, Inc.; Realty ONE
Group, Inc.; Keller Williams Realty, Inc.; Compass, Inc.; eXp World
Holdings, Inc.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 4:23-cv-06352-HSG (N.D. Cal.).
Defendant Bay Area Real Estate Information Services, Inc.
("BAREIS") filed an Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings as to
BAREIS on June 20, 2024.
Previously, on May 29, 2024, the Court ordered a stay of all
further proceedings in this action against Certain Released Parties
under the nationwide settlement agreement between the National
Association of Realtors(R) and the nationwide plaintiff class
regarding commissions paid by home sellers, pending a decision on
final approval of the NAR Settlement.
Effective June 17, 2024, BAREIS has opted into the NAR nationwide
settlement agreement and is, therefore, also now a Released Party
under that agreement.
As this is an unopposed motion, the Court has determined that it
may be decided without oral argument pursuant to Civil L.R.
7-1(b).
Good cause appearing, the Court grants the Motion to Stay. The case
is stayed in its entirety against BAREIS until 30 days after the
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
rules on the motion for final approval of the National Association
of REALTORS(R) March 15, 2024 class action settlement in Burnett,
et al. v. The National Association of Realtors, et al. (W.D.
Missouri No. 19-cv-00332); Moehrl, et al. v. The National
Association of Realtors, et al. (N.D. Ill. No. 19-cv-01610); Umpa
v. The National Association of Realtors, et al. (W.D. Mo. No.
23-cv-945); and Gibson v. The National Association of Realtors, et
al. (W.D. Mo. No. 23-cv-00788).
The parties are directed to jointly notify the Court within 48
hours of final approval and entry of judgment in the NAR action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 21, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ysyz3tm8 from PacerMonitor.com.
PATRICK M. RYAN -- pryan@bartkolaw.com -- JOHN F. McLEAN --
jmclean@bartkolaw.com -- TYLER CUNNINGHAM --
tcunningham@bartkolaw.com -- BARTKO LLP, in San Francisco,
California 94111; JASON A. ZWEIG -- jzweig@bartkolaw.com -- BARTKO
LLP, in Chicago, IL 60606, Attorneys for Defendant BAY AREA REAL
ESTATE INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.
BEN & JERRY'S: Court Dismisses Tyrnauer's Claims
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOVID TYRNAUER, AMANDA
BERGER, DAVID CALLAWAY, CHRIS HALVERSON, TIFFANY TAYLOR, and SARAH
TICKLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, V. BEN & JERRY'S HOMEMADE, INC., Case No.
2:23-cv-00299-cr (D. Vt.), the Hon. Judge Christina Reiss entered
an order granting Ben & Jerry's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
claims, and granting Plaintiffs leave to amend.
The Plaintiffs may submit a proposed Second Amended Complaint
within 20 days of the date of this Opinion and Order consistent
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this court's Local
Rules.
The monetary loss in this case depends not on the product's
advertising, labeling, packaging, quality, quantity, or
ingredients, but on the Plaintiffs' subjective, abstract, and
intangible belief that Ben & Jerry's ice cream is not sufficiently
"ethically sourced." The Plaintiffs fail to establish standing on
this basis. Thus, the court grants Ben & Jerry's motion to
dismiss.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action against Ben & Jerry's
Homemade, Inc. for allegedly misrepresenting the presence of
migrant child labor in its supply chain. The Plaintiffs assert
seven causes of action: violation of New York General Business Law
section 349 (Count I); violation of New York General Business Law
section 350 (Count II); violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law (Count III); violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Count V); breach of
express warranty (Count VI); and unjust enrichment (Count VII).
On Aug. 11, 2023, this action was transferred to the District of
Vermont with both parties' consent.
Ben & Jerry's is a corporate subsidiary of Unilever.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 8, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NGAj1L
at no extra charge.[CC]
BLENDJET INC: Lawyers Seek to Intervene in Illinois Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for Madison - St. Clair Record, reports that
lawyers seeking certification of a class against appliance maker
Blendjet in California claim a "mirror image action" at U.S.
district court here could harm their class.
Their lead plaintiff Gregory Rittenhouse moved on July 2 to
intervene in a suit Tommy Gould of St. Clair County filed against
Blendjet in April.
Rittenhouse's counsel Zachary Arbitman of Philadelphia claimed it's
especially true that absent class members have a right to
intervene.
Arbitman claimed they face a risk of being bound by an
unsatisfactory settlement.
He claimed Gould's allegations were substantively identical to
those Rittenhouse set forth and that Gould sought to represent the
same national class and the same Illinois subclass.
He also claimed Gould asked for identical relief.
Attorneys David Nelson of Belleville and Stuart Cochran of Dallas
represent Gould.
Arbitman and others filed Rittenhouse's class complaint last
September in the Eastern California district where Blendjet makes
blenders.
They claimed Blendjet knew but failed to disclose that its Blendjet
2 was dangerous. Its alleged defects led to overheating, melting of
wires, and fires.
They claimed blades broke off during use.
They further alleged breach of contract, violations of six state
consumer laws including Illinois, breach of implied warranty,
unjust enrichment, and fraudulent omission.
According to the intervention motion Blendjet recalled 4.8 million
blenders in December.
"As of the date of the recall Blendjet had received roughly 329
reports of blades breaking while in use and an additional 17
reports of overheating or fires resulting in property damage claims
of approximately $150,000," Arbitman wrote.
He claimed Rittenhouse and Blendjet were involved in extensive
mediation.
In April, Nelson filed Gould's suit at St. Clair County circuit
court.
Gould purchased Blendjet 2 for $49.99 at Target in Fairview
Heights.
He claimed Gould saw Blendjet's representations and understood them
as warranties.
He claimed Gould found it couldn't blend solid objects like ice and
frozen berries.
Blades allegedly came loose and would not stay tight; Gould feared
it was unsafe and quit using it.
Gould tried to return it unsuccessfully and discarded it.
He also claimed Blendjet's charging cables overheated and melted,
and claimed batteries overheated and sometimes caught fire.
He sought to certify a national class and an Illinois class under
state consumer law.
Arbitman claimed in the intervention motion that his group
approached Gould's counsel and inquired if they would voluntarily
consolidate the two cases.
He claimed they negotiated for several weeks but couldn't agree to
stay Gould's case or transfer it to Eastern California for
consolidation.
He claimed the misrepresentations and deceptive practices which
formed the basis of Gould's complaint occurred in Eastern
California.
"That is where Blendjet came up with the marketing strategies for
the blenders, discussed responses to customer complaints, and
eventually made the decision to issue a recall on the products,"
Arbitman wrote.
Chief District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel presides. [GN]
BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY: Peach Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
ABBEY PEACH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC and BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00792 (M.D. Tenn., June 28, 2024)
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Defendants allegedly paid certain employees, including servers
and bartenders, a tipped hourly wage less than the FLSA's $7.25 per
hour minimum wage (and the statutory $10.88 per hour minimum
overtime wage for hours worked over 40 in a workweek). The
Defendants instead relied on customer tips received by employees,
pursuant to the "tip credit" provision of the FLSA, to satisfy
their statutory minimum wage obligations, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and those similarly situated are current and former
Tip Credit Employees of the Defendants at the restaurants they
operate in Tennessee.
Bluegrass Hospitality Group LLC offers management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
Nicole A. Chanin, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC
200 31st Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
nchanin@barrettjohnston.com
BLUEPRINT MEDICINES: Johnson Sues for Irrevocable Resignation Bylaw
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of BLUEPRINT MEDICINES CORPORATION, Plaintiff v.
BLUEPRINT MEDICINES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2024-0625
(Del. Ch., June 7, 2024) seeks declaratory relief to invalidate the
Irrevocable Resignation Requirement of the Company's Amended and
Restated Bylaws, effective November 30, 2022.
Plaintiff Johnson asserts that the Irrevocable Resignation
Requirement allows the Company's board of directors to usurp
stockholders' exclusive right to select the members of the Board.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Delaware
General Corporation Law.
Headquartered in Massachusetts, Blueprint Medicines Corporation is
a precision therapy company that develops medicines for cancers and
blood disorders. [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
Telephone: (302) 499-3600
E-mail: kim@blockleviton.com
irene@blockleviton.com
robby@blockleviton.com
- and -
Jason Leviton, Esq.
Nathan Abelman, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
- and -
J. Abbott R. Cooper, Esq.
ABBOTT COOPER PLLC
1266 East Main Street, Suite 700R
Stamford, CT 06902
Telephone: (475) 333-0674
BOLT BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Bolt Biotherapeutics, Inc. ("Bolt" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: BOLT) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, and docketed under 24-cv-03985, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Bolt securities between February 5,
2021 and May 14, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company
and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Bolt
securities during the Class Period, you have until September 3,
2024 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle
Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.
Bolt, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, engages in the
development of immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer. The
Company's business model relies primarily on the success of its
"Boltbody" pipeline of immuno-oncology product candidates. Bolt's
product pipeline includes the immune-stimulating antibody conjugate
("ISAC") BDC-1001, designed to target a tumor antigen known as
human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 ("HER2") that is often
found in cancers such as breast and gastroesophageal cancer, as
well as BDC-3042 and BDC-4182, programs "targeting the clinically
validated cancer antigen Claudin 18.2."
Historically, Bolt's lead asset was BDC-1001, which had pre-defined
success criteria that included an overall response rate efficacy
threshold of at least 30% and, according to Bolt, purportedly
"provide[d] a compelling example of the potential of Boltbody ISACs
to address unmet medical needs in solid tumors" by "targeting
HER2-expressing tumors and related metastatic disease, triggering
their destruction by the innate and adaptive immune systems."
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) BDC-1001 was less effective than the Company had
represented to investors and was in fact unlikely to meet its
pre-defined success criteria;
(ii) accordingly, Defendants overstated the clinical and/or
commercial prospects of Bolt's product pipeline, on which the
Company primarily relies to sustain its business model;
(iii) all of the foregoing subjected the Company to a heightened
risk of disruptive leadership transitions and substantial workforce
reduction; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On May 14, 2024, issued a press release announcing that the Company
would cease further development of BDC-1001 and focus resources on
BDC-3042 and BDC-4182 upon determining that BDC-1001 failed to meet
its pre-defined success criteria, that the Company's Chief
Executive Officer ("CEO") Randall C. Schatzman and Chief Medical
Officer ("CMO") Edith Perez would be moved into advisory roles, and
that Bolt would be reducing its workforce by approximately 50%. In
addition, following Bolt's announcement, multiple analysts
downgraded the Company's stock, citing BDC-3042 and BDC-4182's
questionable near-term commercial prospects and the departure of
the Company's CEO and CMO as reasons for the downgrade.
On this news, Bolt's stock price fell $.49 per share, or 37.12%, to
close at $0.83 per share on May 15, 2024.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
Danielle Peyton
Pomerantz LLP
dpeyton@pomlaw.com
Tel: (646) 581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN]
BOZZUTO'S INC: Loiseau Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONRUDY LOISEAU, QUINTON
L. HEBRON and DWAYNE SMALL, individually and, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. BOZZUTO'S INC., JAMES JONES, CHUCK
CERRETA and JOEL SANTIAGO, Case No. 3:22-cv-01485-JCH (D. Conn.),
the Plaintiffs will move the Court for certification of a
Connecticut-wide class of Black employees who worked within
Bozzuto's wholesale operations where Plaintiffs' claims for
monetary damages are certified under Rule 23(b)(3) and Plaintiffs'
claims of class-wide injunctive relief are certified under Rule
23(b)(2).
This action was brought to redress pervasive and ongoing race
discrimination against Black employees at Bozzuto's Cheshire and
North Haven, Connecticut facilities. Specifically, the Defendants
have engaged in an intentional pattern-or-practice of
discrimination against Black employees in job positions, pay,
terminations, and the creation of an anti-Black hostile work
environment, and have also engaged in employment practices which
have resulted in a disparate impact on Black employees in violation
of Title VII and Section 1981.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class:
"All Black employees who worked within Bozzuto's wholesale
operations in Connecticut between November 21, 2018, and the
date
of class certification who never held nor were promoted to Lead,
Supervisor, Manager, Coordinator, Vice President, or Director
roles."
Bozzuto's wholesales dry groceries, dairy and delicatessan items,
meat, poultry, seafood, produce, and non-food items to retail
supermarket.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 5, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hw33cF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel A. Kotchen, Esq.
Lindsey Grunert, Esq.
KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
1918 New Hampshire Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 471-1995
Facsimile: (202) 280-1128
E-mail: dkotchen@kotchen.com
lgrunert@kotchen.com
- and -
Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NITOR V. EGBARIN, LLC
100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3007
Telephone: (860) 249-7180
Facsimile: (860) 408-1471
E-mail: NEgbarin@aol.com
BRILLIANT EARTH: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Solis Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO SOLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRILLIANT EARTH, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04546 (E.D.N.Y., June 27, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.brilliantearth.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Brilliant Earth, LLC provides online jewelry products. The Company
offers rings, earrings, necklaces, bracelets, and gemstones. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
BUFFALO JACKSON: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BUFFALO JACKSON TRADING CO., LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-04878 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2024) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
New York State Human Rights Law by failing to
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.
Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's website, blind and
visually-impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need
screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the
facilities, products, and services Defendant offers to the public
on the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
Buffalo Jackson Trading Co. owns and operates the website,
www.buffalojackson.com, which offers leather goods and outdoor
apparel. [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
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
C3.AI INC: Objection to Bids to Dismiss Reckstin Suit Due July 15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned THE RECKSTIN FAMILY TRUST, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. C3.AI, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:22-cv-01413-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
signed the parties' Stipulation and Order, as modified, regarding
motion to dismiss briefing deadlines and page limits.
Pursuant to the Stipulation, the Court orders that:
1. The Plaintiffs are permitted to file a single, omnibus
opposition to the Defendants' motions to dismiss that will
not exceed 60 pages;
2. The Plaintiffs' omnibus opposition to the Defendants'
motions to dismiss will be filed no later than July 15,
2024;
3. The page limit for the Defendants' replies in support of
their motions to dismiss remains 15 pages as provided in
the Civil Local Rules; and
4. The Defendants' replies in support of their motions to
dismiss will be filed no later than Aug. 27, 2024.
On March 7, 2024, the Lead Plaintiff and Defendants C3.ai, Inc.,
Thomas M. Siebel, Edward Y. Abbo, David Barter, and Lorenzo
Simonelli entered into a stipulation (the "Original Stipulation")
extending the Plaintiffs' deadline to file a second amended
complaint to April 4, 2024, and providing a briefing schedule for
anticipated motions to dismiss by C3 and the Individual Defendants.
On March 8, 2024, the Court granted the Original Stipulation.
On April 4, 2024, Lead Plaintiff Mark Samarghandi filed a Second
Amended Class Action Complaint alleging violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against Corporate Defendants C3, Inc., and Baker Hughes Company,
and Individual Defendants Thomas M. Siebel, Edward Y. Abbo, David
Barter, and Lorenzo Simonelli.
On April 12, 2024, Lead Plaintiff and Defendant Baker Hughes
Company entered into a stipulation (the "Baker Hughes Stipulation")
setting the deadline for Baker Hughes to file a motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint, the deadline
for the Lead Plaintiff to respond to the motion to dismiss, and the
deadline for Baker Hughes to file a reply in support of their
motion to dismiss. On April 12, 2024, the Court granted the Baker
Hughes Stipulation.
On May 17, 2024, the Defendants collectively filed 60 pages of
briefing across three motions to dismiss the Second Amended Class
Action Complaint, as well as a request for judicial notice.
The Plaintiffs intend to file an omnibus opposition that
collectively responds to the Defendants' three motions to dismiss
and request for judicial notice, based on the Plaintiffs' belief
that such opposition would be in the interests of efficiency,
preserving Court and party resources, and educating absent class
members. The Plaintiffs require additional pages in excess of those
set by the Local Rules for a single opposition to address the
Defendants' separately filed motion-to-dismiss arguments.
The parties stipulate and agree that the Plaintiffs may file a
single, omnibus opposition to the Defendants' motions to dismiss
and request for judicial notice that does not exceed 60 pages, and
the page limit for the Defendants' replies in support of their
motions to dismiss will be extended to 20 pages each.
The parties stipulate and agree to extend the deadline for the
Plaintiffs' omnibus opposition by fourteen days, from July 1, 2024,
to July 15, 2024, and the deadline for the Defendants' replies in
support of their motions to dismiss to Aug. 27, 2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order dated June
21, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/46sbtncn from
PacerMonitor.com.
Reed R. Kathrein -- reed@hbsslaw.com -- Lucas E. Gilmore --
lucasg@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, in Berkeley,
CA 94710; Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Catherine Y.N.
Gannon -- catherineg@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP, in Seattle, WA 98101, Lead Counsel and Counsel for Lead
Plaintiff Mark Samarghandi.
Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM,
P.A., in Los Angeles, CA 90071; Jonathan Stern --
jstern@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A., in New York, NY
10016, Counsel for Additional Plaintiffs Sharon L. Zavalanski,
David Linder, and Elizabeth Wensel.
Harry A. Olivar, Jr. -- harryolivar@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN
EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, in Los Angeles, CA 90017; Michael
B. Carlinsky -- michaelcarlinsky@quinnemanuel.com -- David Edward
Myre, III -- davidmyre@quinnemanuel.com -- Jesse A. Bernstein --
jessebernstein@quinnemanuel.com -- Jacob J. Waldman --
jacobwaldman@quinnemanuel.com -- Leigha Empson --
leighaempson@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN,
LLP, in New York, NY 10010, Counsel for the C3 Defendants.
Jessica Valenzuela -- JValenzuela@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN &
CRUTCHER LLP, in Palo Alto, CA 94304; George B. Adams III --
GAdams@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, in San
Francisco, CA 94111, Counsel for Defendant Baker Hughes Company.
Sara B. Brody -- sbrody@sidley.com -- Sarah A. Hemmendinger --
shemmendinger@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, in San Francisco, CA
94104; Robin E. Wechkin -- rwechkin@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN
LLP, in Issaquah, WA 98027, Counsel for Defendant Lorenzo
Simonelli.
CALIFORNIA: Martinez Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW MARTINEZ, an
individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated; LUIS CEJA, an individual, on behalf of himself,
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. CALIFORNIA
CEMETERY AND FUNERAL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CVRI-2401116 (Filed Feb. 29, 2024),
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, for
the County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, Eastern Division, on June 28,
2024.
The Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:24-cv-01354 to the proceeding.
The Complaint alleges unfair competition in violation of the
California Business and Professions Code and seeks injunctive
relief, statutory penalties, unpaid wages and damages for multiple
types of alleged violations, including failure to pay minimum wage,
failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods;
failure to provide rest periods; failure to reimburse employees for
required expenses; failure to provide itemized wage statements; and
failure to provide wages when due.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Carrie M. Francis, Esq.
STINSON LLP
1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4584
Telephone: (602) 212-8535
Facsimile: (602) 240-6925
E-mail: carrie.francis@stinson.com
CAPSTONE GREEN ENERGY: Faces Spitzer Suit Over SEC Disclosures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Capstone Green Energy Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 13, 2024, that on October 13, 2023, a
putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, captioned "Spitzer v.
Flexon, et al.," (Case No. 2:23-cv-08659), naming certain of the
Capstone Green Energy Holdings’ current and former directors and
officers as defendants.
The suit alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder based on allegedly false and misleading
statements regarding, and allegedly inadequate disclosure
surrounding, the company's business, operations and prospects and
the circumstances leading up to the restatement of the company's
quarterly and annual financial statements. The suit is purportedly
brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's securities between June 14, 2021,
and September 22, 2023, and seeks to recover unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief, including attorney’s fees.
Capstone Green Energy Holdings, Inc. develops, manufactures,
markets, sells and service microturbine-based technology solutions
based in California.
CASIO AMERICA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Liz Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO LIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Casio America, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-05021 (S.D.N.Y., July 2,
2024) alleges that Casio failed to design, construct, maintain, and
operate their website, https://www.casio.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision;
others have no vision.
Allegedly, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and
visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the
website. Thus, Casio America excludes the blind and
visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the
growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of
the common marketplace and daily living, says the suit.
Casio.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Casio
America. Yet, Casio.com contains significant access barriers that
make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
CHOICE FINANCIAL: Robertson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Choice Financial
Management Inc. The case is styled as Erin Robertson, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Choice Financial
Management Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01086-RBM-AHG (S.D. Cal., June
24, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Choice Financial -- https://choicefinancial.co/ -- is a financial
services company providing banking, insurance, and wealth
management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN PA
237 South Dixie Highway. 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
CITIZENS DISABILITY: Shutler Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Shutler, v.
Citizens Disability LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-14337-KMM (S.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
-- certifying the following Class:
"All people in the United States (1) who answered one or more
prerecorded calls from Citizens, (2) made from the Pipes.ai
calling platform, (3) between Nov. 8, 2019 to Oct. 25, 2023,
(4)
and at the time of the call Citizens' only lead source for the
person called was GrantsAssistanceForYou.com.";
-- appointing Shutler as class representative,
-- appointing appoint LawHQ, P.C. as class counsel, and
-- providing a deadline for proposing a Notice Plan.
Citizens has been sued 18 other times, but their spam continues. It
is time for Citizens to be held accountable. Shutler has met all of
the requirements set forth in Rule 23(a) (numerosity, commonality,
typicality, and adequacy), Rule 23(b)(3) (predominance and
superiority), as well as the implicit requirement of
ascertainability, the lawsuit says.
Shutler filed this lawsuit after receiving unsolicited robocalls
from Citizens.
Citizens is a disability advocacy group that advocates for people
with SSDI or SSI claims pending before the Social Security
Administration.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3QGMey at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Kauffman, Esq.
David Mitchell, Esq.
Thomas Alvord, Esq.
Brittany Clark, Esq.
LAWHQ, P.C.
299 S. Main St. #1300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (385) 285-1090
E-mail: john.kauffman@lawhq.com
david.mitchell@lawhq.com
thomas@lawhq.com
brittany.clark@lawhq.com
CJ BERRY: Individual Arbitration Bid in Browden Suit Due July 22
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California rules that the Defendant has
until July 22, 2024, to file any motion to compel individual
arbitration in the lawsuit captioned LELAND BROWDEN, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CJ
BERRY WELL SERVICES MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00418-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.).
On Feb. 26, 2024, Plaintiff Leland Browden filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Kern. Defendant CJ Berry Well Services Management, LLC,
removed the action to this Court on April 8, 2024.
Pending before the Court is the parties' stipulation to set a
briefing and hearing schedule on a motion to compel individual
arbitration and continue the scheduling conference.
In light of the parties' stipulated representations and good cause
appearing, the Court orders that:
1. The Defendant will file any motion to compel individual
arbitration on or before July 22, 2024;
2. The Plaintiff's opposition to the Defendant's forthcoming
motion to compel individual arbitration will be filed on or
before Aug. 12, 2024;
3. The Defendant's reply if any to the Plaintiff's opposition
will be filed on or before Aug. 26, 2024;
4. The Defendant will notice any motion to compel individual
arbitration for hearing on Sept. 11, 2024; and
5. The July 8, 2024, scheduling conference is vacated to be
reset as appropriate following disposition of the
Defendant's anticipated motion to compel individual
arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 21, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/46589a8r from PacerMonitor.com.
CLAYTON CHRISTIAN: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Response Brief
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bethany Niman, Riley
Bennett, Jora Bolena, Kasey Calwell, Ursula Casey, Brian Hagan,
Miranda Starr, Elizabeth Vicencio, and Madison Ward, v. Clayton
Christian, Brianne Rogers, Todd Buchanan, Joyce Dombrouski, Casey
Lozar, Loren Bough, Jeff Southworth, Norris Blossom, Maria Mangold,
and Sarah Corbin, Case No. 9:23-cv-00079-DWM (D. Mont.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting a 21 days
extension of time to and including Aug. 2, 2024, in which to file
their response brief in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The Defendants' response is currently due on July 12, 2024.
Defendants request this extension for two reasons.
First, lead counsel has an upcoming Montana Supreme Court oral
argument on July 10, 2024, in Held v. State.
And second, the parties in this case are resolving various
discovery issues. Opposing counsel has been contacted and does not
oppose this motion.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 5, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0MF118 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Dale Schowengerdt, Esq.
Timothy Longfield, Esq.
LANDMARK LAW PLLC
7 West 6th Avenue, Suite 518
Helena, MT 59601
Telephone: 406-457-5496
E-mail: dale@landmarklawpllc.com
tim@landmarklawpllc.com
- and -
Hannah Tokerud, Esq.
MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Helena, MT 59620-3201
Telephone: (406) 449-9173
E-mail: htokerud@montana.edu
CLEAN HARBORS: Fogg Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OREESE FOGG and KYLE
WALKER, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, v. CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-07626-MCA-JBC (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
-- certifying the following class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)
of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
"All current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of the
Defendant who worked at one of Defendant's facilities in New
Jersey at any time from March 31, 2019 until the resolution of
this action,"
-- appointing them as Class Representatives for the Class pursuant
to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4), and
-- appointing Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP ("SWCK") and
Berkowitz Lichtstein Kuritsky Giasullo & Gross, LLC ("BLKGG")
as
Class Counsel pursuant to Rules 23(g)(1) and (g)(4).
Clean Harbors is an American provider of environmental and
industrial services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w1EYVQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Messina, Esq.
BERKOWITZ LICHTSTEIN
KURITSKY GIASULLO & GROSS, LLC
75 Livingston Avenue
Roseland, NK 07068
Telephone: (973) 325-7800
Facsimile: (973) 325-7930
E-mail: jmessina@blkgg.com
- and -
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Reset to May 16, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Schneider, et al., v.
Colgate-Palmolive Company, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-01294
(N.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 5, 2022), the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd
entered an order resetting class certification deadlines as
follows:
-- The Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosure Deadline is: Dec. 23,
2024
-- The Defendants' Expert Disclosure Deadline is: Feb. 3. 2025
-- Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadline is: March 3.
2025
-- Discovery due by: April 3.
2025
-- Discovery Motions due: April 17.
2025
-- Class Certification and Daubert Motions due by: May 16. 2025
-- Mediation deadline remains: Sept. 30.
2024
The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other
fraud.[CC]
COMANCHE COUNTY HOSPITAL: Whitmore Suit Removed to W.D. Okla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LORI WHITMORE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMANCHE COUNTY HOSPITAL
AUTHORITY D/B/A COMANCHE COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case
No. CJ-2024-235, was removed from the District Court of Comanche
County, Oklahoma, to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma on June 25, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Oklahoma assigned
Case No. 5:24-cv-00652-HE to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that Comanche purposely installed the Meta
Pixel and other trackers onto its website, for the purpose of
gathering information about Plaintiff and Class Members to further
their marketing efforts. The Plaintiff further alleges that
Comanche did not only generate information for their own use, they
also shared patient information, including private information
belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members, with Facebook, Google,
and other unauthorized third parties.
Comanche County Hospital Authority is a public county hospital
founded in 1948 with its principal place of business in Lawton,
Comanche County, Oklahoma.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert D. Hoisington, Esq.
HOISINGTON & LINDSEY, PLLC
408 NW 7th St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73106
Telephone: (405) 252-0060
E-mail: rob@hospitaldefense.com
- and -
Daniel J. Paret, Esq.
Christopher J. Seusing, Esq.
WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN, LLP
14860 Landmark Blvd., Suite 120
Dallas, TX 75254
Telephone: (469) 210-2050
Facsimile: (469) 210-2051
E-mail: dparet@wshblaw.com
cseusing@wshblaw.com
CONNECTICUT: Court Grants Sanders' Bid to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Thomas O. Farrish of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut grants the Plaintiff's motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis in the lawsuit styled Jamyron Sanders,
Plaintiff v. Martin, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01005-SRU
(D. Conn.).
Typically, Judge Farrish notes, it costs $405 to initiate a civil
proceeding in federal court, composed of a $350 filing fee and a
$55 administrative fee. In the prison context, a federal statute
provides that the $350 filing fee can be postponed if the litigant
provides, among other things, an affidavit that shows he is unable
to afford it.
The issue presented in this case is whether the Plaintiff, Mr.
Jamyron Sanders, qualifies to have those fees postponed and
subsequently proceed with his case in forma pauperis.
To advance a lawsuit in forma pauperis, the plaintiff must satisfy
both procedural and substantive requirements. To satisfy the
procedural requirement, the plaintiff must provide an affidavit
that evidences his inability to pay the fees. When the plaintiff is
a prisoner, he must also submit a "certified copy of the trust fund
account statement" from an official at the institution that covers
the immediate six months preceding the filing of the complaint.
As far as the substantive requirements are concerned, the plaintiff
must show that he is unable to simultaneously pay the fees and
provide himself and his dependents with the necessities of life.
The plaintiff need not be rendered "absolutely destitute" by the
fees, rather if he is sufficiently impoverished then in forma
pauperis status may be granted.
In this case, Judge Farrish finds Mr. Sanders has satisfied the
statute's procedural requirements. He has provided and signed the
required affidavit while leaving nothing blank. The affidavit
states that he spends $100 a month on food and cosmetics. Since he
is currently a prisoner, Mr. Sanders has also provided a certified
trust fund account statement signed by a prison official. Finally,
the account statement covers the required period of time.
With respect to the substantive standard, Judge Farrish notes
courts often deny in forma pauperis status to inmates, who receive
and spend as much money as Mr. Sanders in the six months preceding
their complaints. Over the course of this six month period, he
received a total of $1,314.06 in deposits. Even taking into
consideration the $100 a month that he spends on necessities, this
would leave him with $715.88.
Accordingly, Judge Farrish finds Mr. Sanders has received
approximately three times the amount required for the filing fees
and has maintained a level of income ordinarily regarded as too
high to support in forma pauperis status.
However, Judge Farrish concludes that Mr. Sanders' post-March 6th,
2024 spending is most relevant. To explain why, brief context is
necessary. On Sept. 26, 2019, the Court certified a putative class
action lawsuit against officials employed at Osborn Correctional
Institute (see Ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, Toliver v. Semple, No. 3:16-cv-01899 (SRU) (D. Conn.
Sept. 26, 2019).
The complaint alleged similar claims to what Mr. Sanders alleges in
his own complaint, including claims that the tap water provided to
the prisoners was unsuitable for consumption. The court ultimately
decertified the class on March 6, 2024, and the prospective class
members were notified they would need to file their own lawsuits
prior to the running of the statute of limitations.
So, Mr. Sanders could not reasonably have known before March 6,
2024, that he would have to file his own lawsuit and pay his own
filing fee, Judge Farrish explains.
Since Mr. Sanders could not have reasonably known he would need to
pay his own fee until March 6th, 2024, the two-month period between
then and the filing of his lawsuit is the most relevant, Judge
Farrish says. When this is considered, Judge Farrish holds Mr.
Sanders does not have enough to pay or give security for the costs
and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the
necessities of life.
Evidently, Mr. Sanders would either need to forfeit his cause of
action or not have anything left to pay for his essentials. This is
reason to grant him in forma pauperis status, Judge Farrish points
out.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiff leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. The Plaintiff does not have the financial
resources to cover initial fees without having to choose between
supporting himself or not pursuing the matter. Since his materials
have been adequately submitted, the motion is granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's Ruling and Order dated June 24,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr4aucxm from
PacerMonitor.com.
CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS: Faces Den Heuvel Data Breach Suit in Minn.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH PESTER and SHAREN VAN DEN HEUVEL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS,
LTD., Case No. 0:24-cv-02599 (D. Minn., July 1, 2024) arises out of
a recent cyberattack and data breach caused by Defendant's failure
to implement reasonable and industry standard data security
practices.
The Plaintiffs bring this Complaint against Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive information
that it collected and maintained as part of CRL's regular business
practices. Such information included, but was not limited to,
Individuals' names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security
number ("personally identifying information" or "PII") and "Health
Insurance information" and "Medical information" as defined by the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
("HIPAA").
CRL was entrusted by its patients with sensitive, non-public
Private Information, without which CRL could not perform its
regular business activities, which includes performing
sub-specialty healthcare services and contacting patients'
insurance providers. The Defendant allegedly failed to adequately
protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information -- and
failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information.
The Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms on behalf of themselves
and all similarly situated individuals whose PII and PHI was
accessed during the Data Breach.
According to its website, "Consulting Radiologists, Ltd. (CRL) is a
physician-owned practice serving patients and providers throughout
the Upper Midwest for more than 90 years." The Defendant describes
itself as "a leading sub-specialty radiology practice and trusted
radiology partner."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Michael J. Laird, Esq.
Rachel K. Tack, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
michael.laird@zimmreed.com
rachel.tack@zimmreed.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS: Kamrath Sues Over Unprotected Info
-----------------------------------------------------------
JEAN KAMRATH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS, LTD. (CRL), Case No.
0:24-cv-02528-JWB-ECW (D. Minn., June 28, 2024) sues the Defendant
for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive
information that it collected and maintained as part of CRL's
regular business practices.
The compromised information included individuals' names, addresses,
dates of birth, Social Security number ("personally identifying
information" or "PII") and "Health Insurance information" and
"Medical information" ("PHI") as defined by the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), the lawsuit
says.
According to the letters that CRL sent to the Plaintiff and other
impacted Class Members on June 18, 2024, CRL had "detected
suspicious activity in its network environment" on Feb. 12, 2024.
As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class
Members have suffered injuries, including invasion of privacy,
theft of their Private Information, lost or diminished value of
private information, lost time and opportunity costs associated
with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data
Breach, loss of benefit of the bargain, experiencing an increase in
spam calls, texts, and/or emails, extreme emotional distress, and
the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private
Information, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future
data compromise on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result
of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's
inadequate data security practices.
Plaintiff Kamrath is and has been a resident and citizen of
Waconia, Minnesota.
CRL provides teleradiology-based interpretation services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Michael J. Laird, Esq.
Rachel K. Tack, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
michael.laird@zimmreed.com
rachel.tack@zimmreed.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road - Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 874-4505
E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Aberman Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Marcie Aberman, Charles Dvorak, Megan Ohlrich,
Sharon Reif, Patrick Sherlock, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Continental Aktiengesellschaft,
Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Compagnie Generale Des
Etablissements, Michelin North America Inc., Nokian Tyres plc,
Nokian Tyres Inc., Nokian Tyres U.S. Holdings Inc., The Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Company, Pirelli & C S.p.A., Pirelli Tire LLC,
Bridgestone Corporation, Bridgestone Americas, Inc., Nokian Tyres
U.S. Operations LLC, Does 1-100, Case No. 1:24-cv-02923 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio on June 24, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-rt-55028-SL to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust.
Continental AG -- https://www.continental.com/en/ -- commonly known
as Continental or colloquially as Conti, is a German multinational
automotive parts manufacturing company that specializes in tires,
brake systems vehicle electronics, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK - SEATTLE
1201 Third Avenue, Ste. 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-1900
Fax: (206) 623-3384
Email: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
dwarshaw@pwfirm.com
- and -
Ron Kilgard, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK - PHOENIX
3101 Central Avenue, Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: (602) 248-0088
Fax: (602) 248-2822
Email: ron-kilgard-9392@ecf.pacerpro.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam C. Hemlock, Esq.
David Lender, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES - NEW YORK
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Phone: (212) 310-8000
Fax: (212) 310-8007
Email: adam.hemlock@weil.com
david.lender@weil.com
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Ammons Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Laura Ammons, Brandon Derrick, Letia Dickerson,
Jeffrey Holt, Jerry Merkel, Lynn Seda, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Continental Aktiengesellschaft,
Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Compagnie Generale Des
Etablissements, Michelin North America Inc., Nokian Tyres plc,
Nokian Tyres Inc., Nokian Tyres U.S. Holdings Inc., The Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Company, Pirelli & C S.p.A., Pirelli Tire LLC,
Bridgestone Corporation, Bridgestone Americas, Inc., Nokian Tyres
U.S. Operations LLC, Does 1-100, Case No. 1:24-cv-01513 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio on June 24, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-rt-55025-SL to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust.
Continental AG -- https://www.continental.com/en/ -- commonly known
as Continental or colloquially as Conti, is a German multinational
automotive parts manufacturing company that specializes in tires,
brake systems vehicle electronics, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (206) 623-1900
Fax: (206) 623-3384
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam C. Hemlock, Esq.
David Lender, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES - NEW YORK
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Phone: (212) 310-8000
Fax: (212) 310-8007
Email: adam.hemlock@weil.com
david.lender@weil.com
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Slayman Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Steven Slayman, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Continental Aktiengesellschaft,
Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Compagnie Generale Des
Etablissements, Michelin North America Inc., Nokian Tyres plc,
Nokian Tyres Inc., Nokian Tyres U.S. Holdings Inc., The Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Company, Pirelli & C S.p.A., Pirelli Tire LLC,
Bridgestone Corporation, Bridgestone Americas, Inc., Nokian Tyres
U.S. Operations LLC, Does 1-100, Case No. 1:24-cv-01930 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio on June 24, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-rt-55026-SL to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust.
Continental AG -- https://www.continental.com/en/ -- commonly known
as Continental or colloquially as Conti, is a German multinational
automotive parts manufacturing company that specializes in tires,
brake systems vehicle electronics, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin S. Landau, Esq.
TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU - NEW YORK
123 William Street, Ste. 1900a
New York, NY 10038
Phone: (646) 873-7654
Email: klandau@tcllaw.com
CONTINUUM HEALTH: Conner Data Breach Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JASON CONNER, as legal guardian of R.C.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CONTINUUM HEALTH ALLIANCE, LLC and CONSENSUS MEDICAL
GROUP, LLC, d/b/a CONSENSUS HEALTH, Defendants, Case No.
BUR-L-000903-24, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Burlington County, to the U.S. District Court for the District
Court of New Jersey on June 7, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-06861-ESK-EAP to the proceeding.
The case asserts that cybercriminals infiltrated Defendants'
computer network and improperly accessed information, including the
personally identifiable information and protected health
information of 377,119 individuals. It also asserts causes of
actions for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and declaratory/injunctive
relief.
Based in New Jersey, Continuum is a healthcare management firm that
offers services in revenue cycle management, administration,
finance and information technology. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Irma Katsman, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
FLORHAM PARK
18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 220
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Telephone: (973) 549-2500
E-mail: ikatsman@grsm.com
- and -
Ronald A. Giller, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
One Battery Park Plaza
28th Floor
New York, NY 10004
E-mail: rgiller@grsm.com
COOK CANADA: Court Approves IVC Filter Products Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo!Finance reports that Siskinds LLP, Siskinds, Desmeules
s.e.n.c.r.l., McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP, Merchant Law Group LLP,
and Koskie Minsky LLP announced today, July 5, court approval of a
Canada-wide settlement reached in a class action related to certain
inferior vena cava filter products ("IVC Filter Products") marketed
and sold by Cook (Canada) Inc., Cook Incorporated, and William Cook
Europe APS ("Cook").
IVC filters are devices designed to filter blood clots which may
otherwise travel to the heart and/or lungs. Optionally retrievable
IVC filters are a type of filter that may be removed if medically
advisable to do so after a patient is no longer at risk of a
pulmonary embolism.
The class action alleges that Cook marketed and sold IVC Filter
Products without properly warning of the alleged increased risks of
complications and injuries. Cook denies the allegations and all
liability whatsoever, and the Court did not come to a decision as
to who was right.
The settlement applies to every person who is or was a resident of
Canada who was implanted with a Cook IVC Filter Product at any time
on or before January 8, 2020, which was manufactured, marketed
and/or sold or otherwise placed into the stream of commerce in
Canada by Cook, and their family members. For greater certainty,
the residency requirement for class membership relates to the time
of the placement of the Cook IVC Filter Product. Primary Class
Members must have had a Cook IVC Filter Product placed in Canada
but are not required to reside in Canada at present.
Under the Settlement, Cook will provide a claims-made settlement of
up to $54,000 CAD for each Qualifying Fracture Claimant, $81,000
CAD for each Qualifying Death Claimant, and $169,500 CAD for each
Qualifying Open Surgery Claimant, with a pro rata reduction of in
the amount of each payment to the extent that the total amount of
the claims in categories (a), (b) and (c) above exceed $4,062,720
CAD. Also, a payment in the amount of $2,708,480 CAD will be made
for Class Counsel to pay costs, including administration costs,
notice plan costs, class counsel fees, interest, applicable taxes,
and certain other qualified claims as provided in the settlement
agreement. The final value of the compensation will not be
determined until the end of the claim period.
The settlement was approved by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice on May 17, 2024. The Court also approved the Compensation
Protocol, which governs which class members are eligible for
compensation and in what amount.
Class Members Can Now Submit Claims
Class members can now submit claims for compensation which will be
adjudicated by the Claims Administrator pursuant to the eligibility
terms of the Compensation Protocol. To make a claim for
compensation under the settlement agreement, you must complete and
submit a claim form (including the necessary supporting evidence
detailed in the Compensation Protocol) to the Claims Administrator
before November 11, 2024. If you do NOT submit your claim form on
time, you will not be eligible for any benefits under the
settlement agreement.
Filing a claim is complex and requires medical records which will
take time to retrieve. As a result, you may wish to retain a lawyer
to assist you. You can retain Class Counsel or a lawyer of your
choice.
For information about the eligibility criteria, compensation
levels, and how to make a claim, you should review the long-form
Notice, the Compensation Protocol and the Settlement Agreement and
related documents at www.ivcsettlement.ca, or contact the Claims
Administrator as follows:
RicePoint Administration Inc.
CO9 Settlement
P.O. Box 3355
London, Ontario N6A 4K3
Telephone (toll-free): (877) 257-8346
The law firms of Siskinds LLP, Siskinds, Desmeules s.e.n.c.r.l.,
McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP, Merchant Law Group LLP, and Koskie
Minsky LLP represent Class Members and may be contacted as
follows:
Siskinds LLP
275 Dundas St, Unit 1
London, ON N6B 3L1
Telephone: (800) 461-6166
Email: IVCFilters@siskinds.com
McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP
140 Fullarton Street, Suite 1800
London, ON N6A 5P2
Telephone: (844) 672-5666
Email: christina.noble@mckenzielake.com
Merchant Law Group LLP
Suite 400, 2710 17th Avenue SE
Calgary, AB T2A 0P6
Telephone: (888) 567-7777
Email: heidi@merchantlaw.com
Koskie Minsky LLP
20 Queen Street West, Suite 900, Box 52
Toronto, ON M5H 3R3
Telephone: (800) 764-7717
Email: ivcfiltersclassaction@kmlaw.ca
Siskinds Desmeules, Avocats
43 Rue De Buade, #320
Quebec City, QC G1R 4A2
Telephone: (800) 461-6166
Email: IVCFilters@siskinds.com [GN]
CROSBY BOOT: Espinal Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website
--------------------------------------------------------
FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CROSBY BOOT HOLDINGS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04898 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2024) arises
from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant allegedly failed to make its website available in a
manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving
blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services. In this complaint, the Plaintiff
alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New
York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law.
Headquartered in Dallas, TX, Miron Crosby operates the Miron Crosby
online retail store as well as the Miron Crosby website,
https://mironcrosby.com. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
CUTELY COVERED: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Karin Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Cutely Covered, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04912 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 28, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website "Cutelycovered.com"
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired persons, under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Cutely Covered provides to their
non-disabled customers through its website.
Ms. Karim has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase on
Cutelycovered.com. Firstly, she tried to purchase a clothing set on
May 18, 2024, and then she tried again on May 19, 2024. All these
times she was unable to complete the purchase independently because
of the many access barriers on Defendant's website. This complaint
also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for
having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
Cutely Covered offers women's clothing and accessories, including
dresses, tops, sweaters, rompers, bottoms, sets, jackets,
jumpsuits, and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
DELTA SHOE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fernandez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DELTA SHOE GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04881 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on April 15,
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
sandals, that Plaintiff wished to acquire from the website.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights
Law.
Delta Shoe Group, Inc. owns and operates the website,
www.sandromoscoloni.net, which serves as an online store
specializing in men's footwear. [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
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
DFS SERVICES: Mitchener Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Courtney Mitchener, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. DFS SERVICES LLC, a California
limited liability company; DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
24CV439427 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on June 21, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-03742.
The Complaint alleges one cause of action: Violations of the
California Trap and Trace Law.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Arjun P. Rao, Esq.
Megan A. Suehiro, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue
Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Phone: +1.213.612.2500
Fax: +1.213.612.2501
Email: arjun.rao@morganlewis.com
megan.suehiro@morganlewis.com
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Overcharging Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paige Smith, writing for Yahoo!Finance, reports that Discover
Financial Services, the credit-card firm that agreed to be acquired
by Capital One Financial Corp., said it reached an agreement to
resolve class-action litigation for overcharging merchants.
The lender, which acknowledged the lapses last year, expects that
the $1.2 billion it already set aside for related liabilities will
be enough to resolve the matter, according to a regulatory filing
on July 3. The accord is subject to court approval.
The company announced last July that it misclassified certain
credit-card accounts into its highest pricing tier, starting in
2007, meaning merchants were charged more than they should have
been to accept the cards for payment. Riverwoods, Illinois-based
Discover and retailers affected by the misclassification reached
the settlement on July 1, according to the filing.
The misclassification prompted Discover to suspend stock buybacks
last year as it conducted an internal review and braced for claims.
The firm's chief executive officer at the time, Roger Hochschild,
later left.
Discover has faced other compliance challenges, and Capital One
executives have said they're ready to pay more than initially
expected to resolve them while acquiring one of the country's
coveted payments networks. The takeover, subject to antitrust
reviews and shareholder approvals, is expected to be completed
later this year or in early 2025. [GN]
DREAMING GODDESS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brown Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZEBONE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DREAMING GODDESS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04886 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.dreaminggoddess.com, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Dreaming Goddess, LLC is the premier specialty gift shop in the
Hudson Valley. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
DRIVE SALLY: Faces Hood Suit Over Private Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO HOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DRIVE SALLY, LLC; and DOES 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 2:24-cv-04772 (C.D. Cal., June 7, 2024) arises from
Defendants' failure to implement and maintain reasonable
cybersecurity procedures that resulted in a data breach of their
systems.
While Defendants claims to have discovered the breach in around May
1, 2024, they did not start informing victims of the data breach
for over a month and their notice letter was vague of any specific
details regarding when the breach occurred.
The Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of a nationwide class for
negligence, negligence per se, declaratory judgment, common law
invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract and breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Plaintiff also
brings claims on behalf of a California subclass for violation of
the California Consumer Privacy Act, the California Customer
Records Act, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law,
and for invasion of privacy based on the California Constitution.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks, among other things, compensatory
damages, punitive and exemplary damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, and costs of suit.
Drive Sally, LLC is rideshare car rental company based in Long
Island City, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason M. Wucetich, Esq.
Dimitrios V. Korovilas, Esq.
WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP
222 N. Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 2000
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (310) 335-2001
Facsimile: (310) 364-5201
E-mail: jason@wukolaw.com
dimitri@wukolaw.com
DUNKIN' DONUTS: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Surcharge Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Mickelsen, writing for JDSupra, reports that a federal
court in California recently granted a franchisor's motion to
dismiss a class action suit alleging discrimination in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Garland v. Dunkin'
Donuts, LLC, 2024 WL 2808653 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2024). Chelsea
Garland, on behalf of ten plaintiffs with milk allergies and/or
lactose intolerance, filed a class action lawsuit alleging Dunkin'
violated the ADA and various states' discrimination laws by
charging an additional fee for non-dairy alternatives in their
products. Garland claimed Dunkin's creation of a separate,
higher-priced menu aimed at customers with milk allergies or
lactose intolerance amounted to discrimination because (1) there
was no material price difference between dairy milk and non-dairy
alternatives, and (2) Dunkin's use of non-dairy alternatives did
not require additional work when preparing drinks. Dunkin' moved to
dismiss Garland's complaint, asserting that the court lacked
personal jurisdiction over Dunkin' and that Garland failed to state
a claim on which relief could be granted.
The court granted Dunkin's motion to dismiss but gave Garland leave
to amend the complaint. The court first found that it lacked
personal jurisdiction over Dunkin' because Garland failed to
demonstrate how Dunkin' -- who argued it does not operate any
corporate-owned locations in California and does not set pricing
for franchisees' operating in California -- purposefully directed
its activities toward the state or purposefully benefitted from
conducting activities in the state. In granting leave to amend, the
court allowed Garland to conduct jurisdictional discovery to
determine the ownership and operation of Dunkin' franchises located
in California, and whether Dunkin' required franchisees to impose a
surcharge for non-dairy alternatives.
The court also found that Garland failed to state a claim on which
relief could be granted because Garland did not sufficiently allege
they were disabled within the meaning of the ADA, which requires a
showing that the alleged disability substantially limits a major
life activity. The court reasoned that, while a milk allergy or
lactose intolerance could qualify as a disability under the ADA,
the disability analysis is an individualized inquiry, but neither
Garland nor any of the other plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that
their allergy or intolerance substantially limited any major life
activity. [GN]
ECMD INC: Chestnut Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as David Ghusar, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ECMD, INC., a California corporation;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2402779 was removed
from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of
Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on June 21, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-05223.
In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that ECMD is a corporation that
does business in California, including Riverside County; that he
was formerly employed by Defendant as a driver; and that ECMD
violated his rights protected by the California Labor Code,
applicable IWC Wage Orders, and the Unfair Competition Law (the
"UCL").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Maria C. Roberts, Esq.
Dessi N. Day, Esq.
GREENE & ROBERTS
402 West Broadway, Suite 1025
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 398-3400
Facsimile: (619) 330-4907
Email: mroberts@greeneroberts.com
dday@greeneroberts.com
EMILY MINNICK: Court Narrows Claims in May Suit
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMIAN MICHAEL MAY, v.
EMILY A. MINNICK et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00383-JMB-PJG (W.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Jane Beckering entered an order determining
that Plaintiff's substantive due process and equal protection
claims will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, under 28
U.S.C. sections 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. section
1997e(c).
The Plaintiff's procedural due process and state law claims against
Defendants remain in the case. An order consistent with this
opinion will be entered.
The case is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under
42 U.S.C. section 1983. The Plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis
in this action.
The Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Bellamy Creek Correctional
Facility (IBC) in Ionia, Ionia County, Michigan.
The Plaintiff sues Michigan Sexual Abuse Prevention Program (MSAPP)
Coordinator Emily A. Minnick, Classification Director Unknown
Smolenski, and Parole Board Members Carolyn Burns and Brian
Shipman. The Plaintiff alleges that he has never been charged or
convicted of a sex-based offense and that he pleaded guilty to
assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder.
The Plaintiff states that his present incarceration stems from a
domestic assault he committed on his former girlfriend while
intoxicated after she informed him that she was pregnant and
refused to have sex with him. The Plaintiff states that he choked
his former girlfriend and struck her in the face several times,
which resulted in her suffering a missing tooth, a laceration above
her eye, and bruising.
The Plaintiff also states that at the time of his offense, he had
been working as a "live web cam model for adult porn," who had sex
with men and women for money. The Plaintiff states that he was
transferred to IBC in late September 2023. The Plaintiff asserts
that he was never interviewed by Defendant Smolenski regarding his
classification or program referrals, even though policy required
such an interview.
The Plaintiff states that following his transfer to IBC, he was
interviewed by his counselor and was told to sign a CSX-175, which
incorrectly indicated that he was "SERVING FOR OR HISTORY OF: SEX
OFFENSE." The Defendant Smolenski signed off on Plaintiff's Program
Classification Report as if policy had been followed. Following
this classification, the Plaintiff was enrolled in Treatment
Readiness for You (TRY).
A copy of the Court's opinion dated July 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xuaZMi at no extra
charge.[CC]
EVANS FOOD: Mayorga Suit Removed From State Court to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MAYORGA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
EVANS FOOD GROUP LTD; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV13123 (Filed May 24, 2024) was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-05584 to the proceeding.
The complaint brings putative class claims for alleged:
(1) Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked at Minimum Wage
in Violation of Labor Code Sections 1194 and 1197 2;
(2) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages for Daily Overtime Worked
And/or Failure to Pay Overtime Wages at the Proper Overtime
Rate of Pay in Violation of Labor Code Sections 510 and
1194;
(3) Failure to Authorize or Permit Meal Periods in Violation
of Labor Code Sections 512 and 226.7; and
(4) Failure to Authorize or Permit Rest Periods in Violation
of
Labor Code Section 226.7,
In his Complaint, the Plaintiff defines the proposed classes as:
"all current and former hourly non-exempt employees employed by
Defendants as direct employees as well as temporary employees
employed through temp agencies in California at any time from four
years prior to the filing of the initial Complaint in this action
through the date notice is mailed to a certified class.
Evans Food is a global producer of branded and private label
finished pork rinds.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Ryan H. Crosner, Esq.
James D. Miller, Esq.
Terence Liao, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: ryan.crosner@ogletree.com
james.miller@ogletree.com
terence.liao@ogletree.com
EVOLVE BANK: Faces McLaughlin Data Breach Class Suit in W.D. Tenn
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JODI MCLAUGHLIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, Case No. 2:24-cv-02464-MSN-atc
(W.D. Tenn., July 1, 2024) arises out of a recent cyberattack and
data breach ("Data Breach") that resulted in the theft and
exfiltration by a known cybercriminal organization who illegally
obtained and released the personal data of some Evolve retail bank
customers and financial technology partners' end users on the dark
web, including, at a minimum, name, Social Security Number, date of
birth, account information and/or other personal information.
Evolve is a full-service financial services company that
specializes in payment processing solutions and banking. The bank
provides a wide range of deposit and loan products for consumers,
businesses, institutions, and government entities. These offerings
include interest-bearing checking accounts, money market accounts,
mortgage solutions, business savings, cash management, online
banking, insurance, commercial finance, personal loans, center
financing, litigation financing, retirement accounts, and other
related banking services.
According to the complaint, Evolve promises to "protect your
personal information from unauthorized access and use, we use
security measures that comply with federal law. These measures
include computer safeguards and secured files and buildings." But
in June 2024, Evolve failed to protect the information of Evolve
customers who entrusted it with their PII. Cybercrime group Lockbit
3.0 breached Evolve's computer systems and data, stole the PII of
its customers, says the suit.
The Plaintiff is a checking account customer of Dave, Inc., a
fintech platform for which Evolve provides all banking services,
including issuing the Dave debit card.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
GROSSMAN PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
E-mail: ahoneycutt@milberg.com
- and -
Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
E-mail: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Adewole Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
LISA ADEWOLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, Case No. 2:24-cv-02450-JPM-tmp
(W.D. Tenn., July 2, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to
properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable
information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular
business practices, including names, Social Security numbers, dates
of birth, account information, and/or other personal information.
Former and current Evolve customers are required to entrust the
Defendant with sensitive, non-public PII, without which Defendant
could not perform their regular business activities, in order to
use Evolve's financial services, the suit says.
On June 26, 2024, the Defendant announced that it was "currently
investigating a cybersecurity incident involving a known
cybercriminal organization that appears to have illegally obtained
and released on the dark web the data and personal information of
some Evolve retail bank customers and financial technology
partners' customers."
As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class
Members have suffered injury including invasion of privacy; lost or
diminished value of PII; lost opportunity costs associated with
attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach,
loss of benefit of the bargain; and the continued and certainly
increased risk to their PII.
The Plaintiff was unaware of the Data Breach until receiving that
letter. As a result, the Plaintiff was injured in the form of lost
time dealing with the consequences of the Data Breach, which
included and continues to include: time spent verifying the
legitimacy and impact of the Data Breach; time spent exploring
credit monitoring and identity theft insurance options; time spent
self-monitoring their accounts with heightened scrutiny and time
spent seeking legal counsel regarding their options for remedying
and/or mitigating the effects of the Data Breach, the suit further
alleges.
Evolve is a bank, that offers financial services to its customers,
including checking accounts, savings accounts, debit cards,
personal loans, home loans, CDs, IRAs, personal trusts, and
financial management services, including Shopify Balance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS &
GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon
Suite 205, No. 10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Meadows Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DUNCAN MEADOWS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, Case No. 2:24-cv-02450-JPM-tmp
(W.D. Tenn., June 28, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to
properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable
information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular
business practices, including names, Social Security numbers, dates
of birth, account information, and/or other personal information.
Former and current Evolve customers are required to entrust the
Defendant with sensitive, non-public PII, without which Defendant
could not perform their regular business activities, in order to
use Evolve's financial services. On June 26, 2024, the Defendant
announced that it was "currently investigating a cybersecurity
incident involving a known cybercriminal organization that appears
to have illegally obtained and released on the dark web the data
and personal information of some Evolve retail bank customers and
financial technology partners' customers."
As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class
Members have suffered injury including invasion of privacy; lost or
diminished value of PII; lost opportunity costs associated with
attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach,
loss of benefit of the bargain; and the continued and certainly
increased risk to their PII, says the suit.
Evolve is a bank, that offers financial services to its customers,
including checking accounts, savings accounts, debit cards,
personal loans, home loans, CDs, IRAs, personal trusts, and
financial management services, including Shopify Balance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
GROSSMAN PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
E-mail: ahoneycutt@milberg.com
- and -
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 239-4778
E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
gharoutunian@justice4you.com
- and -
Jason M. Wucetich, Esq.
WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP
222 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 2000
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (310) 335-2001
Facsimile: (310) 364-5201
E-mail: jason@wukolaw.com
EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Mason Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SABRINA MASON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, Case No. e 2:24-cv-02463
(W.D. Tenn., July 1, 2024) arises out of Evolve's failures to
properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately
destroy Plaintiffs’ and Class Members' sensitive personal
identifiable information ("PII") that it acquired and stored for
its business purposes.
According to the complaint, this failure to secure and monitor its
network resulted in a February and May 2024 data breach ("Data
Breach") of highly sensitive documents and information stored on
the computer network of Evolve Bank, an organization that provides
financial services to individuals, including Plaintiff and Class
Members, the lawsuit says.
The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted
cyberattack in or about Feb. and May of 2024, which compromised
Defendant’s network resulting in the exfiltration of Plaintiff'
and other individuals' PII, including, but not limited to, names,
Social Security numbers, dates of birth, account information and
numbers, emails, and/or other personal information. 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 with which it was entrusted for receiving
financial services, asserts the lawsuit.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated to address Defendant's
implementation of inadequate controls and safeguards resulting in a
hacker gaining access to, and exfiltrating, the PII of Plaintiff
and Class Members, and Defendant’s failure to provide timely and
adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their PII
had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third
party and including in that notice precisely what specific types of
information were accessed and taken by cybercriminals. As a result
of Defendant's alleged conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have
been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers
who used Evolve for banking or other financial services.
Plaintiff Sabrina Mason is a resident and citizen of Colorado. She
received an email on June 26, 2024, informing her that she was a
victim of the Data Breach, which compromised her PII
EVOLVE BANK & TRUST is a bank, that offers financial services to
its customers, including checking accounts, savings accounts, debit
cards, personal loans, home loans, CDs, IRAs, personal trusts, and
financial management services, including Shopify Balance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lisa A. White, Esq.
MASON LLP
9117 Millertown Pike
Mascot, TN 37806
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: lwhite@masonllp.com
EXCELSIOR MINING: Court Denies Shareholder Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed shareholder class action brought by a Toronto-based
mutual fund against a B.C.-based mining company was rejected on the
basis that the fund lacked standing to lead a class action in the
province. Now, the Supreme Court of B.C. has rejected the fund's
request to transfer the remnants of its case to Ontario.
In 2021, MM Fund filed a proposed class action against Excelsior
Mining Corp. and a couple of its directors and officers in B.C.,
alleging that the company's prospectus for an offering that raised
approximately $31.7 million included misrepresentations.
Those allegations have not been proven.
In 2022 the B.C. Supreme Court declined to certify the proceeding
as a class action, ruling that MM Fund didn't have standing to
bring a class action in B.C. as it was not a resident of the
province. The court ordered the fund to remove the class action
claims from its pleadings.
After an appeal of that decision was dismissed by the B.C. Court of
Appeal on April 30, the fund filed a proposed class action in
Ontario, repeating the allegations from its original lawsuit in
B.C.
It then sought an order from the court in B.C. to transfer that
litigation to Ontario.
"MM seeks this relief because it wishes to continue this action in
Ontario in conjunction with [the] recent class action filed there,"
the B.C. court noted in its decision.
The court rejected the fund's request, which it characterized as
"very unusual" coming from the plaintiff in a case. Requests to
change jurisdiction typically come from defendants, it noted.
"Counsel advise that they have been unable to find any decision
where a plaintiff, such as MM, having chosen B.C. as the forum to
conduct this litigation, later decides that it wishes that the
matter proceed in another court," the court said. It added that the
unprecedented nature of the request is heightened by the fact that
MM has already argued that the case belongs in B.C. because
Excelsior is incorporated and regulated in B.C., even though its
mining operations are located in Arizona.
"MM says that it is based in Ontario, now downplaying [its]
connections to B.C. as it previously argued in this proceeding,"
the court noted. It said that "the true basis for MM's 'about face'
and contradictory positions on this unusual application related to
a limitation issue and MM's view that this B.C. action can assist
in some way in the prosecution of the Ontario class action
proceeding."
By consolidating the ongoing B.C. case with the proposed class
action in Ontario, the fund hoped to avoid the prospect of the
claim in Ontario being dismissed based on the two-year limitation
period for civil claims, the court said.
However, it rejected the fund's application, citing "serious
concerns about MM's shifting and contradictory positions which
appear to be borne from strategic reasons only."
The court said it's not clear that allowing the B.C. case to be
transferred to Ontario will have any effect on a possible
limitation defence in that proceeding.
"[W]hile MM's U-turn in the litigation is not forum shopping in the
true sense of choosing a jurisdiction for a juridical advantage, it
does smack of unfairness and abuse of process given the history of
this matter," the court said.
"MM has failed to meet its burden to show that Ontario is clearly
the more appropriate forum to decide the issues in this
proceeding," it concluded in rejecting the fund's application. "To
the contrary, the overall circumstances support allowing this
action to continue." [GN]
FIRST AMERICAN: Class Settlement in Kimble Suit Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCIA KIMBLE, v. FIRST
AMERICAN HOME WARRANTY CORP. and FIVESTRATA LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-10037-DML-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge David Lawson
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval
of the class settlement and plan of allocation.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the following
settlement class is finally certified in this case:
"The 21,953 persons identified by the records of FiveStrata
whose
telephone numbers were registered in the National Do-Not-Call
Registry and who were called by FiveStrata on behalf of First
American."
The Court also entered an order that:
-- the 51 individuals who opted out of the class are deemed
excluded
from the class and are not bound by, nor may they participate
in,
the class settlement;
-- class counsel and the settlement administrator, Atticus
Administration, LLC, shall remain responsible for completion of
the administration of the claims and distribution of the funds,
but they may not invade the settlement fund for further
reimbursement or payment of fees absent further order of the
Court;
-- the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and litigation
expenses
is granted and the attorney's fees requested are approved.
-- an incentive award in the amount of $5,000 to named plaintiff
Marcia Kimble and $17,044.05 in litigation expenses is
approved.
Ms. Kimble filed a complaint alleging that the defendants violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), by contacting her
with unsolicited phone calls despite her number being listed on the
federal Do-Not-Call registry authorized under that statute.
First American offers homebuyers and homesellers protection against
costly repairs and replacement on their homes' essential systems
and appliances.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 8, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tNzzJV
at no extra charge.[CC]
FIRST NATIONAL BANK: Alford Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First National Bank
of Omaha. The case is styled as Kenneth Alford, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated v. First National Bank of
Omaha, Case No. CACE24008733 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., June 21,
2024).
First National Bank Omaha doing business as FNBO --
https://www.fnbo.com/ -- is a bank headquartered in Omaha,
Nebraska.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-907-1136
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Mast Oppose Class Cert Bid by July 26
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mosier v. Firstsource
Solutions USA LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01343 (N.D. Ohio, Filed July
11, 2023), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick entered an order
granting the Defendant's motion for an extension of time until July
26, 2024, to file its opposition brief to Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.
-- Any reply shall then be filed no later than Aug. 9, 2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.[CC]
FOR WELLNESS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fernandez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FOR WELLNESS LABS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04884 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.
Plaintiff Fernandez alleges that Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website is a violation of his rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, the Plaintiff also
asserts claims for violations of the New York State Human Rights
Law and the New York Civil Rights Law, seeking a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
For Wellness Labs, Inc. owns and operates the website,
www.forwellness.com, which offers functional food products,
including recovery gummies, superfood bites, and performance
blends. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Bolton Suit
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLON BOLTON, JENNY
PTASZEK, GINA BILOTTA, VERONICA MALDONADO, JOHN WRIGHT, MARGARET
VASQUEZ, TRACEY DROTOS, SCOTT MARTIN, MELISSA ALLARD, LISA
RUTHERFORD, MAKA YLA BONVILLAIN, GINA CARRELL, and MICHAEL CARRELL
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, V. FORD
MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-00632-GBW (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge
Gregory Williams entered an order granting in part and denying in
part Ford's Motion to Dismiss Counts I-XVIII of the First Amended
Complaint ("FAC").
The Defendant's Motion is granted without prejudice and with leave
for the Plaintiffs to amend as to: (1) Plaintiffs' Express Warranty
Claims (2) Plaintiffs Ptaszek and Drotos' Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act claims; and (3) Plaintiffs' claims seeking equitable relief.
The Defendant's Motion is granted with prejudice as to Plaintiffs'
claims under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and denied
without prejudice as to the Plaintiffs' California common law
omission claims. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is otherwise denied.
The Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a class action
complaint on June 9, 2023. The FAC followed on Sept. 15, 2023.
The FAC alleges that Ford violated common and statutory law by
selling and leasing vehicles equipped with defective 1.0L EcoBoost
engines ("Class Vehicles"), including the Ford Fiesta, Ford
EcoSport, and Ford Focus.
Specifically, the FAC alleges that Ford failed to disclose a
"defect that prevents oil from circulating properly that destroys
the engine, leaving consumers with a repair bill that frequently
exceeds the value of the engine."
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs assert sufficient allegations
of fraudulent inducement.
Because Ford makes no arguments related to supplemental
jurisdiction, the Court will not dismiss the MMWA claims on grounds
that the Plaintiffs do not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement
of pleading a class of at least one hundred members.
While the Court agrees that Plaintiffs may seek injunctive relief
as an alternative to legal damages, in doing so, Plaintiffs must
allege that legal remedies would not adequately compensate
Plaintiffs for their damages. Because the F AC makes no such
allegations, Ford's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for
equitable relief is GRANTED without prejudice.
Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated July 8, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hoYewV
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq.
Scott M. Tucker, Esq.
Timothy N. Mathews, Esq.
Alex M. Kashurba, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
Wilmington, Delaware
- and -
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
Abigail J. Gertner, Esq.
Amey J. Park, Esq.
Natalie Lesser, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
Wilmington, Delaware
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Laura E. Goolsby, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
Los Angeles, CA
The Defendant is represented by:
Christian J. Singewald, Esq.
WHITE & WILLIAMS
Wilmington, DE
FORM I-9 COMPLIANCE: Faces Mijangos Tort Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
BLAKE MIJANGOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FORM I-9 COMPLIANCE LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-01210-SPG-RAO
(C.D. Cal., June 5, 2024) is an action against the Defendant for
its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information
of its customers. The case was assigned to Judge Sherilyn Peace
Garnett, and referred to Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver.
Form I-9 Compliance, LLC provides enterprise level Form I-9
Auditing, web based electronic I-9 applications. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan L Bleichner, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
FORTUNA LI: Agnone Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fortuna LI, LLC. The
case is styled as Pasquale Agnone, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Fortuna LI, LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-04400 (E.D.N.Y., June 21, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Fortuna LI, LLC is an insurance company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (718) 705-8706
Fax: (718) 705-8705
Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Miller Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS PARENT, INC., Case
No. 3:24-cv-01671-K (N.D. Tex., July 1, 2024) alleges that Frontier
failed to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable
information of its customers, including, but not limited to: full
names, addresses, social security numbers, email addresses, credit
scores, phone numbers, and dates of birth.
The Defendant offers internet, digital television, and
telecommunications services to residential and business customers
in 25 states.
On April 14, 2024, the Defendant detected unusual activity on its
IT systems and determined that the Plaintiff's personal information
-- which was entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding
that Defendant would protect it against unauthorized disclosure --
was accessed and exfiltrated in a data breach ("Data Breach").
On June 6, 2024, the Defendant sent out a data breach notice letter
to Plaintiff and other individuals who were affected by the data
breach.
The Defendant's conduct resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of
Plaintiff’s private information to unknown cybercriminals. The
unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's PII constitutes an invasion
of a legally protected privacy interest, that is traceable to the
Defendant's failure to adequately secure the PII in its custody,
and has resulted in actual, particularized, and concrete harm to
the Plaintiff, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff suffered actual injury in the form of damages to and
diminution in the value of the PII that was compromised as a result
of the Data Breach.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former subscribers
of Defendant's various services.
The Defendant offers fiber optic television services (i.e.,
Frontier Fiber TV) and requires customers to provide their PII
prior to purchasing a cable subscription.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Facsimile: (214) 744-3000
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Murray Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNER MURRAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Fullbeauty Brands, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04922
(S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website "Kingsize.com" to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Fullbeauty Brands provides to their non-disabled customers
through its website, the Plaintiff asserts.
On May 13, 2024, the Plaintiff has made an attempt to complete a
purchase on Kingsize.com. He tried to purchase a T-shirt, but he
was unable to complete the purchase independently because of the
many access barriers on the Defendant's website, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Fullbeauty Brands' policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Fullbeauty offers T-shirts, sweaters, activewear, underwear,
sleepwear, shoes, boots, sandals, jewelry, belts, socks and
hats.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
GARAGE CARS: Seeks to Extend Time to File Class Cert Bid Opposition
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL BARRETT, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE GARAGE CARS,
LLC d/b/a THE GARAGE, Case No. 1:23-cv-11018-NMG (D. Mass.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the time to
file an opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, up to and including July 19, 2024.
The Defendant requires this extension because of the recent Fourth
of July holiday and because of conflicting court deadlines. The
Defendant's counsel has hearings, motions and oppositions to file
in multiple other class action litigation cases over the course of
the next two weeks.
This is Defendant's first such request, and the one week extension
will not unduly delay the proceedings and does not prejudice either
party.
Counsel for the Plaintiff has assented to this extension.
The Plaintiff filed his Motion for Class Certification and
Memorandum in Support on June 28, 2024.
The Garage is a family owned and operated complete automotive
repair shop.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=thEJit at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Eric R. LeBlanc, Esq.
Nafisa Bohra, Esq.
BENNETT & BELFORT, P.C.
24 Thorndike Street, Suite 300
Cambridge, MA 02141
Telephone: (617) 577-8800
E-mail: eleblanc@bennettandbelfort.com
nbohra@bennettandbelfort.com
GARDEN STATE: Perez Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA and NJWHL
---------------------------------------------------------------
GUSMARO PEREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. GARDEN STATE NURSERY LLC and PHIL DEPAULIS, Case No.
2:24-cv-07503 (D.N.J., July 2, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.
The Defendants allegedly maintained a policy and practice of
requiring the Plaintiff and the FLSA collective employees to work
more than 40 hours per week without providing them with any
additional compensation.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a gardener from
September 2022 until Abril 19, 2024.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12t Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
www.stillmanlegalpc.com
GATE GOURMET: Removes Abrajano Suit to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of MARK CHRIS ESTRELLA ABRAJANO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. GATE GOURMET, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo (Case No.
24CIV00929) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on June 27, 2024.
The clerk of court for the District Court for the Northern District
of California assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-03889. The case is assigned
to Judge Maxine M. Chesney.
Gate Gourmet, Inc. is an independent provider of airline catering
and provisioning services. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian Berry, Esq.
Sarah Zenewicz, Esq.
Grace Johnson, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
Email: brian.berry@morganlewis.com
sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com
grace.johnson@morganlewis.com
GATOS SILVER: $3-Mil. Securities Class Settlement Gets Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that The
Ontario Superior Court of Justice has approved a $3 million
settlement agreement in a securities class action.
The plaintiff alleged that Gatos Silver, Inc. overstated the
mineral reserve of its sole producing mine in a July 2021
prospectus, leading to financial losses for investors. Tetra Tech
prepared the technical report with the alleged error and certified
its accuracy. The plaintiff claimed that Gatos's disclosures based
on this report were misrepresentations and that Tetra Tech and its
employees who were involved in preparing the report are liable for
damages under the Ontario Securities Act and common law.
The defendant agreed to pay $3 million in full settlement of all
claims, securing full and final releases for all class members and
resulting in the dismissal of the action. Class counsel, assisted
by the claims administrator, disseminated notice of the proposed
settlement and received no objections from class members. They
estimate the potential damages for primary market purchasers to be
between $3.7 million and $7 million and for secondary market
damages between $7.5 million and $11.85 million.
The Superior Court noted that a settlement must be fair,
reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, with the burden
of proof on the plaintiff. The court found that the settlement,
similar to a prior settlement with another group of defendants, was
reached through arm's length negotiations, establishing a
presumption of fairness.
Class counsel advised that the settlement recovers approximately 16
percent to 26 percent of estimated damages, with combined
settlements recovering 20 percent to 33 percent of losses. This
recovery is notably higher compared to a parallel US class action.
The court deemed the disbursements incurred, including expert fees,
fair and reasonable. The fees and disbursements total 31 percent,
which is within the range approved in other class actions.
The court concluded that the settlement, the allocation plan, and
the ancillary relief sought were fair, reasonable, and in the best
interests of the class. The court also approved the class counsel's
fees and disbursements, issuing an order as submitted by the class
counsel. [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Davids Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joseph Davids, Thomas Fuhrer, 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-03203 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia on June 21, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-02740-TWT to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
General Motors Company -- https://www.gm.com/ -- is an American
multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in
Detroit, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Cari C. Laufenberg, Esq.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK, L.L.P
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-1900
Fax: (206) 623-3384
Email: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Ron Kilgard, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK
3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 900
Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600
Phone: (602) 230-6322
The Defendants are represented by:
Melanie Burke, Esq.
KING & SPALDING, LLP-NY
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 556-2100
- and -
Stephen J. Steinlight, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS, LLP
875 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 704-6008
GENTLEMEN'S BARBERSHOP: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Layne Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DALE LAYNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. GENTLEMEN'S BARBERSHOP USA 1, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-04596
(E.D.N.Y., June 28, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.gentlemensbarbershopbrooklyn.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff was allegedly injured when the Plaintiff attempted
multiple times, most recently on April 24, 2024, to access
Defendant's Website from the Plaintiff's home. Specifically, the
Plaintiff wanted to book an appointment at this barbershop. 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 booking an appointment.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Gentlemen's is renowned for its classic and modern barbering
services, offering precision haircuts, hot towel shaves, beard
grooming, and styling.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
GLEIBERMAN PROPERTIES: Johnson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gleiberman
Properties, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Hailey Johnson, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Gleiberman
Properties, Inc., Does 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 24STCV15770 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 24, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Gleiberman Properties is a leading real estate investment firm that
owns and operates over 28,000 apartment units.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, PC
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006
Phone: 310-975-1493
Fax: 310-675-0861
Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com
GLOBAL E-TRADING: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Docs Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET SIHLER, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; CHARLENE BAVENCOFF,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
GLOBAL E-TRADING, LLC DBA CHARGEBACKS911, GARY CARDONE, MONICA
EATON, Case No. 8:23-cv-01450-VMC-UAM (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order directing that the Subject
Materials may be filed in the public docket, with redactions to the
portions of the emails in Exhibits 2 and 3 that concern businesses
other than Brightree Holdings.
Alternatively, the Plaintiffs request that the Court grant this
Motion to Seal and grant Plaintiffs leave to file under seal the
Subject Materials, i.e., Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 11 as well as
all portions of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their Motion for
Class Certification.
The Plaintiffs Janet Sihler and Charlene Bavencoff file this motion
for leave to file under seal certain documents submitted to the
court in connection with Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for
Class Certification (the "Subject Documents").
The Plaintiffs do not believe the Subject Documents meet the
criteria for sealing and therefore request that the Court deny the
instant motion and order the Plaintiffs to file all of the Subject
Documents on the public docket, with limited redactions to two
documents. The filing of the Subject Materials is necessary because
they speak to the faulty legal arguments and factual claims
presented by Defendants' Opposition to the Motion to Certify
Class.
Exhibits 2 and 3 to Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for
Class Certification contain business information concerning
Chargebacks911 customers other than the Brightree Holdings. This
information is of no relevance to Plaintiffs' Reply or any of the
substantive issues in this case. It pertains to non-parties. As
such, the Plaintiffs believe that redacting the portions of these
documents that concern CB911 clients other than Brightree Holdings
and then filing these redacted documents in the public docket
strikes the optimal balance between the public's right of access to
court documents and the privacy interests of the non-parties listed
in Exhibits 2 and 3.
On May 10, 2024, Plaintiffs moved for class certification. On June
14, 2024, Defendants filed their Opposition [ECF No. 134] to
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. On July 5, 2024, the
Plaintiffs filed their Reply in Support of Motion for Class
Certification.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 5, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8zy1YW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anthony Sampson, Esq.
Kevin M. Kneupper, Esq.
A. Lorraine Weekes
A. Cyclone Covey, Esq.
KNEUPPER.& COVEY, PC
8911 N Capital of Texas Hwy
Suite 4200 No. 1173
Austin, TX 78759
E-mail: anthony@kneuppercovey.com
kevin@kneuppercovey.com
lorraine@kneuppercovey.com
Cyclone@kneuppercovey.com
- and -
Jordan Wagner, Esq.
KIBBEY WAGNER PLLC
73 SW Flagler Ave
Stuart, FL 34994-2140
Telephone: (772) 444-7000
E-mail: jwagner@kibbeylaw.com
GLOSKN LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Suarez Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALVIN SUAREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Gloskn, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05018 (S.D.N.Y., July 2,
2024) alleges that Gloskn failed to design, construct, maintain,
and operate their website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Gloskn provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.thephix.com. The Defendant's denial of full and equal
access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and
services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations,
is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, says the suit.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision;
others have no vision.
Thephix.co provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Gloskn. Yet,
Thephix.co contains significant access barriers that make it
difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
GOLDEN STATE: Plong Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
VANNO PLONG, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GOLDEN STATE SUPPLY, LLC, a limited liability company;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-05525 (Filed May
17, 2024) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on June 28,
2024.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-05525 to the proceeding.
The Complaint alleges a proposed class of "current, former, and/or
future employees of Defendants as direct employees as well as
temporary employees employed through temp agencies who work as
hourly non-exempt employees."
On May 29, 2024, the Plaintiff served the complaint on Defendant.
The Complaint sets forth the following seven causes of action:
(1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;
(2) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages;
(3) Failure to Authorize and Permit Meal Periods;
(4) Failure to Authorize or Permit Rest Periods;
(5) Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements;
(6) Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due at Time of Separation; and
(7) Unfair Business Practices.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam Y. Siegel, Esq.
Robert Yang, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Telephone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
E-mail: Adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com
Rob.Yang@jacksonlewis.com
GOODYEAR TIRE: Curran Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Curran, Timothy Borland, individually
and behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Company, Compagnie Generale des Etablissements Michelin SCA,
Michelin North America Inc., Bridgestone Corporation, Continental
Aktiengesellschaft, Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Michelin
North America, Inc., Nokian Tyres Inc., Nokian Tyres plc, Nokian
Tyres U.S. Operations LLC, Pirelli & C S.p.A., Pirelli Tire LLC,
Compagnie Generale Des Etablissements, Does 1-100, Case No.
1:24-cv-01419 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on June 21, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-rt-55021-SL to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust.
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company --
https://corporate.goodyear.com/us/en -- is an American
multinational tire manufacturer headquartered in Akron, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bobby Pouya, Esq.
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW - SHERMAN OAKS
15165 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: (818) 788-8300
Email: bpouya@pwfirm.com
dwarshaw@pwfirm.com
- and -
Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412
Phone: (866) 540-5505
Fax: (866) 300-7367
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam C. Hemlock, Esq.
David Lender, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES - NEW YORK
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Phone: (212) 310-8000
Fax: (212) 310-8007
Email: adam.hemlock@weil.com
david.lender@weil.com
- and -
Aaron M. Healey, Esq.
Tracy V. Schaffer, Esq.
JONES DAY - NEW YORK
250 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281-1047
Phone: (212) 326-3811
Email: ahealey@jonesday.com
- and -
John M. Majoras, Esq.
JONES DAY - COLUMBUS
325 John H. McConnell Blvd., Ste. 600
Columbus, OH 43215-5017
Phone: (614) 281-3835
Fax: (614) 461-4198
Email: jmmajoras@jonesday.com
- and -
Gerald A. Stein, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
21st Floor 10020
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 402-4095
- and -
Kaley Louise Fendall, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
560 SW Tenth Avenue, Ste. 700
Portland, OR 97205
Phone: (503) 778-5375
Fax: (503) 778-5299
Email: kaleyfendall@dwt.com
GOODYEAR TIRE: Price Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Percy Price, individually and behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company,
Compagnie Generale des Etablissements Michelin SCA, Michelin North
America Inc., Bridgestone Corporation, Continental
Aktiengesellschaft, Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Michelin
North America, Inc., Nokian Tyres Inc., Nokian Tyres plc, Nokian
Tyres U.S. Operations LLC, Pirelli & C S.p.A., Pirelli Tire LLC,
Compagnie Generale Des Etablissements, Does 1-100, Case No.
1:24-cv-01981 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on June 24, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-rt-55027-SL to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company --
https://corporate.goodyear.com/us/en -- is an American
multinational tire manufacturer headquartered in Akron, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Cary Zhang, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
William G. Caldes, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF-PHILADELPHIA
2001 Market Street, Ste. 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 496-0300
Fax: (215) 496-6611
Email: czhang@srkattorneys.com
jspector@srkattorneys.com
bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
- and -
Jeffery J. Corrigan, Esq.
SPECTOR, ROSEMAN & KODROFF, PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 496-0300
Fax: (215) 496-6611
GPB HOLDINGS: Court Stays All Deadlines, Proceedings in DeLuca Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled BARBARA DELUCA, DREW R. NAYLOR, PEGGY ROLLO,
PETER BEDDIA, MICHAEL OLES, ROBERT (BOB) RICCI, and JAMES STAPLES,
as Trustee of the 616 MOVED TRUST, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated limited partners, Plaintiffs v. GPB
HOLDINGS, LP, et al, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10498-LAK-JW
(S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York stays all
deadlines and proceedings related to the Action until further order
of the Court.
The Action has been stayed against the GPB Defendants and the
Individual Defendants since May 20, 2021. On Nov. 2, 2023,
Defendants Crowe LLP, CohnReznick LLP, Margolin Winer & Evens LLP,
RSM US LLP, and EisnerAmper LLP (the "Auditor Defendants") filed
their respective motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Class Action Complaint.
Pursuant to the Court's Order dated April 24, 2024, all proceedings
related to this Action were stayed while the Plaintiffs and the
Auditor Defendants engaged in mediation. On June 13 and 14, 2024,
the Plaintiffs and the Auditor Defendants engaged in mediation.
As a result of mediation, the Plaintiffs and Defendants Crowe LLP,
CohnReznick LLP, Margolin Winer & Evens LLP, and RSM US LLP (the
"Settling Parties") reached an agreement to resolve the claims
asserted in the Action against them (the "Settlement"). The
Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims against Defendant
EisnerAmper LLP.
In light of the foregoing, the Plaintiffs and the Auditor
Defendants agree that a continued stay of all deadlines and
proceedings related to this Action is appropriate while the
Settling Parties prepare a formal stipulation of settlement, motion
and related papers to effectuate the Settlement.
Having considered the Parties' joint letter for a continued stay of
all further proceedings pending the preparation of a formal
stipulation of settlement, motion and related papers, the Court
orders that all deadlines and proceedings related to this Action
are stayed as against and with respect to all Parties until further
order of the Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 24, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2fxteeme from PacerMonitor.com.
GRAPHIC IMAGE: Brown Sues Over Website's Accessibility Barriers
---------------------------------------------------------------
ZEBONE BROWN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRAPHIC IMAGE INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-04888 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most
recently on February 12, 2024, to access Defendant's website to
shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied
the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and
services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's
failure to remove such barriers and asserts claims for violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human
Rights Law.
Graphic Image Incorporated owns and operates the website,
www.giginewyork.com, which offers leather goods and travel
accessories for sale. [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
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Cicchi Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Cicchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-02400-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 31, 2024),
is brought to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest,
attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Plaintiff and those similarly situated have regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours a week and have been paid some overtime for
those hours but at a rate that does not include Defendant's shift
premiums as required by the FLSA. The Defendant paid Plaintiff, and
its other hourly employees, additional non-discretionary
remuneration that Defendant also failed to include in the regular
rate calculation.
The Defendant maintains an unlawful rounding policy and practice
which rounds employee punch-in and punch-out times in a way that
almost always inured to Defendant's benefit. As a result, Defendant
failed to pay Plaintiff for all time worked. In each workweek where
Plaintiff worked 40 hours or more, Defendant's unlawful rounding
policy resulted in an unlawful deprivation of overtime wages, as
provided by the FLSA. In each workweek where Plaintiff worked less
than 40 hours, the rounding policy results in an unlawful
deprivation of straight time wages (i.e., gap time) for
non-overtime hours worked, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant an hourly manufacturing
employee in Michigan between August 2021 and April 2024.
Graphic Packaging International, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
with its global headquarters located in Georgia.[BN]
the Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq.
Andrew L. Weiner, Esq.
WEINER & SAND LLC
800 Battery Avenue SE, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30339
Phone: (404) 205-5029
Phone: (404) 254-0842
Fax: (866) 800-1482
Email: js@wsjustice.com
aw@wsjustice.com
- and -
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Town Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Phone: (248) 355-0300
Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Laura Supanich, Esq.
MELMEDLAWGROUP P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 824-3828
Fax: (310) 862-6851
Email: jm@melmedlaw.com
lms@melmedlaw.com
HEAVENLY FOOT: Bautista Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------
Nelyda Yanira Ramirez Bautista, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. HEAVENLY FOOT MASSAGE, INC, LU ALPHARETTA
MASSAGE, INC, LU DUNWOODY MASSAGE, INC, and YEONG JINN LU, Case No.
1:24-cv-02393-MHC (N.D. Ga., May 31, 2024), is brought pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended ("the FLSA" or
"the Act"), for unpaid minimum wage, straight-time and overtime
compensation.
The Defendants have willfully committed violations of the FLSA by
failing to compensate Plaintiff at a rate equal to or greater than
the applicable minimum wage for certain hours during her
employment, and an overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a given workweek. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid compensation
for unpaid straight wage time, as well as overtime work performed,
an equal amount of liquidated damages to compensate her for the
delay in payment of money due which Defendants instead used as
working capital, as well as attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a massage
therapist.
Heavenly Foot Massage, Inc owns and operates a business
specializing in providing massage therapy to the general public in
Georgia and Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tyler B. Kaspers, Ga. Bar No. 445708
THE KASPERS FIRM, LLC
152 New Street, Suite 109B
Macon, GA 31201
Phone: 404-944-3128
Email: tyler@kaspersfirm.com
INSTANT URGENT: Harvey Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
TIM HARVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INSTANT URGENT CARE and PRACTICE CROWN INC.,
Defendants, Case No. :24-cv-03888-PCP (N.D. Cal., June 27, 2024)
seeks for legal and equitable remedies resulting from Defendants'
unlawful disclosure of patients' protected health information (PHI)
and personally identifiable information (PII) to Meta Platforms,
Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.
Plaintiff Harvey brings class action lawsuit on behalf of all U.S.
residents who scheduled their medical appointments through the
online booking platform hosted by Defendant Practice Crown Inc.
Unbeknownst to consumers, Defendant Instant Urgent Care assists
Defendant Practice Crown Inc. in obtaining its patients' protected
health information (PHI) and personally identifiable information
(PII) when they schedule appointments on the website through the
online booking platform. The Defendants also aid, employ, agree,
and conspire with Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook,
Inc. to intercept communications sent and received by Plaintiff and
Class Members, including communications containing PHI and PII.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff assert claims for invasion privacy under
California's Constitution and for violations of the California
Invasion Of Privacy Act, and the California Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act.
Based in San Jose, CA, Instant Urgent Care is a healthcare facility
that provides immediate medical help for non-life-threatening
conditions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brittany S. Scott, 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
- 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
J.G. WENTWORTH: Simpson Seeks to Amend Scheduling Order
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS SIMPSON, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. THE J.G. WENTWORTH
COMPANY and DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No.
8:23-cv-00152-KKM-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order to amend the Scheduling Order to reflect a 90-day
extension of the class certification deadline.
The Plaintiff seeks to amend the class certification deadline
within the Fast Track Case Management and Scheduling Order due to
recently obtained materials that Plaintiff's expert will be unable
to review in the limited time remaining before the current class
certification deadline of July 7, 2024.
As a result, the Plaintiff's expert requires additional time to
review these materials ahead of the upcoming class certification
deadline.
As such, the Plaintiff seeks the following changes should be made
to the Scheduling Order:
Event Current Deadline Proposed New
Deadline
Class Certification July 7, 2024 Oct. 7, 2024
All remaining deadlines -- No Change
The Plaintiff asserts that there is good cause to modify the single
date in the Scheduling Order because information that is critical
to supporting his motion for class certification was only obtained
less than two weeks prior to the deadline and he has been diligent
in acting to seek that this deadline be moved.
The case arises out of Plaintiff's allegations of a campaign by the
Defendant through its telemarketer Digital Media Solutions, LLC
("DMS") to market its services through the use of pre-recorded
telemarketing calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").
J.G. Wentworth disagrees with Plaintiff's allegations, including
the allegations that J.G. Wentworth initiated the campaign at
issue, but consents to Plaintiff's requested extension on the class
certification deadline.
J.G. Wentworth is an American financial services company that
purchases structured settlements, annuities, and lottery payments
in exchange for a lump-sum cash settlement.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 5, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PJqrNU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
Joseph F. Murray, Esq.
Geoffrey J. Moul, Esq.
Jonathan P. Misny, Esq.
MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
1114 Dublin Road
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 488-0400
Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com
murray@mmmb.com
moul@mmmb.com
misny@mmmb.com
JAMES G. DAVIS: Soliz Seeks to Conditionally Certify Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEBER SOLIZ, et al., v.
JAMES G. DAVIS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-00974-LMB-WBP (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order
-- granting reconsideration of the Court's June 24, 2024, and
-- granting Conditional Certification of a Collective Action
because
Davis did not have an opportunity to respond to Plaintiff's
Motion
for Conditional Certification.
Davis is entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b) as such an action is appropriate to accomplish justice. In
support of its Motion, Davis refers the Court to its accompanying
Memorandum.
The parties conferred and Plaintiffs consent to Davis's Motion for
Reconsideration, though Plaintiffs may oppose Davis's Opposition to
the Motion for Conditional Certification.
Davis provides general contracting services.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 5, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vIAd24 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert T. Hicks, Esq.
R. Douglas Taylor, Jr., Esq.
BEAN, KINNEY & KORMAN, P.C.
2311 Wilson Boulevard, 5th Floor
Arlington, VA 22201
Telephone: (703) 525-4000
Facsimile: (703) 525-2207
E-mail: rhicks@beankinney.com
rdougtaylor@beankinney.com
- and -
Parker E. Thoeni, Esq.
Evan Conder, Esq.
SHAWE ROSENTHAL LLP
One South Street, Suite 1800
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 752-1040
E-mail: pet@shawe.com
ec@shawe.com
JDM DELIVERIES: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
--------------------------------------------------------
Leticia Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. JDM DELIVERIES
INC., a California Corporation, AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
Corporation and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 245TO13911
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 31, 2024), is brought
against the Defendants for the Defendants violations of the
California Labor Code, by falling to pay straight time wages, and
overtime wages.
The Plaintiff and Defendants' California employees were routinely
unable, and not authorized to take their 10-minute rest periods and
were also unable to take an uninterrupted 30-minute meal break for
every shift they worked. Specifically, Plaintiff and Defendants'
California employees were forced to continue working through their
meal and rest breaks in order to assist Defendants' needs. Because
of this, Plaintiff and Defendants' California employees were unable
to take their required meal and rest breaks. Moreover, Defendants
failed to pay premium wages of one hour's pay for each missed meal
and rest break to Plaintiff and Defendants' California employees
who were denied timely meal and rest breaks, in violation of Labor
Code.
The Plaintiff also claims that Defendants have failed to pay all
overtime wages due to non-exempt employees. As a result, employees
are not properly compensated for work performance in excess of 8
hours in a workday and work performed in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek at a rate of no less than one and one-half times the
regular rate of pay, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly
employee in California.
JDM Deliveries, Inc., is a California Corporation doing business in
City of Industry, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman, Esq.
Nidah Farishta, Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
28632 Roadside Dr., Suite 203
Agoura Hills, CA, 91301
Phone: (818) 293-5623
Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
Email: Roman@OLFLA.com
Nidah@OLFLA.com
JELD-WEN INC: Gonzalez Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GABRIEL GONZALEZ, on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JELD-WEN, INC. and DOES 1 through 50,
Inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 37-2024-00024096-CU-OE-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California on June 27, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-01116-JO-VET to the proceeding.
The case brings putative class claims for an alleged: (1) failure
to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay all overtime wages; (3)
failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to pay proper sick
pay; (5) unpaid vacation wages; (7) untimely payment of wages; (8)
wage statement violations; (9) waiting time penalties;(10) failure
to reimburse business expenses; (11) unfair competition.
Jeld-Wen, Inc. designs, produces and distributes interior and
exterior doors; wood, vinyl and aluminum windows; and related
products. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jack S. Sholkoff, Esq.
Melis Atalay, Esq.
Stephanie Q. Le, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: jack.sholkoff@ogletree.com
melis.atalay@ogletree.com
stephanie.le@ogletree.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Band-Aid PFAS Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that three
California consumers sued Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue Inc.
Why: The plaintiffs claim the companies knowingly sold Band-Aid
products that contain harmful chemicals without informing
consumers.
Where: The Band-Aid PFAS class action lawsuit was filed in a
California federal court.
A California trio of consumers slapped Johnson & Johnson with
another class action lawsuit alleging the pharmaceutical giant
knowingly sold consumers Band-Aid products that contain harmful
forever chemicals.
Carl Saputo Jr., Valerie Torres and Joycette Goodwin filed the
class action complaint against Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue Inc.
June 27 in a California federal court.
Kenvue is an American consumer health company, formally known as
the Consumer Healthcare division of Johnson & Johnson. In 2023, J&J
split off its consumer health care business sector into the newly
publicly traded company, the lawsuit states.
The plaintiffs allege both companies failed to tell consumers their
Band-Aid products contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances,
chemicals that are dangerous to human health.
This is at least the second class action lawsuit to allege
Band-Aids contain PFAS in recent months. In April, a consumer hit
Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue with another lawsuit in a New Jersey
court alleging they manufactured and sold Band-Aid products
containing PFAS.
In the most current lawsuit, three California-based plaintiffs
allege they bought Band-Aid products in various stores around the
state not knowing from the packaging that they contained PFAS. The
plaintiffs say they wouldn't have bought the products had they
known about the alleged PFAS.
After using the products, potentially applying them to open wounds,
the plaintiffs say they are concerned about their health.
"Because PFAS persist and accumulate over time, they are harmful
even at very low levels," the Band-Aid class action states.
"Indeed, PFAS have been shown to have a number of toxicological
effects in laboratory studies and have been associated with thyroid
disorders, immunotoxicity effects and various cancers in
epidemiology studies."
The plaintiffs seek an injunction that would require the defendants
to implement and fund a medical monitoring program and blood serum
testing program to test for the presence of PFAS in their blood.
They also look to represent anyone who bought Band-Aid products,
including Band-Aid Flexible Fabric Bandages, Band-Aid Ourtone
Flexible Fabric BR45 Bandages, Band-Aid OURTONE Flexible Fabric
BR55 Bandages and Band-Aid Ourtone Flexible Fabric BR65 Bandages,
within the United States plus a California subclass.
The plaintiffs sued for violations of California's False
Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law and Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act and for unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment and
breach of implied and express warranty. They seek certification of
the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial.
Meanwhile, earlier this year, Johnson & Johnson agreed to a $700
million settlement with 42 states and the District of Columbia
after an investigation accused the company of misleading customers
about the safety of talc-based baby powder and products, claiming
they can cause cancer.
The plaintiffs are represented by Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A. and
Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC.
The Band-Aid PFAS class action lawsuit is Carl Saputo Jr. et al. v.
Johnson & Johnson et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01117-JLS-KSC, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN]
JOMASHOP INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Liz Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO LIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Jomashop, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04921 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2024)
sues the Defendant for failing to design, construct, maintain, and
operate their website "Jomashop.com" to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Jomashop provides to their non-disabled customers through
its website. The Plaintiff has made an attempt to complete a
purchase on Jomashop.com. He tried to purchase a watch on May 13,
2024, and was unable to complete the purchase independently because
of the many access barriers on Defendant's website, the suit
alleges.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Jomashop's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Jomashop provides an array of goods and services, including,
watches, handbags, sunglasses, boots, flats, jackets, pants,
T-shirts, fragrances, skincare items, luxury pens, and various
pieces of jewelry including earrings, necklaces, and
bracelets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
JOSE GARZA: Seeks More Time to File Summary Judgement Response
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FUND TEXAS CHOICE, et al.,
v. JOSE GARZA, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00859-RP (W.D. Tex.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of
time to July 16, 2024, to file their response to the Plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment against prosecutor Defendants.
The Plaintiffs filed their motion for partial summary judgment
against the Proscutor Defendants on May 17, 2024.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 5, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UlwnV2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Cynthia Contreras Gutierrez, Esq.
CONTRERAS GUTIERREZ AND ASSOCIATES
1302 S. 10th Ave.,
Edinburg, TX 78539
Telephone: (956) 683-0057
Facsimile: (956) 683-0059
E-mail: cynthia@ccglaw.net
KAMAN & CUSIMANO: Oie Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kaman & Cusimano LLC.
The case is styled as Mahlon Oie, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Kaman & Cusimano LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-00775-NJ (E.D. Wis., June 21, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Kaman & Cusimano LLC -- https://communityassociations.law/ -- is a
law firm based in Cleveland, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gustavo Ponce, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
245 Fischer Ave-Ste D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
- and -
Matthew A. McKenna, Esq.
SHIELD LAW LLC
237 South St-Ste 110
Waukesha, WI 53186
Phone: (262) 420-5953
Email: matt@shieldlaw.com
KENT SECURITY: Pulliam Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kent Security of
California, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Bianca Pulliam, on
behalf of the general public and all other aggrieved employees v.
Kent Security of California, Inc., Does 1-20, Case No. 24STCV15575
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 21, 2024).
Kent Security -- https://www.kentsecurity.com/ -- is one of the
leading security guard companies in the USA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel J. Bass, Esq., Esq.
MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
Los Angeles, California 90025-1760
Phone: (310) 312-0299
Fax: (310) 312-0296
KINGSBOROUGH ATLAS: Bazan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kingsborough Atlas
Tree Surgery, Inc. The case is styled as Miguel Bazan, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Kingsborough Atlas
Tree Surgery, Inc., Case No. 24CV010794 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., May 31, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Kingsborough Atlas Tree Surgery, Inc. provides landscaping
services. The Company specializes in tree management, pruning,
planting, stump removal, landscape maintenance, land clearing,
green waste reduction, and utility line clearance services.[BN]
KNIGHT HAWK: Class of Underground Miners Certified in Dye Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David W. Dugan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
Certification in the lawsuit styled TOBY DYE, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KNIGHT HAWK HOLDINGS,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01329-DWD (S.D. Ill.).
Plaintiff Toby Dye, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, brings this complaint against Defendants Knight Hawk
Coal, LLC, Knight Hawk Holdings, LLC, and ICG Illinois, LLC,
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"). The Amended Complaint seeks
to bring the FLSA claim as a collective action under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b), and the Illinois-law claims as a class action under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
Now before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
Certification as to the proposed FLSA class. The Defendant has
filed a Response in Opposition, and the Plaintiff has filed a
Reply.
According to the Amended Complaint, the Defendants jointly own and
operate underground coal mines in Illinois. The Plaintiff claims
the Defendants jointly employed the Plaintiff, the Opt-In
Plaintiffs, and other employees as hourly non-exempt workers
(collectively, "coal mining employees") at their underground coal
mines. The coal mining employees are required to don safety and
protective clothing every workday before their shifts start, before
reporting to daily shift meetings, and before going into the coal
mines. They are also required to obtain the tools and equipment
which are required for them to perform their daily job duties
before reporting to daily shift meetings and before going into the
mine.
Then, once their shifts are completed, the coal mining employees
are required to clock out before doffing their safety and
protective clothing and before putting away their tools and
equipment. The underground coal mining employees, however, are not
paid for the time they spend donning and doffing their safety and
protective clothing before and after their scheduled shifts. In
addition, they are not paid for the time they spend gathering and
putting away their tools and equipment before and after their
scheduled shifts.
The Plaintiff claims the amount of time coal mining employees spent
performing unpaid work was 15 or more minutes each workday,
resulting in approximately 1 hour and 25 minutes or more of unpaid
overtime for each employee every week and approximately 65 hours or
more of unpaid overtime per year.
The Plaintiff requests that the Court conditionally certify a
collective action, defining the potential class as:
All current and former hourly employees of the Defendants
engaged in underground mining in Illinois at any time during
the three (3) years preceding the date of the filing of this
Action to the present and worked more than forty (40) hours
in at least one workweek.
The Court finds that, considering the early stage of the
litigation, the largely merit-based arguments raised by the
Defendants do not cast doubt on the claim that the proposed class
members are similarly situated and do not provide a basis for
denying conditional certification.
Judge Dugan also finds, among other things, that the potential
collective members have the same predominate claim--uncompensated
donning and doffing time resulting in unpaid overtime. This is
sufficient to meet the "modest factual showing" standard. As the
case progresses, should discovery demonstrate "that the putative
class is inappropriate, unjustified, or unworkable," Judge Dugan
says the Defendants may seek decertification during the second
phase.
Given the minimal burden on the Plaintiff at the conditional
certification stage, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has made a
"modest factual showing" to support his allegations of common
policies that violate the FLSA such that the Court may conclude
that collective action is appropriate.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification. The Court conditionally certifies this
case as a collective action under the FLSA and authorizes the
Plaintiff to send notice, via United States mail and email, under
Section 216(b) of the FLSA to:
All current and former hourly employees of the Defendants
engaged in underground mining in Illinois at any time from
April 24, 2020, to the present, and worked more than forty
(40) hours in at least one workweek.
The Court further orders as follows:
1. The Proposed Notice, including the 60-day opt-in period, is
approved;
2. Within 14 days of entry of this Order, the Defendants will
provide the Plaintiff with an electronic spreadsheet in
Microsoft Excel or comma-delimited format a roster of all
individuals that fit the class definition that includes
each individual's full name, date of employment, last known
address, and personal email address;
3. Within 14 days of entry of this Order, the Defendants will
provide a declaration that the produced roster fully
complies with the Court's Order; and
4. The Plaintiff's request to send duplicate copies of the
Notice in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing
addresses or email addresses are found for any potential
opt-in plaintiff is approved.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated June 21,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9sayn8 from
PacerMonitor.com.
KRG KINGS: Court Awards $159K in Damages in McDonnell FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled DARLENE MCDONNELL, Plaintiff v. KRG KINGS
LLC, KELLY OPERATIONS GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-01060-CCW (W.D. Pa.), Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania awards
the Plaintiffs $159,330 in liquidated damages.
On Oct. 17, 2023, the jury returned a verdict that found that
Defendant KRG Kings LLC violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act by having its servers, Plaintiffs
Darlene McDonnell and the 405 opt-in plaintiffs, perform side-work
that was not related to serving customers. The jury awarded the
Plaintiffs unpaid wages of $250,000.
Before the Court are the Plaintiffs' Motion for the Award of
Liquidated Damages and Pre-Judgment Interest, and Motion for Costs
and Attorneys' Fees. KRG opposes both Motions. For the reasons set
forth in this Opinion and Order, the Court will award the
Plaintiffs liquidated damages and certain costs, but not
prejudgment interest. The Plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees
will be denied without prejudice.
Judge Wiegand holds that the Plaintiffs are entitled to liquidated
damages. The Court finds that KRG has not met its burden to show
good faith such that it should be excepted from paying liquidated
damages. KRG relies on KRG's Vice President of Human Resources
James Covelli's creation, circulation and posting of a memorandum
(the "Covelli Memo") in Sept. 20, 2018, testimony from Messrs.
Hurley and Dunmire, two KRG store managers, and the circulation of
an employee handbook, which included mechanisms for reporting
compensation issues, of which there were none.
However, Judge Wiegand opines, KRG's evidence fails to meet its
"plain and substantial burden." Accordingly, KRG cannot establish
that the mandatory liquidated damages award is not applicable.
In support of their request for liquidated damages, the Plaintiffs
provided an affidavit from their expert, Dr. Liesl M. Fox, that
allocates the portion of the $250,000 damages award that is within
the 2-year FLSA statute of limitations. KRG has not disputed or
challenged the methodology or amount of the liquidated damages.
Therefore, the Court will grant the Plaintiffs' Motion and award
Plaintiffs liquidated damages in the amount of $159,330.61.
The Court declines to award the Plaintiffs pre-judgment interest.
Under the FLSA, the Plaintiffs are only entitled to two years of
unpaid wages, representing $159,330.61 of the $250,000 damages
award, because the jury did not find that the FLSA violation was
willful. In contrast, under the PMWA, the Plaintiffs are entitled
to three years of unpaid wages.
The Plaintiffs seek pre-judgment interest at a rate of 6% on the
remaining $90,669.39 portion of the $250,000 award. The Plaintiffs
rely on a case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that
predicted what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would do and held
that plaintiffs are entitled to prejudgment interest under the
PMWA, citing Gonzalez v. Bustleton Services, Inc., Civ. A. No.
08-4703, 2010 WL 18183481, at *2 (E.D. Pa. May 5, 2010) (citing
Friedrich v. U.S. Computer Sys., Inc., No. 90-1615, 1995 WL 412385,
at *3 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 10, 1995). The Court declines to follow this
case.
There is no controlling precedent, from either the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit or Pennsylvania courts that
permits plaintiffs to receive prejudgment interest under the FLSA,
Judge Wiegand opines. Further, as the Plaintiffs admit, the PMWA
does not expressly provide for prejudgment interest. Accordingly,
in the absence of controlling precedent, the Court declines to
award prejudgment interest under the PMWA.
The Court also finds that the Plaintiffs lack evidence that their
requested hourly rate for attorney's fees is reasonable.
KRG objects to the reasonableness of the hourly rate advanced by
the Plaintiffs' counsel. Specifically, KRG argues that the
Plaintiffs have provided no evidentiary support that the rates they
seek, which are from the Philadelphia Community fee schedule, are
appropriate to the Pittsburgh market.
The Court agrees with KRG. The Plaintiffs have adopted the hourly
rates described in the fee schedule published by Community Legal
Services of Philadelphia (the "CLS rates"), arguing that the CLS
rates have been favorably cited by the Third Circuit and have been
used by district courts performing "lodestar crosschecks" of the
Plaintiffs' counsels' requested fees.
Judge Wiegand notes that KRG disputes the requested hourly attorney
rate, and the Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence regarding
the prevailing rate in the Western District, namely Pittsburgh, and
accordingly, have not met their burden. Thus, the Plaintiffs'
request for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice.
Lastly, the Plaintiffs seek $25,037.71 in litigation costs. KRG
only challenges $6,129.70 of costs, which represents the
Plaintiffs' counsels "Hotel, Meal, and Misc. Travel Expenses." KRG
argues that these travel costs are unreasonable because the
Plaintiffs could have retained local counsel, and no evidence has
been offered that the Plaintiffs could not find qualified local
counsel to handle their case.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have provided no evidence for
the Court to determine whether counsel in Pittsburgh would have
been unwilling to represent them. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have
not shown that they are entitled to $6,129.70 in travel costs. The
Court finds that the Plaintiffs' remaining costs, which are
unopposed, are reasonable. Accordingly, the Court will award the
remaining $18,908.01 in costs.
For these reasons, the Court rules that the Plaintiffs' Motion for
the Award of Liquidated Damages and Pre-Judgment Interest is
granted in part and denied in part and, the Plaintiffs Motion for
Costs and Attorneys' Fees is granted in part and denied in part, as
follows:
1. The Plaintiffs are awarded $159,330.61 in liquidated
damages;
2. The Plaintiffs are awarded $18,908.01 in litigation costs;
3. The Plaintiffs' request for prejudgment interest is denied
with prejudice; and
4. The Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees is denied
without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated June 21,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3p2vk975 from
PacerMonitor.com.
LAKOU BRANDS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Layne Suite Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
DALE LAYNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. LAKOU BRANDS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04601 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 28, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.lakoucafe.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The lawsuit asserts that the Plaintiff was injured when the
Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on April 26, 2024
to access the Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an
effort to shop for Defendant's products. Specifically, the
Plaintiff wanted to make an online order from this restaurant. The
Plaintiff's desire to place an order was due to the fact that he
was looking for a restaurant with a wide variety of vegan dishes.
Despite Plaintiff's efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a
shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to
the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations,
which effectively barred the Plaintiff from having an unimpeded
shopping experience, the lawsuit adds.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Mr. Layne is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Lakou offers a unique blend of Haitian-inspired cuisine and
beverages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
LANDSCAPE WAREHOUSE: Uriarte-Limon Sues Over ADA Non-Compliance
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAUL URIARTE-LIMON, Plaintiff, v. LANDSCAPE WAREHOUSE III, INC;
LOS3R LLC; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04839 (C.D.
Cal., June 8, 2024), is a class action accusing the Defendants of
violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil
Rights Act, and Title 24 of the California Building Code in
connection with the Defendants' failure to maintain their
property's features to be readily accessible to and usable by
persons with disabilities.
The Plaintiff allegedly encountered barriers that interfered with
and denied him the ability to use and enjoy the goods, services,
privileges, advantages, and accommodations offered by Defendants at
their property.
Landscape Warehouse III, Inc. operates as landscape supply store in
Covina, CA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew D. Valenti, Esq.
VALENTI LAW APC
5252 Balboa Avenue, Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92117
Telephone: (619) 540-2189
E-mail: mattvalenti@valentilawapc.com
LAYALI BOUTIQUE: Gaspa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA GASPA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Layali Boutique, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-07322 (D.N.J., June 27, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to make its website to be fully accessible to legally blind
individuals.
Plaintiff Gaspa alleges that the Defendant violated the Americans
with Disabilities Act and seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
Layali Boutique, LLC owns and operates the website,
https://www.layaliboutique.com, which offers goods and services,
including dresses for different occasions including bridal,
bridemaids, black tie, cocktail, gown, modest, prom, as well as
other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet
pricing specials.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
LENS.COM INC: Gonneville Suit Transferred to D. Nevada
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Angela Gonneville, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Lens.com, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-02923 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada on June 24, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01151-RFB-BNW to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Lens.com, Inc. -- https://www.lens.com/ -- is a leading online
destination for contact lenses since 1995.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carlin J. Phillips, Esq.
PHILLIPS & GARCIA, LLP
13 Ventura Drive
North Dartmough, ME 02747
Phone: (508) 998-0800
Fax: (508) 998-0919
Email: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
dwarshaw@pwfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jed H. Hansen, Esq.
THORPE NORTH & WESTERN
8180 South 700 East
Sandy, Ut 84070
Phone: (801) 566-6633
Email: hansen@tnw.com
- and -
Mark M. Bettilyon, Esq.
175 South Main Street, Suite 900
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Phone: (801) 566-6633
- and -
Theodore J. Folkman, Esq.
RUBIN & RUDMAN LLP
53 State Street, 15th Flr.
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 330-7135
LENS.COM INC: Nail Suit Transferred to D. Nevada
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Adam Nail, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situa v. Lens.com, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-02531
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada on June 24, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01149-JAD-EJY to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Lens.com, Inc. -- https://www.lens.com/ -- is a leading online
destination for contact lenses since 1995.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carlin J. Phillips, Esq.
PHILLIPS & GARCIA, LLP
13 Ventura Drive
North Dartmough, ME 02747
Phone: (508) 998-0800
Fax: (508) 998-0919
Email: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
dwarshaw@pwfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark M. Bettilyon, Esq.
Joseph M. Harmer, Esq.
THORPE NORTH AND WESTERN LLP
175 South Main Street, Suite 900
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Phone: (801) 566-6633
- and -
Benjamin Juhyeok Kim, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
725 South Figueroa Street 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 629-9040
Fax: (213) 629-9022
- and -
Jed H. Hansen, Esq.
THORPE NORTH & WESTERN
8180 South 700 East
Sandy, Ut 84070
Phone: (801) 566-6633
Email: hansen@tnw.com
LILY HOSPICE: Krause Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA, WWPCL
--------------------------------------------------------------
KLARISSA KRAUSE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. LILY HOSPICE LLC, Case No. 24-cv-815 (E.D. Wisc., July
1, 2024) is a collective and class action brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment
and Collection Laws, by Plaintiff Krause, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated current and former hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees of Lily Hospice, for purposes of obtaining
relief under the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or
injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem
appropriate.
The Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that
deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current
and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked
and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of
pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by
failing to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation,
such as monetary bonuses, commissions, incentives, awards, and/or
other rewards and payments, in said employees’ regular rates of
pay for overtime calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA and
WWPCL.
The Defendant's failure to compensate its hourly paid, non-exempt
employees for compensable work performed each workweek, including
but not limited to at an overtime rate of pay, was intentional,
willful, and violated federal law as set forth in the FLSA and
state law as set forth in the WWPCL, the lawsuit says.
Lily Hospice offers end of life care throughout Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-Mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Hunter Suit Moved From Missouri to California
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CHRISTOPHER HUNTER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00239-DGK (W.D.
Mo.), Judge Greg Kays of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, Western Division, grants the parties' joint
motion for transfer of venue to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.
The putative class action arises from a data breach involving the
Plaintiff's personally identifiable information. Now before the
Court is the parties' joint motion for transfer of venue to the
Central District of California where twenty-one related and
overlapping cases against the Defendant are already pending.
In making its determination, the Court says it weighs a variety of
factors, including the convenience of the witnesses; the
convenience of the parties; the availability of the judicial
process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses; governing
law; ease of access to sources of proof; the possibility of delay
or prejudice if the transfer is granted; and practical
considerations determining where the case can be tried more
expeditiously and inexpensively.
Judge Kays finds the facts of this case weigh in favor of granting
a change of venue. First, under Section 1404(a), the Plaintiff
could have brought this case in the Central District of California,
and all parties have consented. Thus, transfer is statutorily
appropriate.
Moreover, Judge Kays says the events of this case occurred in
California and sources of proof (e.g., witnesses, documents,
computer systems) are located in California making that forum more
convenient for the witnesses and parties. Thus, these factors also
favor transfer.
Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to transfer this case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 21, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/592hyn93 from PacerMonitor.com.
LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Hunter Suit Transferred to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christopher Hunter, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. loanDepot.com LLC, Case No.
4:24-cv-00239 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on June 21, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02359-DWF-DJF to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
LoanDepot -- https://www.loandepot.com/ -- sometimes stylized as
loanDepot, is an Irvine, California-based nonbank holding company
which sells mortgage and non-mortgage lending products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
MCSHANE & BRADY LLC
4006 Central Street
Kansas City, MO 64111
Phone: (816) 888-8010
Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ashley Marie Crisafulli, Esq.
Megan A. McCurdy, Esq.
STINSON LLP
1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900
Kansas City, MO 64106
Phone: (816) 691-2676
Email: ashley.crisafulli@stinson.com
megan.mccurdy@stinson.com
- and -
Matthew Dean Brown, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
3 Embarcadero Center 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4004
Phone: (415) 693-2000
Fax: (415) 693-2222
Email: brownmd@cooley.com
- and -
Mazda Antia, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
10265 Science Center Drive
San Diego, CA 92121-1117
Phone: (858) 550-6453
Fax: (858) 550-6420
Email: mantia@cooley.com
LUG USA: Bilbao Alleges Violations of FTSA's Caller ID Rules
------------------------------------------------------------
AXEL BILBAO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LUG USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-24-008047 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., June 9,
2024) seeks for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for
violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.
Allegedly, the Defendant made text message sales calls that
promoted Lug and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted
to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone
number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls.
Lug USA, LLC is a foreign limited liability company that sells bags
and travel accessories through its online store. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Telephone: (202) 709-5744
Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
M&T BANK: Family Appeals Denied Class Cert. Bid to 3rd Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
BELINA FAMILY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
denying their motion for reconsideration and renewed motion for
class certification in the lawsuit entitled David Jaroslawicz, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. M&T Bank Corp, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1-15-cv-00897, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.
The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of
securities laws and breach of fiduciary duty by making false and
misleading statements, as well as failing to disclose material
adverse facts about M&T Bank Corp's business, operations, and
prospects.
On Apr. 13, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class,
which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Evan J.
Wallach on Feb. 7, 2024.
On Feb. 14, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
of the Feb. 7 Order.
On Feb. 26, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class
certification.
On June 13, 2024, the Court entered an Order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and renewed motion for class
certification.
The Court ruled that the Plaintiffs have failed to show in their
motion for reconsideration a clear error or manifest injustice in
the Court's February 7, 2024 Opinion regarding their original
motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs have additionally
failed to show that the preponderance of the cumulative common
evidence provided in their renewed motion for class certification
and reincorporated past filings demonstrates that the Plaintiffs
are capable of prevailing at trial on the issue of transaction
causation for their alleged dividend damages, and the issues of
loss causation and transaction causation for their trading and
closing damages.
The appellate case is captioned David Jaroslawicz, et al. v. M&T
Bank Corp, et al., Case No. 24-8025, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, filed on June 25, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners BELINA FAMILY, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Steven M. Coren, Esq.
KAUFMAN COREN & RESS
2001 Market Street
Two Commerce Square, Suite 3900
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8700
Defendants-Respondents M&T BANK CORP, et al. are represented by:
Justin M. Forcier, Esq.
REED SMITH
1201 N. Market Street, Suite 1500
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 778-7555
- and -
Brian M. Rostocki, Esq.
Anne M. Steadman, Esq.
REED SMITH
1201 N. Market Street, Suite 1500
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 778-7500
(302) 778-7535
- and -
Daniel Rusk, Esq.
Kevin R. Shannon, Esq.
POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON
1313 N. Market Street, 6th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-6000
(302) 984-6112
MADE MAN BARBERSHOP: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Colak Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALI COLAK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. MADE MAN BARBERSHOP ON THE GO, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04582
(E.D.N.Y., June 28, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.mademanbarber.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
On May 1, 2024, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to learn
more about the services offered and make an appointment. Despite
the Plaintiff's efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied an
experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the
website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which
effectively barred the Plaintiff from having an unimpeded website
experience, the lawsuit asserts.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
has allegedly engaged in acts of intentional discrimination.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Mr. Colak is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Made Man offers a range of grooming services such as haircuts,
shaves, and beard trims in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
MADONNA CICCONE: Lipeles Sues Over Deceptive Advertisement
----------------------------------------------------------
Justen Lipeles, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MADONNA LOUISE CICCONE, an
individual; LIVE NATION WORLDWIDE, INC.; a Delaware corporation;
LIVE NATION MTOURS (USA), INC., a Delaware corporation; FORUM
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC DBA KIA FORUM, a Delaware limited liability
company; OAK VIEW GROUP, LLC DBA ACRISURE ARENA, a Delaware limited
liability company; GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS, LLC, DBA GOLDEN1 CENTER,
a California limited liability company; CHASE CENTER, an entity of
unknown form; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV13523 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 29, 2024), is
brought under California law by a consumer, and a number of
consumers who comprise the putative class, who were deceived and
lulled into purchasing expensive tickets for a concert to be
performed by one of the premier performers of the past 40 years.
The Defendants had advertised, promoted and covenanted that Madonna
Louise Ciccone1 ("Madonna") would appear for a series of concerts
beginning at 8:30 p.m. Madonna's Celebration Tour concerts took
place at 4 venues in California; the Kia Forum in Inglewood,
Acrisure Arena in Palm Springs, Golden1 Center in Sacramento and
the Chase Center in San Francisco.
Madonna and her promoter Live Nation, purposely and deceptively
withheld informing ticket purchasers in the marketing of the
concerts that: Madonna would not appear at 8:30 as promised, but
would instead make fans wait until after 10:00 p.m. or later to
start her show; Madonna would maintain a hot and uncomfortable
temperature in each of the venues during her performances; Madonna
would lip synch much of her performance; and topless women would
perform on stage simulating sexual acts.
The Defendants should have disclosed this information to consumers
before they purchased their tickets. Forcing consumer to wait hours
in hot, uncomfortable arenas and subjecting them to pornography
without warning is demonstrative of Madonna's flippant disrespect
for her fans.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory, statutory, and injunctive relief
for himself and all members of the class, to compensate these
consumers for their damages and to protect current and future
consumers of Defendants from being subjected to similar unlawful
actions., says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased 4 tickets for valuable consideration in the
amount of $500.00 per ticket.
Madonna is an individual residing in the State of California and
doing business in California under the name "Madonna."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin A. Lipeles (Bar No. 244275)
Thomas H. Schelly (Bar No. 217285)
LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC
880 Apollo Street, Suite 336
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: (310) 322-2211
Fax: (310) 322-2252
MAGMA PRODUCTS: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Frangie Espinal, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. MAGMA PRODUCTS, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-04755 (S.D.N.Y., June 21, 2024), is brought this civil
rights action against the Defendant for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, § 504
et seq. ("RA") prohibiting discrimination against the blind.
Because Defendant's interactive website, https://yhc.edu, including
all portions thereof or accessed thereon, including, but not
limited to, https://yhcathletics.com and
https://magmaproducts.com/, (collectively the "Website" or
"Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website
available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader
programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired
individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby
increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons
that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen reading software to read website content using her
computer.
MAGMA PRODUCTS, LLC, operates the Magma online retail store across
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
44 Court Street, Suite 1217
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
MARK III CONSTRUCTION: Andres et al. Allege Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mark III
Construction, Inc. The case is captioned ANDRES, et al. v. MARK III
CONSTRUCTION, INC., Case No. 24CV011383 (Cal. Super., Sacramento
Cty., June 7, 2024).
The case is brought over Defendants' alleged employment law
violations.
Mark III Construction is a full-service construction company based
in Sacramento, CA.[BN]
MCKESSON CORP: Padilla Suit Removed From State Ct. to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
FAUSTINO ADAM PADILLA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, and the general public, v. MCKESSON
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-03981 (Filed May 28, 2024) was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on July 1, 2024.
The Plaintiff filed the unverified Class Action Complaint against
McKesson which sets forth the following eight causes of action:
(1) failure to provide meal periods;
(2) failure to provide rest periods;
(3) failure to pay hourly wages;
(4) failure to indemnify for necessary business expenses;
(5) failure to provide accurate written wage statements;
(6) failure to timely pay all final wages;
(7) unfair competition; and
(8) civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys' General
Act.
McKesson is a publicly-traded American company that distributes
pharmaceuticals and provides health information technology, medical
supplies, and health management tools.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Mia Farber, Esq.
Nicky Jatana, Esq.
Buck N. Haddix, Esq.
Kishaniah Dhamodaran, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Telephone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
E-mail: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com
Nicky.Jatana@jacksonlewis.com
Buck.Haddix@jacksonlewis.com
Kishaniah.Dhamo@jacksonlewis.com
MEDIAALPHA INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of MediaAlpha, Inc. (NYSE: MAX) resulting from
allegations that MediaAlpha, Inc. may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
So what: If you purchased MediaAlpha securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=26634 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
On June 24, 2024, Wolfpack Research issued a report entitled "MAX:
Our Investigation Reveals MAX Is Participating in Consumer Fraud."
In pertinent part, Wolfpack announced that it was "short the
insurance lead generator, MediaAlpha, Inc. (NYSE: MAX) following
our research into the company's [Health Insurance] segment[.]"
Further, Wolfpack stated that it believed "[MediaAlpha] uses
dishonest and sometimes outright fraudulent ads along with
deceptive websites to trick consumers into providing their personal
information in exchange for a health insurance 'quote.'
[MediaAlpha] then sells this information as raw lead data or uses
it to generate clicks or calls for its lead-buying partners. Our
investigation indicates as much as 78% of [MediaAlpha's] Health
[Insurance] lead-buying partners are running boiler room health
insurance scams or are flagrantly violating laws concerning
telemarketing."
On this news, MediaAlpha stock fell 5.3% on June 24, 2024, and 6.8%
on June 25, 2024.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
MINNESOTA: Braxton Files Suit in D. Minnesota
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of Minnesota,
et al. The case is styled as Sonya Braxton, and those similarly
situated v. On Q Financial LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-02455-JMB-LIB (D.
Minn., June 24, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
Minnesota -- https://mn.gov/ -- is a midwestern U.S. state
bordering Canada and Lake Superior, the largest of the Great
Lakes.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
MONSTER BEVERAGE: McCormick Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSH McCORMICK, CHARLES WHITTELSEY, RICHARD HOLLIEN, individually,
and as representatives of a Putative Class of Participants and
Beneficiaries of and on behalf of the Monster Energy Company 401(k)
Plan v. MONSTER BEVERAGE CORPORATION; ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF
MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY 401(K) PLAN; and DOES 1-50 as Board Members
of Monster Beverage Corporation and/or as members of the
Administrative Committee, Case No. 3:24-cv-01127-BEN-MMP (S.D.
Cal., June 28, 2024) contends that the Defendant wholly failed to
comply with their obligations under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.
The suit alleges that the Defendants imprudently selected and
maintained higher cost, lower performing share classes of funds for
the Plan which purportedly was for the Defendants' self-serving
purpose of obtaining revenue-sharing, but which harmed the Plan and
the participants.
The Defendants further harmed the Plan and the participants by
paying unreasonable and unnecessary recordkeeping and
administration expenses, and taking money generated by the
excessive fees being charged to the participants to create and
maintain an unreasonably large ERISA Benefit Account ("EBA") which
the Defendants treated like a slush fund; and contrary to Plan
documents, the Defendants failed to return the remaining annual
balances in the EBA to participants in a timely manner. The
Defendants further have imprudently allowed third parties to take
"float income" derived from the Plan's assets instead of returning
that money to the Plan, the suit says.
Accordingly, the Defendants have wasted millions of dollars of the
Plan participants' money and must be held accountable for the
substantial losses resulting from their failure to comply with
their obligations under ERISA.
The Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
1132(a), which provides that participants or beneficiaries in an
employee retirement plan may pursue a civil action on behalf of the
plan to remedy breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of
ERISA for monetary and appropriate equitable relief.
The Plaintiffs had been employees of Monster and remained a
participant in the Plan.
Monster manufactures energy drinks including Monster Energy,
Relentless and Burn.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
MUHIC LAW LLC
923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 300
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: (856) 324-8252
E-mail: peter@muhiclaw.com
- and -
James A. Clark, Esq.
Renee P. Ortega, Esq.
TOWER LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
11335 Gold Express Drive, Ste. 105
Gold River, CA 95670
Telephone: (916) 361-6009
Facsimile: (916) 361-6019
E-mail: james.clark@towerlegalgroup.com
renee.ortega@towerlegalgroup.com
MOVITA JUICE BARS: Escajeda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Movita Juice Bars,
LLC. The case is styled as Ricardo Escajeda, on behalf of the
general public as private attorney general v. Movita Juice Bars,
LLC, Does 1-50, Case No. 24STCV15702 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., June 24, 2024).
Movita Juice Bars -- https://movitajuicebar.com/ -- is a fast-food
concept offering smoothies, juices, acai bowls, and functional
beverages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
Michael Calvo, Esq.
Lauren Falk, Esq.
Ava Issary, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92318
Phone: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6676
Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com
MULTI-COLOR CORP: Bid to Remand Figueroa Suit to State Court Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California denies the Plaintiffs' motion
to remand in the lawsuit styled VICTOR FIGUEROA, et al., Plaintiffs
v. MULTI-COLOR CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:24-cv-02208-DMR (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiffs Victor Figueroa and Alden Perez filed this putative wage
and hour class action in Napa County Superior Court against
Defendant Multi-Color Corporation. The Defendant subsequently
removed the case to federal court, invoking the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The
Plaintiffs now move to remand.
The Plaintiffs filed this class action on March 7, 2024, alleging
violations of the California Labor Code. They seek damages for
unpaid compensation and statutory penalties, among other forms of
relief, on behalf of a putative class of the Defendant's current
and former non-exempt employees in California. The Plaintiffs
define the putative class as "[a]ll current or former non-exempt
hourly employees who work or worked for Defendant in California
during the four years immediately preceding the filing of the
Complaint through the date of trial." The complaint also alleges
three subclasses.
The Plaintiffs assert nine claims for relief: (1) failure to pay
minimum wage in violation of California Labor Code sections 1194,
1194.2, and 1197; (2) failure to pay overtime in violation of Labor
Code sections 204, 210, 510, 558, 1194, and 1198; (3) failure to
pay sick time in violation of Labor Code sections 246, 558, 1194.2,
1197.1, 1198, and 1199; (4) failure to provide meal periods in
violation of Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512; (5) failure to
permit rest breaks in violation of Labor Code section 226.7 and
516; (6) failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements
in violation of Labor Code section 226(a); (7) failure to pay all
wages due upon termination or separation in violation of Labor Code
section 203 (waiting time penalties); (8) failure to reimburse for
business expenses in violation of Labor Code section 2802; and (9)
violation of California Business and Professions Code sections
17200, et seq.
The Defendant timely removed the complaint, asserting CAFA
jurisdiction. In support of removal, the Defendant asserts the
total amount in controversy for the overtime, meal period, rest
period, wage statement, and waiting time penalty claims is
$5,374,975.20, which exceeds the $5,000,000 jurisdictional minimum
under CAFA. The Defendant supports its calculations using
employment data from its Human Resources department and
calculations based thereon by an economist, Ariel Kumpinsky.
The Plaintiffs move to remand the action, arguing that the
Defendant has failed to establish that the amount in controversy
exceeds the $5,000,000 jurisdictional minimum.
The Plaintiffs do not dispute that CAFA's jurisdictional
requirements of minimum diversity and class numerosity are met. The
parties dispute whether the complaint satisfies CAFA's requirement
that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. In their notice
of removal, the Defendant alleged that the amount in controversy is
at least $5,374,975.20. The Plaintiffs argue that this sum is based
on unreasonable assumptions that are unsupported by the complaint
or evidence.
In its opposition, the Defendant revises its estimated amount in
controversy upward to $8,560,775.20, adding estimates for the
minimum wage, expense reimbursement, and untimely payment of wages
during employment claims. The Plaintiffs did not file a reply and,
thus, concede the amounts estimated for the minimum wage, untimely
pay, and expense reimbursement claims, which independently total
$3,185,800.
The Court concludes that the Defendant has plausibly established
that it is reasonably possible that the amount in controversy
exceeds the $5 million threshold.
Judge Ryu finds that the Defendants have shown that the amount in
controversy is at least $5,569,308.80, which satisfies CAFA's $5
million threshold. Given that the estimates for these five
categories of claims exceed the monetary threshold, the Court need
not consider the estimates for the remaining categories of claims.
For these reasons, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion to
remand.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 24, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mr5eyzws from PacerMonitor.com.
MULTIPLAN INC: Hillside Recovery Center Alleges Conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------
Hillside Recovery Center LLC, Plaintiff v. MultiPlan, Inc., Aetna,
Inc., The Cigna Group, UnitedHealth Group Incorporated and Elevance
Health, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04387-ER (S.D>N.Y., June
7, 2024) is a class action alleging the Defendants of violating
Section 1 of the Sherman Act in connection with their alleged
participation in a conspiracy to artificially suppress payments
made to healthcare providers like Plaintiff for out-of-network
treatment services.
The Plaintiff seeks to hold MultiPlan accountable for its role in a
far-reaching and unlawful cartel involving the nation's largest
health insurers. The conspiracy--a horizontal, multilateral
price-fixing scheme orchestrated by MultiPlan--depresses payments
for out-of-network care. Through a concerted agreement, the
MultiPlan Cartel has effectively eliminated competition in the
market for out-of-network treatment services, harming both
providers and patients. Moreover, instead of setting their
out-of-network reimbursement rates independently, most of the
nation's insurers--roughly 700 out of 1,100 total (including all 15
of the largest insurers)--now outsource this rate-setting function
to a common entity, MultiPlan, the Plaintiff asserts.
Based in New York, NY, MultiPlan, Inc. provides healthcare cost
management solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew M. Lavin, Esq.
ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP
1775 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 677-4030
Facsimile: (202) 677-4031
E-mail: matt.lavin@agg.com
- and -
Hunter Shkolnik, Esq.
NS PR Law Services, LLC
1302 Avenida Ponce de León
Santurce, Puerto Rico 00907
Telephone: (787) 493-5088
Facsimile: (646) 843-7603
E-mail: Hunter@NSPRLaw.com
NATERA INC: Parties Seek Extension of Case Management Deadlines
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Davis v. Natera, Inc.
(NATERA PRENATAL TESTING LITIGATION), Case No. 4:22-cv-00985-JST
(N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting a
182-day extension of the current Case Management Schedule and
directing certain other deadlines pertaining to discovery, as
follows:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Deadline for Natera to N/A July 31,
2024
Substantially Complete
Production of Custodial Email
and Google Chat Documents
Deadline for Plaintiffs to N/A Aug. 1, 2024
Supplement Production in
accordance with Plaintiffs'
April 24, 2024 email, and for
Natera to Supplement Production
in Response to Plaintiffs'
RFP Nos. 1 and 2, Set 3
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class July 10, 2024 Jan. 8, 2025
Certification and Class
Certification Expert Disclosures
Completion of Discovery re: Aug. 28, 2024 Feb. 26,
2025
Plaintiffs' Class Certification
Experts
Defendant's Opposition to Class Oct. 9, 2024 April 9,
2025
Certification and Class
Certification Expert Disclosures
Plaintiffs' Class Certification Nov. 20, 2024 May 21, 2025
Reply
The Parties discussed the need for an extension of the Case
Management Schedule at the Feb. 9, 2024 and May 3, 2024 Case
Management Conferences
The Parties reached agreement on an extension to the case schedule
on July 1, 2024.
Natera is a clinical genetic testing company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3wu2iN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
L. Timothy Fisher, 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: mroberts@bursor.com
ltfisher@bursor.comc
jdiamond@bursor.com
- and -
Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq.
Mikaela M. Bock, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com
kquackenbush@girardsharp.com
mbock@girardsharp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Terence N. Hawley, Esq.
Emily F. Lynch, Esq.
Mariah K. Fairley, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
101 Second Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
Telephone: (415) 543-8700
Facsimile: (415) 391-8269
E-mail: thawley@reedsmith.com
elynch@reedsmith.com
mfairley@reedsmith.com
NESTED BEAN: Massari & Salameh Sue for Undisclosed Risk of Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LAURYN MASSARI and AZIZA SALAMEH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NESTED BEAN, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-01225 (C.D. Cal., June 7, 2024) arises
from Defendant's alleged deceptive marketing of weighted baby
swaddles and sleep sacks.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sells weighted baby
swaddles and sleep sacks to help babies fall and stay asleep
throughout the night. But Defendant fails to warn parents and
consumers that the additional weight poses severe, life-threatening
risks, including: (1) reductions in oxygen saturation levels in
infants, which may harm brain development; suffocation, which may
lead to death; and (3) suppressing or impeding on arousal
responses, which may lead to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Rather,
Defendant labels and packages these products with statements and
imagery designed to convey that they are safe for babies to sleep
in throughout the night. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs assert claims
for breach of warranty, fraudulent inducement, intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment,
and for violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act,
California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
Based in Hudson, MA, Nested Bean, Inc. manufactures, distributes,
and sells baby sleepwear products. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Katherine A. Bruce, Esq.
Alan Gudino, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com
agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com
NORDSTROM INC: Bradfield Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nordstrom, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Lanie Bradfield, on behalf of all other
Aggrieved Employees v. Nordstrom, Inc., Does 1 through 50, Case No.
24STCV15790 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 24, 2024).
Nordstrom, Inc. -- https://www.nordstrom.com/ -- is an American
luxury department store chain headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 1-818-696-2306
Fax: 1-818-696-2307
Email: haig@hbklawyers.com
OBI SEAFOODS: Class Settlement in Paunovic Suit Has Prelim. Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement in the lawsuit entitled MARIJA PAUNOVIC and DUSAN
PAUNOVIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. OBI SEAFOODS LLC and OCEAN BEAUTY SEAFOODS
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00884-MJP (W.D. Wash.).
The Court previously appointed Plaintiffs Marija Paunovic and Dusan
Paunovic to represent the Classes and FLSA Collective and now
appoints them Settlement Class Representatives for purposes of the
settlement.
The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement. The
Court also finds that the Settlement Agreement appears to be fair,
reasonable, and adequate.
The Court approves the form and content of the Class Notice. The
Settlement Administrator will comply with the notice requirements
set forth in the Agreement. By no later than July 22, 2024, the
Settlement Administrator will cause notice to be delivered in the
manner set forth in the Agreement to all Settlement Class Members,
who have been identified by the Parties' counsel.
The Court appoints Settlement Services, Inc. (SSI) as the
Settlement Administrator, which will fulfill the Settlement
Administration functions, duties, and responsibilities of the
Settlement Administrator as set forth in the Agreement and this
Order. The costs of Settlement Administration will be paid from the
Settlement Fund, up to $35,000. If SSI is unable to serve as the
Settlement Administrator, the Parties must promptly seek leave of
Court to substitute a different administrator and identify those
deadlines that may need to be re-set to ensure timely and adequate
notice to the Settlement Class Members.
The Court finds that the Settlement Notice and the manner of its
dissemination described in the Settlement Agreement constitutes the
best practicable notice under the circumstances and is reasonably
calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise Settlement
Class Members of the pendency of this action, the terms of the
Agreement, and their right to file a request for exclusion (if not
already members of the Collective) or to object to the settlement
and appear at the final approval hearing.
Settlement Class Members, who wish to receive a payment from the
Settlement Fund, need not take any action to receive a payment.
Settlement Class Members, who are not members of the Collective and
wish to exclude themselves from the Settlement, must mail an
exclusion request letter to the Settlement Administrator,
postmarked by no later than Sept. 7, 2024. To be valid, an
exclusion request letter must include the information set forth in
the Class Notice.
Settlement Class Members, who wish to object to the Settlement,
must submit their objection in writing to the Settlement
Administrator, postmarked by no later than Sept. 7, 2024. Objecting
Settlement Class Members must include the information set forth in
the Class Notice. Any objection not timely made in the manner
specified will be waived and forever barred.
Any objecting Settlement Class Member, who wishes to address the
Court at the Final Approval Hearing, must indicate his or her
intent to do so in writing at the same time that the Settlement
Class Member submits the objection and must identify any witnesses
and documents that he or she intends to use or submit at the Final
Approval Hearing.
Class Counsel will file their motion for final approval of the
settlement and attorneys' fees and costs, together with all
supporting documentation, by Aug. 7, 2024, so that all Settlement
Class Members will have sufficient information to decide whether to
exclude themselves or object and, if applicable, to make an
informed objection. Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
costs will be posted on the settlement website no later than one
business day after filing.
The parties will file any responses to objections to the Agreement
or the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval and attorneys' fees
and costs, together with all supporting documentation, by no later
than Sept. 28, 2024.
A final approval hearing will be held before the Court on Oct. 29,
2024, at 10:00 a.m. After the Final Approval Hearing, the Court may
enter a Settlement Order and Final Judgment in accordance with the
Agreement (the "Final Judgment"), which will adjudicate the rights
of the Class with respect to the claims being settled.
All proceedings before the Court are stayed pending final approval
of the settlement, except as may be necessary to implement the
settlement or comply with the terms of the Agreement.
The Court orders the Defendants to serve notice as required by 28
U.S.C. Section 1715(b) by no later than June 30, 2024--ten days
from the filing of the class settlement. The Court notes that it
has set the final fairness hearing more than 90 days from this
deadline to allow for full compliance with 28 U.S.C. Section
1715(d). But the Court warns that Parties that it may decline to
approve the settlement if the Parties fail to comply with this
statute. The Defendants must timely file on the Court's docket
proof of the Section 1715(b) service.
The Court summarizes the deadlines set forth in this Order:
-- Deadline for service of notice by the Defendants consistent
with 28 U.S.C. Section 1715(b): June 30, 2024;
-- Deadline by which the Defendants must file proof of
completed notice consistent with 28 U.S.C. Section 1715(b):
July 12, 2024;
-- Deadline for the Settlement Administrator to mail class
notice: July 22, 2024;
-- Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file motion for final
approval and attorneys' fees and costs: Aug. 7, 2024;
-- Deadline for objections to the Settlement and to Opt-Out of
the Settlement must be postmarked by: Sept. 7, 2024;
-- Deadline for responses to any objections: Sept. 28, 2024;
-- Final approval hearing: Oct. 29, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.
The Clerk is ordered to provide copies of this Order to all
counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 21, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2kj6e7nu from PacerMonitor.com.
OMAHA HOUSING: Faces Bush Suit Over Grievance Policy
----------------------------------------------------
SHERNENA BUSH; SAMANTHA HANSEN; SANTINO TAP; and RHONDA MOSES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. OMAHA HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant, Case No.
8-24-cv-00260-BCB-MDN (D. Neb., June 27, 2024) alleges violation of
the United States Housing Act of 1937, and the Due Process Clause
to the United States Constitution.
According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, as a result of the
Defendant's "no notice of grievance rights" policy, it charged and
collected rent payments and other charges from tenants, including
the Plaintiffs and the Class, while denying them federally mandated
hearing rights to redress their grievances. The Defendant's actions
and omissions have in turn caused financial strain, stress, and
undue hardships to the Plaintiffs and the Class, says the suit.
Omaha Housing Authority is the government agency responsible for
providing public housing in Omaha, Nebraska. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Pamela A. Car, Esq.
William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., LLO
2120 S. 72 nd Street #1125
Omaha, NE 68124
Telephone: (402) 391-8484
Email: pacar@cox.net
- and -
Diane K. Uchimiya, Esq.
Christopher A. Mihalo, Esq.
Mark D. Carraher, Esq.
Catherine Mahern, Esq.
MILTON R. ABRAHAMS LEGAL CLINIC
2120 Cass Street
Telephone: (402) 280-3068
Email: DianeUchimiya@creighton.edu
ChristopherMihalo@creighton.edu
MarkCarraher@creighton.edu
KateMahern@creighton.edu
- and -
Katherine E. Walz, Esq.
Marcus Segura, Esq.
NATIONAL HOUSING LAW PROJECT
1663 Mission Street, Suite 460
San Francisco, CA 94103
Telephone: (415) 546-7000 ext. 3129
Email: kwalz@nhlp.org
msegura@nhlp.org
ONEMAIN FINANCIAL: Matuch Sues Over Unlawful Debt Communication
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Matuch, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC,, Case No. CACE-24-007594
(Fla., 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., May 31, 2024), is
brought against the Defendant for violating the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA") due to unlawful debt
communication.
The Defendant began attempting to collect a debt (the "Consumer
Debt") from Plaintiff. The Consumer Debt is an obligation allegedly
had by Plaintiff to pay money arising from a transaction between
the creditor of the Consumer Debt, Defendant, and Plaintiff (the
"Subject Service"). The FCCPA prohibits persons from communicating
with a debtor between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the
debtor's time zone without the prior consent of the debtor.
On January 23, 2023, Defendant sent an electronic mail
communication to Plaintiff (the "Communication"). The Communication
was a communication in connection with the collection of the
Consumer Debt. The Communication was sent from
onemain@service.omf.com and delivered to Plaintiffs personal e-mail
address. The Communication was sent by Defendant to Plaintiff at
7:48 AM in Plaintiff's time zone. The Communication was received by
Plaintiff from Defendant at 7:48 AM in Plaintiff's time zone.
The Electronic Communication was sent to Plaintiff between the
hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time zone of Plaintiff.
Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to communicate with
Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM. As such, by and
through the Electronic Communication, Defendant violated the FCCPA,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the Consumer Debt.
The Defendant is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place
of business located in Baltimore, Maryland.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Labe, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th St, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraido, Esq.
HIRALDO PA.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954.400.4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
ONTARIO: Correction System Faces Class Suit Over Lockdowns
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah MacMillan of CBC News reports that hundreds of pages of
documents written by experts for two class-action lawsuits paint a
picture of Ontario's corrections system as inhumane and poorly
managed.
The two class actions against the province take aim at the use of
lockdowns in Ontario correctional facilities as a way to deal with
staffing shortages from 2009 to 2017. One lawsuit seeks damages for
inmates during that time, while the other asks for damages for
immigration detainees, who are sometimes held in such facilities.
The attorney general of Canada is also named as a defendant in that
lawsuit.
A lockdown occurs when inmates or detainees are kept in their cells
for an extended period of time -- possibly hours or days -- and are
unable to participate in daily activities, such as outdoor
exercise, showers, phone calls or programs.
Lockdowns can happen for a number of reasons, including during
security incidents. However, the lawsuits allege that lockdowns due
to staffing issues became "chronic" and have caused severe and
continuing damage to those affected.
Data obtained by CBC Toronto through a freedom of information
request reveals there were an average of 440 full facility
staffing-related lockdowns reported across the province each year
between 2010 and 2017. That's on top of hundreds more "partial"
lockdowns, where only certain sections of a facility were affected.
The reporting requirements were different for 2009.
The lawsuits are seeking a combined $1.5 billion in damages for
negligence.
"The easiest, cheapest and cruellest way to deal with a staffing
problem is to do a lockdown. And every time the opportunity
presented itself, that's what Ontario chose," Scott Hutchison, one
of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, said in an interview
with CBC Toronto.
Between the two class actions, Hutchison said there are more than
100,000 potential claimants. Ontario currently has 24 facilities
spread among correctional centres, detention centres and jails,
according to the Ministry of Correctional Services website.
The lawsuits were certified as class actions in 2017. The expert
reports, which were served on the defendants, represent a
significant step forward in the cases ahead of a trial date
expected in 2025.
In their statements of defence, the Ontario and federal governments
have denied any negligence.
Lockdowns a 'callous practice,' says expert
The reports filed by the plaintiffs come from six experts,
including academics with backgrounds in international human rights
law, corrections and psychiatry.
One of the experts, Michael Weinrath, wrote that he was "puzzled"
when first asked to write a report, since he has not encountered
staffing-related lockdowns as a regular practice at correctional
facilities he's visited elsewhere in Canada, as well as in the
United States, Australia and New Zealand.
"Ontario is alone in its use of this callous practice," wrote
Weinrath, a criminal justice professor at the University of
Winnipeg who formerly worked in corrections.
The expert reports also highlight the long-term mental health
consequences of frequent lockdowns. In his report, Dr. Adekunle
Garba Ahmed, a professor of psychiatry at the University of
Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, said the impacts of lockdowns are
similar to those of solitary confinement and can worsen existing
mental health conditions or create new ones.
He said staff-related lockdowns "are likely to result in deficits
in social skills and increased tendency for aggression when the
lockdown is lifted, or the inmate is reintegrated into the
community."
In its statements of defence, Ontario denies that the effects of
lockdowns are similar to segregation. It also denies that staffing
lockdowns "occurred with the frequency or duration alleged" in the
lawsuits, and said that any lockdowns "were justified and were
imposed only where necessary to ensure the safety and security of
inmates and staff."
"Ontario acted at all times reasonably, in good faith, and with
appropriate regard for the [plaintiffs'] Charter rights," one of
the statements says.
Experiences of immigration detainees
Ali, a former immigration detainee who arrived in Ontario as an
asylum seeker in 2013, told CBC Toronto his experience being
detained for seven weeks at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex in
Milton, Ont., northwest of Toronto, has "left a scar" on his mental
health that's still present a decade later.
Ali is not his real name, and CBC has agreed not to reveal his
identity as he fears it could affect his employment. He is now a
permanent resident.
Ali, who claimed asylum for religious reasons, said he was shocked
to be housed in a correctional facility, with no idea when he would
be released, and said it felt "like being punished for a crime you
didn't do."
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the Canada
Border Services Agency (CBSA) can detain foreign nationals for
several reasons, including if they're considered a flight risk or
their identities aren't well established.
Last year, Ontario said it was cancelling its agreement with the
CBSA to detain migrants on the agency's behalf at provincial
correctional facilities. At the time, it was the eighth province to
do so. As of this spring, all 10 provinces have committed to ending
the practice.
However, last week, Radio-Canada reported that the federal
government has been negotiating to keep migrants behind bars, with
Ontario extending its contract until the end of this month.
In a statement, CBSA spokesperson Luke Reimer said detention in
provincial facilities "is limited to the most difficult cases,"
including when there are "serious concerns about danger to the
public, or to other detainees, or to staff."
Reimer said the border agency is "taking steps to house higher-risk
individuals in its own facilities."
Ali said his detention was made worse due to the numerous lockdowns
he experienced. He recalls the indignity of having to use a toilet
in a shared cell, being unable to access a phone to contact lawyers
related to his asylum claim and having no access to the outdoors
for fresh air or exercise.
"As a human, you want to look at the sky. That's your nature as a
human being. You can't access that," he said.
An expert report from James Hathaway, a professor emeritus of law
at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Mich., argues that
holding immigrant detainees in correctional facilities constitutes
"arbitrary detention" and goes against international human rights
law. He said limited access to legal services due to lockdowns is a
particular concern.
In its statement of defence, the attorney general of Canada "denies
the balance of the allegations" made against it. It says the CBSA
has the "discretion and authority" to determine where to detain
individuals and that it "met the standard of care reasonably
expected in the context of administering the IRPA and the
immigration detention system."
The attorney general of Canada "did not create, perpetuate or allow
to develop a system that amounted to systemic negligence."
In its own defence related to the immigration detainees, the
province makes a cross-claim against the federal government: If the
plaintiffs "are able to prove that they have suffered any of the
damages and losses alleged in the claim, which are denied, Ontario
is entitled to be fully indemnified by Canada."
Staffing issues and lockdowns persist
Concerns about staffing-related lockdowns aren't new. The practice
was flagged as an issue in the 2008 Ontario auditor general's
report. It was also later referred to in the 2018-19 provincial
ombudsman report.
Information obtained by CBC Toronto through a freedom of
information request indicates that frequent staffing-related
lockdowns persist in Ontario correctional facilities. During the
class-action period, the number of full facility lockdowns due to
staffing shortages hit a peak of 636 in 2016. In 2021, the most
recent year for which the province provided full data, there were
783 full lockdowns.
Correctional officer and union co-chair Chad Oldfield told CBC
Toronto that lockdowns are sometimes necessary to ensure safety,
due to a "depleted" workforce without enough backfill.
"It's not an ideal situation for us. I don't think that, you know,
we're in favour of locking down the inmates. I would say that often
the workday runs much smoother when the inmates are not locked
down," Oldfield said.
Howard Sapers, former correctional investigator of Canada who later
served as independent adviser on corrections for Ontario, said in
an interview that "there's no good excuse" for why the
well-documented staffing and lockdown issues have not been dealt
with.
Sapers, who is not involved with the class actions, noted that the
majority of people detained in Ontario facilities are in pre-trial
custody and are not convicted of any crimes.
"So it's troubling that they would find themselves in these most
extreme conditions of confinement that are supposed to be for
urgent or immediate threats," he said. "Not because there weren't
enough people to show up to work." [GN]
OPTOTRAFFIC LLC: Faces Lavender Suit Over Unlawful Fund Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
DEMETRA LAVENDER, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons v. OPTOTRAFFIC, LLC, Case No.
5:24-cv-00204-CAR (M.D. Ga., June 28, 2024) alleges that
Optotraffic, through its agreements and business relationships with
several municipalities and counties throughout the state of
Georgia, has illegally appropriate millions of dollars from Georgia
citizens in violation of controlling Georgia law.
The Plaintiff asserts that Optotraffic's actions are
unconscionable, fraudulent, and illegal, to such an extent that a
significant portion of Georgia's citizenry has been directly
damaged by Optotraffic's conduct.
Accordingly, on behalf of the class, the Plaintiff seeks to recover
those funds that have been unlawfully and improperly collected by
Optotraffic from Georgia citizens. Optotraffic has assessed and
retained from putative class members fees, charges, and penalties
that blatantly violate and exceed the maximum amounts allowed by
Georgia's School Zone Electronic Enforcement Statute.
On Feb. 23, 2024, images of Plaintiff's automobile were captured by
one of Optotraffic's school zone cameras. Shortly thereafter, the
Plaintiff received in the United States mail a "CITATION-SPEED
MONITORING VIOLATION" allegedly issued by the Bibb County Sheriff's
Office.
On March 8, 2024, the Plaintiff, using her personal credit card,
paid the "civil penalty in the amount of $100.00," as well as an
additional and undisclosed $4.95 fee which appeared on Plaintiff's
credit card activity log, bringing the total penalty to $104.90.
The payment made by Plaintiff was processed and retained by
Optotraffic at its home office in Maryland, even though the
citation leads the recipient to believe that the payment is being
made to the Bibb County Sheriff's Office, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks retroactive monetary relief for the improper
amounts collected by Optotraffic, as well as prospective/injunctive
relief prohibiting Optotraffic from continuing to violate O.C.G.A.
section 40-14-18 in the future.
The Plaintiff seeks class relief for her retroactive monetary
claims and for the sought injunctive relief.
Optotraffic operates automated traffic violation detection systems
in numerous school zones and designated school areas throughout
Georgia, including in Macon-Bibb County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Greg Dobson, Esq.
Michael J. Lober, Esq.
LOBER & DOBSON, LLC
Robert E. Lee Building, Suite 201
830 Mulberry Street
Macon, GA 31201
Telephone: (478) 745-7700
Facsimile: (478) 745-4888
E-mail: wgd@lddlawyers.com
mjlober@lddlawyers.com
- and -
Todd L. Lord, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF TODD L. LORD
4 Courthouse Square
Cleveland, GA 30528
Telephone: (706) 219-2239
Facsimile: (706) 348-8100
E-mail: attytllord@windstream.net
- and -
Austin Lewis Perry, Esq.
MCCLURE, RAMSAY, DICKERSON & ESCOE, LLP
38 Falls Road
Toccoa, GA 30577
Telephone: (706) 886-1150
E-mail: alp@mrdelaw.com
- and -
Brent Irby, Esq.
IRBY LAW, LLC
2202 Arlington Avenue
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 936-8281
E-mail: brent@irbylaw.net
OPW FUELING: Canales Appeals Denial of Counsel Disqualification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
OVIS MATAMOROS CANALES is taking an appeal from a court order
denying his motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled Ovis
Matamoros Canales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. OPW Fueling Components LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 5:22-cv-00459-BO-RJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina.
The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
On Mar. 3, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify counsel
for violations of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct,
which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Robert T.
Numbers, II on Jan. 10, 2024.
On Jan. 29, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration
of the Jan. 10 Order, which the Court denied through an Order
entered by Judge Terrence W. Boyle on June 5, 2024.
In sum, the Court considered the arguments of the Plaintiff and his
counsel and determined that the newly discovered evidence does not
change the grounds for Judge Numbers' decision and that Judge
Numbers did not clearly err in imposing sanctions. The motion to
reconsider was, therefore, denied. The request by defense counsel
to increase the cap on attorney fees awarded from $10,000 to
$20,000 was also denied.
The appellate case is captioned Ovis Canales v. OPW Fueling
Components LLC, Case No. 24-1579, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, filed on June 25, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant OVIS MATAMOROS CANALES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Gilda Adriana Hernandez, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
1020 Southhill Drive
Cary, NC 27513
Telephone: (919) 741-8693
Defendant-Appellee OPW FUELING COMPONENTS LLC is represented by:
Nicholas Hulse, Esq.
Dixie N. McCollum, Esq.
FISHER PHILLIPS LLP
227 West Trade Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (703) 334-4565
- and -
David I. Klass, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
P.O. Box 36775
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 334-4565
PANERA LLC: Donovan Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Panera, LLC. The case
is styled as Gracelyn Donovan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Panera, LLC, Case No.
4:24-cv-00864-SEP (E.D. Mo., June 21, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Fiduciary
Duty.
Panera Bread -- https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/home.html -- is
an American chain of bakery-cafe fast casual restaurants with over
2,000 locations, all of which are in the United States and
Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
MCSHANE AND BRADY LLC
4006 Central Street
Kansas City, MO 64111
Phone: (816) 888-8010
Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Mehring Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dr. Monica Mehring, Monica Mehring, DDS, LLC
doing business as: Dr. Monica Mehring Family Dentistry on behalf of
herself, her business and all others similarly situated v.
Patterson Companies, Inc. doing business as: Patterson Dental,
Change Healthcare, Optum, Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-03147 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota on June 21, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02355-DWF-DJF to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Patterson Companies, Inc. --
https://www.pattersoncompanies.com/home/default.aspx -- provides
products, technologies, services and business solutions to oral and
animal health customers in North America and the U.K.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Deepali A. Brahmbhatt, Esq.
Hayden Corrales, Esq.
DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
3120 Scott Boulevard, #13
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Phone: (650) 254-9805
Email: dbrahmbhatt@devlinlawfirm.com
hcorrales@devlinlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael James Bentley, Esq.
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS
188 East Capitol Street, Ste. 1000
Jackson, MS 39201
Phone: (601) 592-9935
Fax: (601) 592-1435
Email: mbentley@bradley.com
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Overstreet Sues Over Alleged Oil Conspiracy
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID GUY OVERSTREET on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERMIAN RESOURCES CORP. F/K/A CENTENNIAL
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC.; CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION;
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES INC.; DIAMONDBACK ENERGY, INC.; EOG
RESOURCES, INC.; HESS CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM
CORPORATION; and PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES COMPANY, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00583 (D.N.M., June 9, 2024) arises from
Defendants' conspiracy to coordinate, and ultimately constrain,
domestic shale oil production, which has had the effect of fixing,
raising, and maintaining the price of retail gasoline (gasoline
purchased by consumers at gas stations) in and throughout the U.S.
According to the complaint, the U.S. experienced record-high crude
oil prices beginning on or around January 2021, continuing through
the present. Basic principles of supply and demand dictate that in
their role as swing producers, Defendants should have increased
production to capitalize on this price rise. Instead, Defendants
collectively decided not to increase their U.S. shale oil
production. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and several state
antitrust laws, including Arizona's Uniform State Antitrust Act and
California's Cartwright Act.
Headquartered in Midland, TX, Permian Resources Corporation, known
as Centennial Resource Development, is an oil and gas production
company that acquires and processes shale oil in Texas and New
Mexico. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher A. Dodd, Esq.
DODD LAW OFFICE, LLC
500 Marquette Avenue NW, Suite 1330
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: (505) 475-2742
E-mail: chris@doddnm.com
- and -
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
Daniel H. Charest, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (469) 904-4550
E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
dcharest@burnscharest.com
- and -
Korey Nelson, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 799-7845
E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com
- and -
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Isaac L. Diel, Esq.
W. Greg Wright, Esq.
Brandon C. Landt, Esq.
Hammons P. Hepner, Esq.
SHARP LAW LLP
4820 W. 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 901-0505
E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
idiel@midwest-law.com
gwright@midwest-law.com
blandt@midwest-law.com
hhepner@midwest-law.com
- and -
Steven N. Williams, Esq.
Kai'Ree K. Howard, Esq.
STEVEN WILLIAMS LAW, P.C.
201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 697-1509
E-mail: swilliams@stevenwilliamslaw.com
khoward@stevenwilliamslaw.com
- and -
Charles D. Gabriel, Esq.
CHALMERS, ADAMS, BACKER & KAUFMAN, PLLC
13200 Strickland Road, Suite 114-177
Raleigh, NC 27613
Telephone: (404) 493-1843
E-mail: cdgabriel@chalmersadams.com
PFIZER CORP: Rothschild Has Until July 18 to Amend Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MAYER AMSCHEL ROTHSCHILD, and to all others
similarly situated class action, Plaintiff v. PFIZER CORPORATION,
EALON JOELSON and PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION, Defendants, Case
No. 2:24-cv-00301-SPC-KCD (M.D. Fla.), Judge Kyle C. Dudek of the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers
Division, gives the Plaintiff until July 18, 2024, to file an
amended complaint.
The Plaintiff, proceeding without a lawyer, filed what the Court
construes as a motion for extension of time to file an amended
complaint. The Court grants the request, but notes that this is the
Plaintiff's second request for an extension of time. No further
extensions will be granted.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Extension
of Time. The Plaintiff must file an amended complaint that complies
with the Court's prior Order by July 18, 2024. Failure to do so
will result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. The
Plaintiff's duplicate motion for extension is denied as moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 24, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/44nka5b7 from PacerMonitor.com.
PHILIPS RESPONICS: Faces EU Suit Over Toxic Foam in Respirators
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gerardo Fortuna, writing for Euro News, reports that the Dutch
medtech giant is set to face European class-action lawsuit over
potential health risks from foam used in sleep therapy devices.
The class action seeks compensation for over 1.2 million users of
certain medical devices manufactured by the Dutch healthcare
multinational, with compensation of at least EUR70,000 per claimant
sought for emotional distress and other damages, according to the
lawyer spearheading the claim.
The collective action, promoted by the international pool of
lawyers Global Justice Network and the Italian consumer association
ADUSBEF, was filed in Milan on June 27, said Stefano Bortone,
partner of Ambrosio&Commodo. Milan is where Philips' head office
for product quality is located. The court is yet to indicate the
initial trial date, according to Bortone, who is president of
Global Justice Network (GJN).
The products in question are sleep therapy devices and mechanical
ventilators marketed by Philips for over a decade. These devices
help patients with sleep apnea or major respiratory issues breathe
through the night. To reduce noise from the electrical engine,
Philips included a sound abatement foam in the devices.
In June 2021, Philips issued a field safety notice for some
respirators after discovering potential health risks related to
polyester-based polyurethane (PE-PUR), the main component of the
sound abatement foam.
When deteriorating, this foam degrades into a sticky powder.
"People have been inhaling this powder made of a toxic substance
which is carcinogenic and can lead to potentially lethal
illnesses," said Bortone on July 4.
Philips subsequently recalled these devices globally and agreed in
September 2023 on a $1.1 billion settlement to resolve a similar
class action litigation in the US for people who claimed being
injured by the use of the respirators - but admitting no fault or
liability for the injuries.
The new collective action aims to properly compensate European
users for emotional distress and physical damages. "We want to be
sure that everyone who has the right can participate in the
action," said Bortone.
The class action was filed under the 2020 EU directive on
representative actions, which allows European citizens to file
collective actions for a class of consumers.
Philips has not been formally served with the lawsuit, a company
spokesperson told Euronews, declining to comment further on the
suit.
The company spokesman said that together with five independent,
certified testing laboratories and third-party experts, Philips had
carried out extensive testing o the devices since June 2021.
Based on these results, it concluded that use of the sleep therapy
devices would not result in appreciable harm to patients' health.
"Further testing related to the sleep therapy and ventilator
devices remains ongoing," the spokesperson added. [GN]
PORTSIDE TOWERS: Tenants File Class Suit Over Rent Overcharges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Morrill, writing Jersey City Times, reports that calling it
"the largest rent control class action lawsuit in United States
history," a tenacious group of Downtown tenants has brought a
massive $400 million case against their landlord and property
manager, alleging years of illegal rent overcharges.
According to the lawsuit filed in federal court on July 2, the
owner of Portside Towers in Paulus Hook neglected to file the
requisite paperwork that would have exempted the buildings from
rent control for the length of the initial mortgage loan or 30
years, whichever was less.
Instead, over more than twenty years, the tenants were led to
believe that the apartments were market rate, and charged
accordingly.
The defendants could be on the hook for as much as $700 million,
say attorneys for the plaintiffs. The amount includes interest and
"treble" and punitive damages. Rent overcharges since 2005 alone on
the 527 apartments have totaled $140 million, they say.
Michele Hirsch, President of the Portside Towers West Tenant
Association, and a named plaintiff, said "Each rent hike
represented a hardship for our families. This lawsuit seeks to
right those wrongs and ensure that affordable housing remains a
reality, not just a promise."
The problem, say the tenants, was not merely one of a clerical
error. The owners and managers actively attempted to mislead
tenants as to their rights by providing "false or misleading
information in lease agreements. . . omitting required disclosures
about rent control status . . . misrepresenting the basis for rent
increases. . . submitting false statements to government agencies .
. . and using complex pricing algorithms to obscure the true nature
of rent calculations."
Starting in 2020, tenants began asking questions about the rent
control status of the buildings and were told by city officials
that they were covered by the law. "Despite this, in or around
early 2022, tenants from both Buildings received various rent
increases, many exceeding the 4% maximum permitted by the City's
rent control ordinance (when prerequisite authorization
requirements are met), with some increases soaring as high as
60%."
The filing was the culmination of a two-year effort by tenants to
compel Jersey City to enforce its ordinance. Speakers and
placard-bearing supporters became a regular fixture at city council
meetings, often waiting until late in the night to speak to
lawmakers. Updates were blasted out to the press on WhatsApp.
Initially, the group's efforts came up empty. In 2022, the city's
Rent Leveling Administrator ruled that the buildings were exempt
from rent control, apparently reversing an earlier determination
that they were subject to the law. While the tenants were able to
meet with several council members, Kevin Weller, President of the
Portside Towers East Tenant Association, says he was unable to get
a formal meeting with the mayor. "He agreed to meet to discuss,
that never happened, even though I've tried."
The tenants' luck turned in October 2023, when the City of Jersey
City Rent Leveling Board ruled that the owners had failed to comply
with the law and that the buildings were not exempt from rent
control. Yet, despite the ruling, the tenants say Equity
Residential has continued to impose rent increases deemed illegal,
"disregarding warnings from city officials and legal experts."
Following the ruling, the defendants brought a case in federal
court challenging the Rent Leveling Board's decision on
constitutional grounds.
Nonetheless, in the wake of suit filing, the tenants appear
hopeful. "After more than two decades of fighting for our rights,
we're finally seeing justice on the horizon," said Weller, who is
among the lead plaintiffs. "This lawsuit isn't just about Portside
Towers; it's about standing up for tenants' rights everywhere. The
potential impact of this case extends far beyond Jersey City."
Equity Residential did not immediately respond to a request for
comment. [GN]
PRIME FINANCE: Giannettino Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prime Finance LLC.
The case is styled as Jack Giannettino, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated v. Prime Finance LLC, Case No.
CACE24008728 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., June 21, 2024).
Prime Finance -- https://www.primefinance.com/ -- is a
well-established private commercial real estate credit manager that
strives to be a trusted partner to our investors and
borrowers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-907-1136
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
PROFESSIONAL PARKING: Mary Sues Over Unlawfully Obtained Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Jean Mary, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PROFESSIONAL PARKING MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
Case No. CACE-24-007630 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty.,
May 31, 2024), is brought for violations of the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act ("DPPA") by obtains the Plaintiff and the Class
Members' personal information without consent.
In violation of the DPPA, Defendant knowingly and without consent
obtained Plaintiff and the Class Members' personal information,
including their names and home addresses, from non-public motor
vehicle state records, and used it to send parking tickets to
Plaintiffs and the Class Members' homes. The Defendant's DPPA
violations caused Plaintiff and the Class Members harm, including
violations of their statutory privacy rights, harassment,
annoyance, nuisance, invasion of their privacy, and intrusion upon
seclusion in a space that is personal and private to Plaintiff and
the Class Members.
The Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and each member of the
proposed Class, statutory damages under the DPPA in the amount of
$2,500, reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs
reasonably incurred, and such Other equitable relief as the court
determines appropriate, including injunctive relief in the form of
a prohibition on Defendants obtaining, using and disclosing
personal information obtained from any department of motor vehicles
("DMV") to send surprise tickets through the mail to consumers'
residences, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: 305-610-5223
Email: rachel@dapeer.com
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraido, Esq.
HIRALDO PA.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954.400.4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Bid to Dismiss Alexander Class Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled LEE ALEXANDER, Plaintiff v. PROGRESSIVE
ADVANCED INSURANCE CO. and JACOB SECORE, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-00704-CFK (E.D. Pa.), Judge Chad F. Kenney of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants
Progressive's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff Lee Alexander seeks to prosecute a class action against
Defendants Progressive Advanced Insurance Company and Jacob Secore,
asserting that after Secore negligently collided with Alexander's
car, Progressive should be liable for diminution in value damages.
Judge Kenney notes that the case arises from simple facts.
Defendant Jacob Secore and Plaintiff Lee Alexander were involved in
a motor vehicle accident. Alexander made a third-party claim to
recover from Secore's insurance company, Progressive. After
conducting an investigation, Progressive concluded that Secore was
at fault for the accident, and provided an estimate of $2,690.75
for the repairs that it would cover.
Mr. Alexander brought his vehicle to a repair shop, which fixed the
damages for $3,098.33. Progressive paid that sum of money directly
to the auto shop on Alexander's behalf. Alexander, however, was not
satisfied with just the repair. He hired an outside appraisal
company to determine how much value his vehicle had lost, even
after being repaired, simply by virtue of being in an accident.
The appraisal company concluded that the vehicle had lost $5,228.18
in value, which Alexander then demanded from Progressive.
Progressive denied the claim, and Alexander brought this lawsuit in
the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas seeking to compel
Progressive to cover diminution in value damages.
The complaint brought several claims to the same effect, all
seeking slightly different forms of relief for Progressive's
failure to cover diminution in value damages, including Count I
(Declaratory Judgment), Count II (Breach of an Implied-in-Fact
Contract), Count III (Breach of an Express Contract), Count IV
(Negligence), Count V (Breach of Express Warranty), and Count VI
(Violation of Magnuson-Moss Consumer Products Warranties Act). With
the exception of Count IV, which is brought only against "Defendant
Secore and the Defendant Class," all other counts are brought
solely against Progressive.
Progressive removed the case to federal court under the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Alexander moved to remand, arguing
that the case fit CAFA's local controversy exception. The Court
denied the motion since the case did not fit the technical
requirements of the narrow exception. Secore filed an Answer to the
Complaint on April 8, 2024.
Mr. Alexander first seeks a declaratory judgment, asking the Court
to declare that diminution in value damages are permissible under
Pennsylvania law and should be paid by Progressive.
The Court will not reach the substantive issues raised by the
parties, because Alexander does not have standing to bring a
declaratory judgment claim against Progressive in the first
instance.
Judge Kenney opines that this precise question has been addressed
numerous times in this district, and courts have repeatedly
concluded that "an injured third party affirmatively seeking a
declaratory judgment against an insurer lacks standing to do so,"
citing Joseph Oliver Const., LLC v. Utica First Ins. Co., 2020 WL
3791564, at *5 (E.D. Pa. July 7, 2020).
Mr. Alexander's next claim is one for damages, alleging that
Progressive made either an implied or express contract with him
that it would pay the diminution in value damages along with the
repairs. Alexander asserts that merely replacing the damaged parts
does not fulfill the terms of the contract.
Judge Kenney opines that Alexander's interpretation tortures the
plain meaning of the words in the repair estimate to conjure up
additional money he is owed. Since the words of the estimate
contain only one possible interpretation, Alexander's breach of
express contract claim will be dismissed. Alexander's implied
contract claim is likewise dismissed since he points to no facts
suggesting that the parties' conduct implied a contract that would
obligate Progressive to pay for diminution in value damages in
addition to repair parts. If the repair estimate was not itself a
contract but merely evidence of an implied contract, nothing in the
estimate or the parties' course of dealing would require
Progressive to pay diminution in value damages.
As part of his declaratory relief claim, Alexander seeks injunctive
relief "to prevent Progressive from denying otherwise valid claims
for an automobile's loss in value following an accident where a
vehicle sustained damage caused by a Progressive insured."
A garden variety breach of contract claim for a specified sum does
not fall into either of the two categories, which would make a
preliminary injunction appropriate in a breach of contract case,
Judge Kenney says. On the other hand, if injunctive relief is
merely a remedy for a successful claim, that is of no moment here
since Alexander's breach of contract claims are dismissed.
Just as in the breach of contract claim, Judge Kenney points out
that there is no reasonable reading of the warranty that would
somehow require the replacement of parts that would increase the
car's value over and above the worth of the car itself.
Since the breach of warranty claim has been dismissed in this case,
Judge Kenney holds that dismissal of the MMWA claim is likewise
required.
For these reasons, the Court grants Progressive's Motion to
Dismiss, and all claims against Progressive are dismissed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated June 24, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/36prdjzk from PacerMonitor.com.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 24, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3mfrupz7 from PacerMonitor.com.
QUEBEC: Court OKs Suit Over Health, Social Services Management
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erika Morris of CBC News reports that after years of reported
incidents of violence and neglect, a class-action lawsuit against
the health authority in Laval, Que., over the management of a
residence for people with intellectual disabilities was approved by
Quebec Superior Court Wednesday, July 3.
The lawsuit aims to get compensation of $100,000 for each resident
who has lived at Residence Louise-Vachon since 2014 for stress and
harm caused as well as $50,000 per resident in punitive damages. It
is also asking $30,000 be given to family members or caregivers of
residents who were mistreated.
It alleges the Centre integre de sante et de services sociaux
(CISSS) de Laval failed to provide adequate health and social
services to its residents and violated their fundamental rights to
life, safety, security, integrity and personal liberty.
The lawsuit argues that the faults committed by the CISSS led to a
situation of systemic mistreatment and constant physical and verbal
abuse, of which the residents have been victims.
Allegations of assault and stolen money
In 2019, three employees of the residence were arrested and charged
with assault, including one charge of assault with a weapon, but
were acquitted. Court documents alleged the employees mistreated as
many as five residents, including a minor, who have autism or
mental disabilities. One of the employees was alleged to have hit a
resident with a walkie-talkie.
An internal investigation was then triggered at Louise-Vachon, and
nine employees were fired. According to the head of Laval's health
authority at the time, the abuse suffered by residents included
being beaten, punished, intimidated and provoked.
But the conditions at the residence didn't improve.
In August 2023, another investigation found a pattern of
mistreatment and abuse against residents by staff, including
injuring residents during interventions, screaming at them and
failing to properly communicate with their families.
-- Staff stole $41K from residents at Laval centre for mentally
disabled people, investigation finds
-- New report is latest to highlight mistreatment at Laval
residence for people with mental disabilities
The report also found a lack of follow-ups and monitoring, and
issued a list of 154 recommendations, most of which were targeted
at administrators, to improve the situation at the residence.
Only a few months later, Laval's health authority found that
employees of Louise-Vachon stole $41,000 from residents' accounts
between April 2022 and March 2023. In general, employees can access
residents' accounts for day-to-day expenses under certain
conditions.
The plaintiffs will have to prove the health authority was
negligent, and it could take years to settle in court, but the
representing lawyer, Patrick Martin-Menard, told Radio-Canada he is
happy the lawsuit will move forward.
"We're talking here not only about institutional neglect, but also
physical, psychological and financial abuse," he said.
In a statement sent to Radio-Canada, the CISSS said it cannot
comment on legal matters.
"The CISSS de Laval does not tolerate any form of mistreatment of
its residents, patients or users. Any situation of mistreatment
brought to the attention of CISSS de Laval is dealt with and
analyzed. Whistleblowing is encouraged," said CISSS communications
adviser Marie-Eve Despatie-Gagnon. [GN]
QUEENLY INC: Competello Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN COMPETELLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUEENLY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04410-JLR (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's denial of full and equal
access to the website is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York
State Civil Rights Law. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.
Based in San Francisco, CA, Queenly, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
that owns and maintains theWebsite, https://www.queenly.com, which
offers consumers access to an array of gowns, dresses and other
apparel. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
QUMPUS INC: Lewis Sues Over Caller ID Rules Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Adam Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. QUMPUS, INC., Case No. CACE-24-007663 (Fla. 17th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., June 2, 2024), is brought for
injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations Of
the Caller ID Rules Of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act
("FTSA").
The FTSA's Caller ID Rules apply to solicited and consented to
Telephonic Sales Calls, and as such, claims for Caller ID Rules
violations, which requires notice and an opportunity to cease
sending unwanted text message solicitations, before claims for
"text message solicitations the called party does not consent to
receive" can be brought. The FTSA's Caller ID Rules require that
persons making Telephonic Sales Calls transmit--to the consumer's
caller identification service--a telephone number that is capable
of receiving telephone calls.
In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many
callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central
part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally
transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that
are not capable of receiving telephone calls. As such, Plaintiff,
brings this action alleging that Defendant violated the FTSA's
Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not
configured for two-way communication when it made Telephonic Sales
Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales Calls").
As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant
violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number
that was not capable of receiving phone when it made Telephonic
Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales Calls").
Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted
Better World Book and violated the Caller ID Rules when it
transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a
telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number
that receives the Defendant's telephonic sales calls, and Plaintiff
resides in Broward County, Florida.
The Defendant is a Foreign Corporation, which sells various goods
to persons throughout the country, including Florida, through its
online store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Phone: (202) 709-5744
Fax: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
REDFIN CORP: Court Grants Bid to Stay Jutla Suit for 60 Days
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kymberly K. Evanson of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Defendant's
motion to stay for 60 days the lawsuit styled RAJNINDER RAVEN
JUTLA, et al., Plaintiffs v. REDFIN CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00464-KKE (W.D. Wash.).
The Plaintiffs sued Redfin Corporation ("Defendant") and John Does
1-10 for anticompetitive and fraudulent conduct arising from the
commissions the Plaintiffs paid to realtors as part of the sale of
their property and purchase of another property.
Defendant Redfin moved to stay this case for 60 days pending the
nationwide settlement in a class action raising similar claims.
Because the Court finds the balance of hardships to the parties and
orderly course of justice favor a stay, the motion is granted.
On April 1, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this complaint in the
Eastern District of California alleging four causes of action:
violation of Section One of the Sherman Act, violation of the
Cartwright Act, violation of unfair competition, and
misrepresentation. The Plaintiffs' complaint arises from the sale
of their Washington property in May 2023 and their purchase of a
California property, both transactions where they were represented
by a Redfin agent.
The Plaintiffs allege Redfin, as a member of the National
Association of Realtors, Washington Association of Realtors, and
California Association of Realtors, required its agents to abide by
anticompetitive rules, including requiring home sellers to make a
blanket, non-negotiable offer of buyer's broker's commission as a
condition of listing the property on the Multiple Listing Service,
and requiring that all offers be expressed as a percentage of total
sale or a dollar value and the prohibition on invitations to
negotiate. The Plaintiffs allege that through these rules and
collusion between agents they were duped into paying unearned
commissions for both transactions in excess of $100,000.
On April 4, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Allison Claire
transferred the matter to this Court because the Defendant is in
the Western District of Washington and the complaint is centered on
properties located and transactions occurring within the Western
District of Washington.
On May 30, 2024, Redfin moved to stay the case for 60 days citing
the pending nationwide settlement in Gibson, et al. v. National
Association of Realtors, et al., No. 23-cv-788-SRB ("Gibson"). The
Plaintiffs did not respond.
When considering a motion to stay, Judge Evanson notes that the
Court weighs a series of competing interests: (1) the possible
damage that may result from the granting of the stay, (2) the
hardship or inequity, which a party may suffer in being required to
go forward, and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms
of the simplification or complication of issues, proof, and
questions of law that could be expected to result from a stay,
citing CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962).
Here, Judge Evanson finds all three interests favor granting the
motion to stay. Judge Evanson explains, among other things, that
there is potential overlap between the Gibson settlement and this
case. If this stay is not granted, Redfin may be forced to defend a
case that is barred or substantively narrowed by the Gibson
settlement. Accordingly, a stay is warranted here.
The Court grants the Defendant's motion to stay. This matter is
stayed for 60 days. The Defendant's response under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12 is due Aug. 23, 2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 24, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5ezpmuem from PacerMonitor.com.
RETAIL SERVICES: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Retail Services & Systems Inc. d/b/a Total
Wine & More, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-02496-DSD-JFD (D. Minn.,
June 27, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the general
non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and
auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations.
The case arises from Defendant's failure to ensure its website to
be fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals
with vision-related disabilities.
In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a
companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
Headquartered in Bethesda, MD, Retail Services & Systems Inc. is a
retailer of wine, spirits, fermented malt beverages and cigars.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Faces Class Suit Over Death of Detainee
-------------------------------------------------------------
ESTATE OF RUBEN GUZMAN, by and through successor in interest, Ruben
Guzman, Sr.; RUBEN GUZMAN, SR., individually, Plaintiffs v. COUNTY
OF RIVERSIDE, a public entity; RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF CHAD BIANCO, in his individual and official
capacities; EDWARD DELGADO; JAMES KRACHMER; MARTIN TOCHTROP; and
DOES 1 through 10, individually, jointly and severally, Defendants,
Case No. 5:24-cv-01199 (C.D. Cal.), is a class action seeking to
establish the true and unequivocal facts surrounding the May 26,
2023, in-custody death of pretrial detainee Ruben Guzman.
Ruben Guzman is a 41-year-old inmate who died following an
undisclosed incident at the Robert Presley Detention Center and the
John Benoit Detention Center. Moreover, the Plaintiffs allege that
the Defendants failed properly classify and house Guzman in a high
observation unit or otherwise house and classify him in appropriate
housing where he could be constantly monitored and/or isolated from
other inmates. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings these claims
pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 377.20 et
seq. and 377.60 et seq., which provide for survival and wrongful
death actions. Plaintiff also brings his claims individually and on
behalf of decedent Guzman on the basis of Title 42 of United States
Code's Sections1983 and 1988, the United States Constitution,
federal and state civil rights law and California law. The
Plaintiff also brings these claims as a Private Attorney General,
to vindicate not only his rights, but others' civil rights of
great importance.
County of Riverside owns, operates, manages, directs and controls
the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (RCSD), which ensures
the protection and safety of all persons incarcerated at the RCSD
correctional facilities. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Denisse O. Gastelum, Esq.
Selene Estrada-Villela, Esq.
GASTÉLUM LAW, APC A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
3767 Worsham Ave.
Long Beach, CA 90808
Telephone: (213) 340-6112
Facsimile: (213) 402-8622
E-mail: dgastelum@gastelumfirm.com
sestradavillela@gastelumfirm.com
- and -
Christian Contreras, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTIAN CONTRERAS
360 E. 2nd St., 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone: (323) 435-8000
Facsimile: (323) 597-0101
E-mail: CC@Contreras-Law.com
RJMS CORPORATION: Chatman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RJMS CORPORATION. The
case is styled as Alexander A. Chatman, an individual, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. RJMS CORPORATION, Case No.
24CV081124 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 24, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Rjms Corporation -- https://www.rjmscorp.com/ -- doing business as
Toyota Material Handling, distributes industrial machinery and
equipment.[BN]
NOTE: There are no professionals stated in the doc.
ROBERT BLAISE TRETTIS: Goldsboro Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skin Club, LLC. The
case is styled as Harry Lee Goldsboro, II, individually and on
behalf of Kenneth Wayne Bowen, Antonio Dajuan Brown, Kevin Harris,
Chad Caldwell, and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Robert
Blaise Trettis, Public Defender, Official Capacity; Phil Archer,
State Attorney, Official Capacity; Terrence O'Suilivan, Private
Attorney/Conflict Counsel, Official Capacity; Jonathan Mills,
Private Attorney/Conflict Counsel, Official Capacity; Daniel
Rivera, Public Defender; Mr. Skinner, State Attorney; Julia Lynch,
State Attorney; Elizabeth Garvey, State Attorney; Nancy Ohan,
Assistant Public Defender; Timothy Seiler, Assistant Public
Defender; Case No. 6:24-cv-01180-WWB-LHP (M.D. Fla., June 24,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Blaise Trettis was elected Public Defender for the Eighteenth
Judicial Circuit for Brevard and Seminole counties in 2012.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
ROOTED STRONG: Vargas Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
ERNESTO VARGAS and GILBERTO VARGAS, individually and on behalf of
all similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs v. ROOTED STRONG
CONSTRUCTION, LLC and CESAR PENA, Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-00779 (M.D. Tenn., June 25, 2024) arises from the
Defendants' willful failure to pay overtime compensation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and failure to pay for all non-overtime
hours worked under theories of unjust enrichment and breach of
contract under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants for approximately four
and one-half months from December of 2022 through early April 2023
working on the Legacy Apartments construction project performing
framing and drywall work.
Rooted Strong is a full-service residential construction company
based in Middle Tennessee performing new builds, remodels, framing,
roofing, foundations, gutters, and other residential construction
services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
M. Reid Estes, Jr., Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
Fifth Third Center
424 Church Street, Suite 800
Nashville, TN 37219-2392
Telephone: (615) 244-6538
E-mail: restes@dickinsonwright.com
RYMAN HOSPITALITY: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Tucker Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY TUCKER, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. RYMAN HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES, INC, Case No.
1:24-cv-05051 (S.D.N.Y., June 25, 2024) alleges that Overland
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website 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.
Because Defendant's website, https://www.ryman.com/ is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so
that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website
available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader
programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired
individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services
-- all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby
increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons
that Title III was meant to redress, says the suit.
Ryman operates the Ryman online and physical retail store across
the United States. This online and physical retail store
constitutes a place of public accommodation. The Defendant's
Website provides consumers with access to an array of goods
including information about purchasing show tickets, tours,
merchandise and other products available online and to ascertain
information relating to pricing, shipping, ordering merchandise and
return and privacy policies on their website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Homeless People Sues Over Illegal Raids
-------------------------------------------------------------
HOPE FOR THE HOMELESS LAKESIDE, INC., a California Nonprofit
Corporation; BRIAN ALBONE; MICHAEL BISHOP; DANIEL CAPPASOLA; JAMES
DATTOLICO; CHARITY DAVIS; JENNIFER GASKA; CHRISTY GILLETTE; STEVEN
LEGGOTT; TODD LENT; AMANDA LUTHER; HAROLD LUTHER; JOHN “AUGIE”
MARTINEZ; JILL MCCOY; BRITTANY STEBBINS; AUSTIN WHALEY; DAVID
WILLIAMS; Individually on Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; CITY OF
LAKESIDE; CITY OF SANTEE; CITY OF SAN DIEGO; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION; CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01009-L-MSB (S.D. Cal.,
June 10, 2024) arises out of official and ongoing illegal policies
and practices by Defendants of chasing homeless people from their
jurisdictions by sweeping and raiding sleeping areas and
confiscating and destroying the personal property of unhoused
people who are Citizens of, and reside in, San Diego's East County
without offering them any opportunity to retain, claim, or recover
their property.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly-situated Citizens, ask the Court to Order these
Defendants to take the only correct, legal, ethical, and just
actions--(1) to cease taking and/or destroying Plaintiffs' and
others' property without providing any proper and reasonable method
for these unhoused citizens to retain and/or retrieve it; (2) to
create sufficient, adequate, and accessible Safe Places for all
their unhoused Citizens to sleep, to be, and to store their
possessions; (3) to stop raiding, sweeping, chasing, threatening,
arresting, and criminalizing unhoused Citizens unless and until
such Safe Places first exist, accessible and available for all of
these people without hassle or delay; and (4) to stop endangering
the health and safety of homeless Citizens, and properly comply
with their obligations under Federal and State law, including
Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 17000 and 10000.
County of San Diego is a public entity existing under the laws of
the State of California and is the operator and employer of the San
Diego Sheriff’s Department and its Deputies. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert Scott Dreher, Esq.
DREHER LAW FIRM
350 West Ash, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-8828
E-mail: scott@dreherlawfirm.com
- and -
Blanche Elizabeth Amelia Maine, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BLANCHE E. MAINE
13465 Camino Canada, #106-428
El Cajon, CA 92021
Telephone: (619) 750-9691
E-mail: blanche.maine@gmail.com
- and -
Matthew R. Miller, Esq.
MILLER LAW FIRM
6790 Embarcadero Lane, Suite 100
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Telephone: (619) 261-1150
E-mail: Matt@mrmlawfirm.com
SCHINDLER ELEVATOR: Nazar Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Fred Nazar, an individual, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
37-2024-00022945-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on June 21,
2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01082-CAB-AHG.
The Complaint asserts causes of action on a class-wide basis on
behalf of California non-exempt employees for: failure to pay
minimum wages in violation of Labor Code; failure to pay wages and
overtime in violation of Labor Code; failure to provide meal
periods in violation of Labor Code; failure to authorize and permit
rest breaks in violation of Labor Code; failure to provide
accurate, itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code;
failure to maintain records in violation of Labor Code; failure to
produce requested employment records in violation of Labor Code;
failure to provide final wages in violation of Labor Code; and
unfair competition in violation of California Business and
Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Lynne C. Hermle, Esq.
Anjali Prasad Vadillo, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
Phone: +1 650 614 7400
Facsimile: +1 650 614 7401
Email: lchermle@orrick.com
avadillo@orrick.com
- and -
Katie E. Briscoe, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
400 Capitol Mall, 30th Fl
Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
Phone: +1 916 447 9200
Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900
Email: kbriscoe@orrick.com
- and -
Lauren R Leibovitch, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
631 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2C
Santa Monica, California 90401
Phone: +1 310 633 2800
Facsimile: +1 310 633 3849
Email: lleibovitch@orrick.com
SCOTT ENERGY COMPANY: Dye Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scott Energy Company,
Inc. The case is styled as Nathan Dye, on behalf of Himself and all
others similarly situated v. Scott Energy Company, Inc., Case No.
2477CV00623 (Mass. Super. Ct., Essex Cty., June 24, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Contract / Business Cases."
Scott Energy -- https://scottenergyco.com/ -- is known for cleaner,
better home heating oil.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael C Forrest, Esq.
Kevin John McCullough, Esq.
Jessica S. Peake, Esq.
MAZOW/MCCULLOUGH, P.C.
10 Derby Square 4th Floor
Salem, MA 01970
Phone: (978)744-8000
SEALY INC: Liu Class Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KAI LIU and JASON L.
CARBONNEAU, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SEALY, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV12809 (Filed May 21, 2024), was removed from the California
Superior Court, in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
June 28, 2024.
The Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-05490 to the proceeding.
The suit alleges failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods, failure to
authorize and permit rest breaks, failure to indemnify necessary
business expenses, failure to timely pay final wages at
termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
and unfair business practices
The Plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of themselves and "all
persons who worked for any Defendant in California as an hourly,
nonexempt employee at any time during the period beginning four
years before the filing of the initial complaint in this action."
Sealy produces high quality mattresses anchored on scientific
research & technological innovation.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Angela J. Rafoth, Esq.
Daniel J. Rodriguez, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 433-1940
Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
E-mail: arafoth@littler.com
djrodriguez@littler.com
SHEPLERS INC: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Frangie Espinal, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. SHEPLERS, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-04756 (S.D.N.Y., June 21, 2024), is brought this civil
rights action against the Defendant for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, § 504
et seq. ("RA") prohibiting discrimination against the blind.
Because Defendant's interactive website, https://yhc.edu, including
all portions thereof or accessed thereon, including, but not
limited to, https://yhcathletics.com and
https://www.countryoutfitter.com, (collectively the "Website" or
"Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website
available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader
programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired
individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby
increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons
that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen reading software to read website content using her
computer.
SHEPLERS, INC., operates the Country Outfitter online retail store
across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
44 Court Street, Suite 1217
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
SKIN CLUB: Gillespie Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skin Club, LLC. The
case is styled as Sky Gillespie, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Skin Club, LLC doing business as: Skin
Club Medical Spa, Case No. 0:24-cv-61099-DSL (S.D. Fla., June 24,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Skin Club -- https://skinclubsouthflorida.com/ -- is the premier
medical spa that offers a wide range of advanced aesthetic
treatments, including HydraFacial's, Botox, laser hair removal, and
more.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Christopher Eric Berman, Esq.
1650 SE 17th Street 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Phone: (865) 603-7365
Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
scott@edelsberglaw.com
SKINNY'S CANTINA: Faces Davila et al. Labor and Human Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominique Davila, Hannah Samuels, Noelia Beltran, and Aminata
Bamba, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
employees, Plaintiffs v. Skinny's Cantina on the Hudson and Joseph
Licul, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04871 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the New York Labor Law, the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have a pattern and practice
of failing fail to pay overtime or to pay employees in a timely
manner. In addition, the Plaintiffs also assert claims for breach
of contract, race, gender/sex discrimination and for retaliation
under the NYCHRL.
Skinny's Cantina on the Hudson is a Mexican cuisine restaurant in
New York, NY. It is owned and operated by Joseph Licul.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Walker G. Harman, Jr.
HARMAN GREEN PC
140 Broadway, Fl 46
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (646) 248-2288
E-mail: wharman@theharmanfirm.com
erichardson@theharmanfirm.com
SNOWFLAKE INC: Chaidez Sues Over Unprotected Private Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
EMMANUEL CHAIDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SNOWFLAKE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:24-cv-00050-BMM (D. Mont., June 27, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to secure the personal identifiable information
of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class, who are current
and former employees of Defendant’s clients.
From about mid-April 2024, a cybercriminal began a series of hacks
into Snowflake's systems, ultimately obtaining, among other
documents including 380 million customer profiles, the sensitive
PII including Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers
of approximately 358,000 current and former employees of Advance
Auto, including Plaintiff's.
Through this lawsuit, the Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant
responsible for the injuries they inflicted on Plaintiff and Class
Members due to their impermissibly inadequate data security
measures, and to seek injunctive relief to ensure the
implementation of security measures to protect the PII that remains
in Defendant's possession. The Plaintiff asserts claims for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary
contract, and unjust enrichment.
Snowflake, Inc. is a cloud software company headquartered in
Bozeman, MT. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Heenan, Esq.
HEENAN & COOK
1631 Zimmerman Trail
Billings, MT 59102
Telephone: (406) 839-9091
E-mail: John@lawmontana.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
SNOWFLAKE INC: Faces Suit Over Inadequate Data Security Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, JEAN ANN SMITH, and JANICE STEWART individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SNOWFLAKE,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00051-BMM-JTJ (D. Mont., June 27,
2024) arises from Defendant's failure to implement basic and
expected data security practices appropriate to the vast amounts of
personally identifiable information stored on its platform.
Starting in or about mid-April 2024, an unauthorized party began to
use access Snowflake customer credentials, acquired using
infostealer malware, to access the Snowflake platform and to target
and acquire the unencrypted PII stored thereon. The threat actor
continued to access the Snowflake platform until approximately May
22, 2024, when Snowflake was alerted to additional compromised
customer accounts by Mandiant. As a result of the data breach,
Plaintiffs and millions of Class Members were injured and the
confidentiality of their PII was destroyed and commoditized by data
thieves Through this Complaint, the Plaintiffs seek to remedy the
harms resulting from the data breach on behalf of themselves and
all similarly situated individuals whose PII was accessed. The
Plaintiffs assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach
of third-party beneficiary contract, and unjust enrichment.
Snowflake, Inc. is a cloud software company headquartered in
Bozeman, MT. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Heenan, Esq.
HEENAN & COOK, PLLC
1631 Zimmerman Trail
Billings, MT 59102
Telephone: (406) 839-9091
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
J. Austin Moore, Esq.
Jordan A. Kane, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
moore@stuevesiegel.com
kane@stuevesiegel.com
SONDER HOLDINGS: Park Sues Over Securities Law Breaches
-------------------------------------------------------
TAD PARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SONDER HOLDINGS INC., FRANCIS DAVIDSON,
SANJAY BANKER, CHRIS BERRY and DOMINIQUE BOURGAULT, Defendants Case
No. 2:24-cv-04798 (C.D. Cal., June 7, 2024) accuses the Defendants
of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Sonder securities
between May 11, 2022 and March 15, 2024, inclusive. Throughout the
said period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements or failed to disclose to investors: (1) Sonder was not
recognizing (right-of-use) ROU assets and lease liabilities on its
balance sheet in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification
842; (2) Sonder's financial statements contained material errors in
the valuation and impairment of operating lease ROU assets; (3)
Sonder had undisclosed internal control failures; (4) as a result
of the foregoing, Sonder was not in compliance with all financial
covenants. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.
Sonder is a hospitality services business which operates and
manages properties comprised of apartments and hotel rooms in North
America, Europe, and the Middle East. The company's securities
trade on the NASDAQ exchange under the symbol "SOND." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
clinehan@glancylaw.com
prajesh@glancylaw.com
SOUTHERN WINE: Settles Late Fees Class Action for $5.5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that consumers could receive automatic
payments from a $5.5 million Southern Wine and Spirits settlement
if the company charged them excessive late fees.
The settlement benefits California Southern Wine and Spirits
customers who did business with the company between June 13, 2010,
and June 20, 2023.
According to the class action lawsuit, Southern Wine and Spirits
violated California liquor laws by charging 2 percent late fees
each month. These fees allegedly violated a state statute that
limits late fees to only 1 percent per month.
Southern Wine and Spirits is a liquor supply company that merged
with Glazer's in 2016 to form Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits.
Southern Wine and Spirits hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed
to pay $5.5 million to resolve the late fee class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Southern Wine and Spirits settlement, class
members can have their currently owed late fees written off for all
late fees charged over 1 percent per month. According to the
settlement website, the liquor company agreed to write off $44.1
million in fees.
Class members who previously paid Southern Wine and Spirits late
fees in excess of 1 percent per month can receive a cash payment
based on the amount they paid during the class period. Payments
will vary depending on the number of participating class members
who do not opt out, but each customer is estimated to receive at
least $10.
For class members who received a mailed notice after June 25, 2024,
the deadline for exclusion and objection is July 25, 2024. The
deadline for exclusion and objection already passed for class
members who received their mailed notices before June 25, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct.
15, 2024.
No claim form is required to benefit from the Southern Wine and
Spirits settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves
will automatically receive settlement payments.
Who's Eligible
California Southern Wine and Spirits customers who did business
with the company between June 13, 2010, and June 20, 2023.
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Claim Form Deadline
07/25/2024
Case Name
Wiseman Park LLC v. Southern Wine and Spirits of America Inc., Case
No. BC548599, in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles
County
Final Hearing
10/15/2024
Settlement Website
SouthernClassAction.com
Claims Administrator
Southern Wine Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Info@SouthernClassAction.com
Phone: (844) 514-6116
Class Counsel
Robert S Green
GREEN & NOBLIN PC
2200 Larkspur Landing Cir #101
Larkspur, CA 94939
Phone: (415) 477-6700
THE LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW E. HESS
1801 Century Park E, Ste 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2326
Phone: (310) 751-7544
Defense Counsel
Keith R Thorell, Esq.
KORSHAK KRACOFF KONG & SUGANO LLP
Westwood Terrace
1640 S. Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 520
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: (310) 996-2340
Fax: (310) 996-2334 [GN]
SPORT SQUAD: Tomberlin Sues Over False Representations
------------------------------------------------------
John Michael Tomberlin, Jr., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SPORT SQUAD, INC., a Maryland
corporation; and DOES 1-50, Case No. 5:24-cv-01158-AB-MRW (C.D.
Cal., May 31, 2024), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Lanham Act; the California Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"); the California False Advertising Statutes; and the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and for actual
damages, an award of defendants' profits deriving from their false
representations, restitution, including restitutionary
disgorgement, and public injunctive relief are brought as a
putative class action.
In April 2024, Defendants began to sell the Joola Gen 3 line of
pickleball paddles, and advertised that line of paddles, in
advertisements, on exterior packaging, and on the paddles
themselves, that they were approved for tournament use by USA
Pickleball. In fact, Defendants had instead submitted different
pickleball paddles to USA Pickleball for approval. The Joola
pickleball paddles that had been actually reviewed and approved by
USA Pickleball, were different from the Joola Gen 3 paddles that
were actually sold to Plaintiffs and advertised to Plaintiffs as
USA Pickleball-approved.
On May 14 and 15, 2024, Defendants informed USA Pickleball of their
bait-and-switch in connection with seeking approval of the Joola 3
Gen 3 line of paddles. In response, USA Pickleball promptly revoked
its approval of the Joola Gen 3 line of paddles. The Plaintiffs
have been injured by their actual reliance on Defendants' false
representations that the Joola Gen 3 line of pickleball paddles
they sold to the public had been approved by USA Pickleball.
The Defendants have been unjustly enriched, and profited by their
diversion of sales from competitors based on their false,
misleading, and deceptive advertising of their paddles as USA
Pickleball approved when in fact Defendants had not submitted those
paddles to USA Pickleball, and those paddles had not been reviewed
by, or approved by USA Pickleball, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased a Joola Perseus 3 from a Dick's Sporting
Goods in Southern California.
The Defendants do business in the United States as "Joola" and
"Joola USA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq.
Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq.
Hallie Von Rock, Esq.
Brent A. Robinson, Esq.
Lisseth Bayona, Esq.
AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY
7677 Oakport St. Suite 1150
Oakland, CA 94621
Phone: 510.817.2711
Fax: 510.562.6830
Email: ras@asmlawyers.com
rwlm@asmlawyers.com
hvr@asmlawyers.com
bar@asmlawyers.com
lb@asmlawyers.com
SURMODICS INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to GTCR LLC
---------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has
recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm
in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and
investigated Surmodics, Inc. (Nasdaq: SRDX), relating to its
proposed sale to GTCR LLC. Under the terms of the agreement,
Surmodics, Inc. shareholders will receive $43.00 in cash per share
of Surmodics stock they own.
Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Antitrust Suit in Massachusetts Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F
report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2024, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2024, that its
affiliate Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. is currently facing
an antitrust class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.
The plaintiffs, a putative class of wholesalers, allege that a
settlement that Takeda and Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. entered
into in 2014 with Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. to resolve patent
litigation claims related to Par's generic formulation of the drug
"AMITIZA" were anticompetitive.
In December 2023 and in January 2024, additional complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
by a health insurer plaintiff as well as by individual retail
pharmacies plaintiffs.
Takeda is a patient-focused, values-based, R&D-driven global
biopharmaceutical company with a diverse portfolio, engaged
primarily in the research, development, production and global
commercialization of biopharmaceutical products.
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Settles Antitrust Suit in Pennsylvania Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F
report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2024, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2024, that in
September 2023, its affiliate Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.
reached an agreement in principle to resolve a September 2021
antitrust class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The plaintiffs, a putative class of wholesalers, allege that
settlements that Takeda entered into in 2015 and 2016 to resolve
patent litigation claims against several generic drug manufacturers
related to generic formulations of the drug "COLCRYS" were
anticompetitive. matter for an amount that is immaterial, which was
fully executed in December 2023.
Takeda is a patient-focused, values-based, R&D-driven global
biopharmaceutical company with a diverse portfolio, engaged
primarily in the research, development, production and global
commercialization of biopharmaceutical products.
TC4 CONCEPTS: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum Wages, Meyer Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX MEYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) v. TC4 CONCEPTS
DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00730 (W.D. Tex., June 28, 2024)
alleges that the Defendant failed to pay Servers and Bartenders
federal minimum wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant committed federal wage
violations because it (1) compensated Restaurant Servers and
Bartenders at a reduced sub-minimum wage for tipped employees, but
failed to provide the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
with statutorily required notice of taking a tip credit; (2)
required the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to perform
non-tipped side duties and side work that exceeded 20% of all work
performed in at least one workweek; and (3) required the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated to perform non-tipped duties and
side work in excess of 30 continuous minutes in one or more shifts.
During their employment, the Plaintiff and one or more members of
the collectives complained about the illegal practices; however,
the Defendant took no action to stop its illegal pay practices.
More specifically, the Plaintiff verbally complained about these
practices to management on more than one occasion and was advised,
by management, that these policies are enforced at all TC4
loca-tions, the suit says.
Mr. Meyer first worked at Defendant's Lakeway location from July
2023 through December 2023. He also worked at Defendant's Bee Cave
location from January 2024 through February 2024.
The Defendant owns and operates The League Kitchen & Tavern
restaurants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
801 Cherry Street Suite 2365
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 479-9229
Facsimile: (817) 840-5102
E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
pamela@herrmannlaw.com
- and -
Jordan Richards, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS -
JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
TEACHERS FEDERAL: Appeals Court Uphold Lower Court's Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reports that the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department has
affirmed a lower court's ruling in a putative class action lawsuit
against Teachers Federal Credit Union (TFCU). The decision upheld
the trial court's denial of TFCU's motion to compel arbitration and
stay all proceedings and its motion to dismiss the complaint for
lack of standing.
Case Background
In 2020, the plaintiff initiated a class action lawsuit against
TFCU, alleging breaches of the account agreement, including the
imposition of certain illegal fees related to checking accounts.
Before responding to the complaint, TFCU moved to compel
arbitration and stay the proceedings, citing an arbitration
provision added to the account agreement in December 2019.
Additionally, TFCU sought to dismiss the complaint, arguing that
the plaintiff lacked standing due to the refunding of disputed fees
prior to the lawsuit's commencement.
Key Arguments
The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision:
Arbitration Agreement: The court found that TFCU's arbitration
amendment, which it tried to impose as part of an "eStatement"
distributed after a related federal action had already been
initiated, was not binding. The plaintiff expressly rejected this
amendment through her counsel in January 2020 while the federal
action was still pending.
Standing: The court ruled that TFCU's unilateral refund of the
disputed fees did not invalidate the plaintiff's standing to pursue
the class action.
Broader Impact
This ruling is a significant victory for consumers, ensuring that
their rights are protected even in the face of corporate attempts
to compel arbitration or avoid valid complaints by picking off
class-representatives with unilateral refunds designed solely to
moot class representatives' ability to bring class claims. [GN]
TESLA INC: Chin Sues Over Alleged WARN Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
SHARON LANE CHIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TESLA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-03873-LB (N.D. Cal., June 27, 2024), arises under the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) and
the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated employees who were terminated by Defendant on or
about April 14, 2024, as part of a mass layoff or plant closing.
The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant violated the said federal and
state laws by failing to give Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees of the Defendant at least 60 days of advance
written notice of termination, as required.
Tesla, Inc. is an American multinational automotive and clean
energy company that operates and maintains A manufacturing facility
in Dublin, CA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Feder, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL FEDER
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1019
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 391-9476
Facsimile: (415) 391-9432
E-mail: daniel@dfederlaw.com
- and -
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
TOUGH TRAVELER: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Karim Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Tough Traveler, Ltd., Case No. 1:24-cv-05035
(S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2024) alleges that Gloskn failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Tough Traveler provides to their non-disabled customers
through https://www.toughtraveler.com. The Defendant's denial of
full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its
products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical
locations.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision;
others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind’s 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
Tough Traveler provides to the public a website known as
Toughtraveler.com which provides consumers with access to an array
of goods and services, including, the ability to view backpacks,
waist packs, dog carriers, duffel bags, luggage, and child
carriers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set August 23
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Toyota Motor
Corporation that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were
adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between June 23,
2022 and June 2, 2024.
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that:
(1) Toyota understated its malfeasance relating to
certification of its cars and issues relating to overall legal
compliance; and
(2) as a result, defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times.
If you suffered a loss on your Toyota Motor Corporation (NYSE:TM)
investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the
federal securities laws, follow the link below for more
information:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/toyota-lawsuit-submission-form-2?prid=89045&wire=1
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team
of experienced shareholder advocates.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Toyota stock during the
relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/toyota-lawsuit-submission-form-2?prid=89045&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing
investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70
employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi &
Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top
50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the
United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://zlk.com/ [GN]
TRADER JOE'S: Customer Sues Over Gluten Free Bagels
---------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a Los
Angeles woman sued Trader Joe's.
Why: The plaintiff says the company sells a gluten-free bagel that
isn't actually gluten-free, according to lab testing.
Where: The Trader Joe's gluten-free class action was filed in a
California federal court.
A new class action lawsuit claims Trader Joe's sells a gluten-free
bagel that isn't actually gluten-free.
Plaintiff Shaianne Starks filed the lawsuit against Trader Joe's
Co. June 28 in a California federal court, alleging violations of
false advertising laws.
According to the class action lawsuit, Trader Joe's sells Almost
Everything Bagels in a bag with the words gluten-free prominently
displayed on the packaging on a large, red background. However, the
lawsuit alleges the bagels are not actually gluten-free.
The group MomsAcrossAmerica.com revealed the alleged information
about the bagels, according to the lawsuit. It claims the group
seeks independent test results and information to help mothers to
identify the contents of health and nutrition products, which it
then publishes online.
The class action lawsuit says MomsAcrossAmerica.com published test
results from the Health Research Institute, an allegedly reputable
testing company, regarding various gluten-free products.
"The scientifically validated test results revealed that the
[Trader Joe's bagels] contain 269.8 ppm of gluten," the lawsuit
claims.
It alleges this is 13 times the governmental limits and nearly 27
times the Gluten-Free Certification Organization limits.
Starks said she wouldn't have bought the bagels if she knew they
contained gluten, according to the Trader Joe's class action. As a
result, she claims she lost money due to the alleged false
advertising.
Starks wants to represent anyone who bought the alleged gluten-free
bagels in the United States. She's suing for violations of
California consumer laws and breach of warranty and is seeking
certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury
trial.
The class action lawsuit also seeks a court order that would force
Trader Joe's to stop advertising the bread as gluten-free and run a
corrective advertising campaign.
In April, Trader Joe's initiated a recall of its Infinite Herbs
Organic Basil over concerns the product may have the potential to
be contaminated with salmonella. The Health Research Institute
involves Infinite Herbs Organic Basil that came in 2.5-ounce
packaging and was sold at Trader Joe's stores in 29 U.S. states and
the District of Columbia between Feb. 1-April 6, 2024.
The plaintiff is represented by Michael T. Houchin, Craig W. Straub
and Kurt D. Kessler of Crosner Legal P.C.
The Trader Joe's gluten-free bagels class action lawsuit is
Shaianne Starks v. Trader Joe's Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-05543, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
[GN]
TRANSUNION LLC: Kaplan Balks at Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LESLEY KAPLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-02438-WB (E.D. Pa., June 5, 2024) alleges violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The case is assigned to Judge Wendy Beetlestone.
Transunion LLC operates as global information and insights company.
The Company offers various credit monitoring, risk management,
marketing, and other related solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erika Angelos Heath, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
369 Pine Street, Suite 410
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (628) 246-1352
Email: eheath@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
John Soumilas, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
Email: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
UNDER ARMOUR INC: Settles Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Under Armour, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K report as of June 20,
2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 21,
2024, that on June 20, 2024, the company and Mr. Plank entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with plaintiffs containing the
material terms of a settlement resolving a pending consolidated
securities action.
Since early 2017 Under Armour, Inc. has been engaged in securities
class action litigation in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland under the caption "In re Under Armour
Securities Litigation, Case No. 17-cv-00388-RDB." The complaint
asserted claims regarding its disclosures and accounting practices
in connection with its sales between the third quarter of 2015 and
the fourth quarter of 2016, specifically asserting claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
against the company and Mr. Plank and under Section 20A of the
Exchange Act against its CEO Kevin Audette Plank.
The parties intend to prepare a formal stipulation of settlement
describing the terms of the proposed settlement, which will be
presented to the District Court for preliminary approval in the
coming weeks. Following preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement by the District Court and a notice and review period for
Class members, plaintiffs will seek final approval of the proposed
settlement from the District Court. The MOU provides that the
company will pay or will cause to be paid an amount equal to $434
million to the members of the class in the Consolidated Securities
Action, which includes all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Class A and Class C common stock of Under Armour
between September 16, 2015 and November 1, 2019 (subject to certain
exclusions).
As of March 31, 2024, the company reported $858.7 million of cash
and cash equivalents on its consolidated balance sheets, and no
drawings on its $1.1 billion revolving credit facility. In
addition, the company will agree to two additional, non-monetary
provisions, specifically to continue to separate the roles of Chair
and Chief Executive Officer for a period of at least three years
beginning on the date that the court order approving the settlement
and dismissing the action becomes final and non-appealable and that
all restricted stock or restricted stock units granted by the
company to its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Legal Officer during the Three-Year Period include a
performance-based vesting condition to be set by the Human Capital
and Compensation Committee of the company's Board of Directors. In
exchange, the plaintiffs and the class will grant customary
releases in favor of the defendants of all of their claims that
were or could have been asserted in the action.
Under Armour, Inc. is into the manufacture of sporting apparel and
is based out of Baltimore, Maryland.
UNIVERSITY & STATE: Class Settlement in Cortes Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CESAR E. CORTES,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UNIVERSITY & STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-00444-DMS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Dana Sabraw entered an order granting final approval of class
action settlement as follows:
1. The defined terms in this order shall have the same meaning
given such terms in the Settlement Agreement.
2. The Court finds that the Class, as defined in the Settlement
Agreement, meets all the requirements for certification of a
settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule
23,
and applicable case law. Accordingly, the court certifies the
following Settlement Class, composed of the following class
members:
Settlement Class: those members of Defendant who incurred an
overdraft fee(s) on an ATM or non-recurring debit card
transaction(s) during the period beginning March 17, 2021,
and
ending on Aug. 18, 2023.
3. The Court appoints Cesar E. Cortes as the Class
Representative
of the Settlement Class, and approves a service award to
Cortes
in the amount of $10,000 for his substantial and pro-active
role
in the litigation.
4. The Court appoints Simpluris as the Claims Administrator
under
the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
5. For purposes of the Settlement Agreement, the Court finds
that
counsel for the settlement classes, Richard D. McCune and
Emily
J. Kirk of McCune Law Group, APC, are qualified, experienced,
and skilled attorneys capable of adequately representing the
settlement classes, and they are approved as Class Counsel.
Further, the Court approves Class Counsel’s reasonable
attorneys’ fees in the amount of one-third of the cash
Value of
the Settlement ($166,666.00) as well as reasonable costs in
the
amount of up to $60,000.00.
6. All costs incurred in connection with providing notice and
settlement administration services to the class members not
to
exceed $15,000.00 shall be paid from the Settlement Fund.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZUYh6v at no extra
charge.[CC]
UPS INC: Employee Discloses Hostile Work Environment, Racism
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Sandlin, writing for WTOL11, reports that "'You belong at
UPS'" is what the shipping company calls its rallying cry,
promising a diverse and inclusive workplace.
But one employee at Maumee's UPS Distribution Center, who asked to
remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation, said his experience is
completely different.
"We found a noose in my work area," he told WTOL 11.
The long-time UPS employee said on the morning of May 2 of this
year, he walked into work and found a noose hanging in his
workspace, dangling from the back of a truck.
"You would think in Ohio these kinds of things wouldn't happen in
this day and age," he said. "It was appalling, but at the same time
it wasn't shocking given the history of what's happened here at the
hub in Maumee."
He claimed he worked at UPS in 2019 when 19 workers filed a lawsuit
in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas against the same
distribution center.
"The defendants have maintained a hostile work environment through
these employment decisions, as well as by tolerating, and failing
to remedy, known racist comments and conduct," the lawsuit
alleged.
It goes on to allege such conduct involved "hanging nooses above
the work station of an African American employee, distributing
pictures of nooses, displaying a cellphone video hangman game with
an African-American Effigy, a gorilla face, and target
illustrations, posing a larger monkey doll dressed as a UPS
employee at the top of the ladder near the work stations of African
American employees."
The lawsuit also alleged comments such as using the N-word near
African Americans and referring to a neighborhood with a racial
slur "while refusing to deliver package there."
The case was later dismissed in federal court and resolved without
the court's involvement.
"The lawsuit was resolved years ago, and the facility has new
leadership," a UPS spokesperson said.
The anonymous employee WTOL 11 spoke with said at the time that UPS
did diversify its leadership team. But he claims it didn't last.
"They brought Black managers in to try to pacify us, kind of. And
honestly, I think they ran them off," he said. "Now they brought
the old regime back, the regime that was here during the old
incidents, and now things are starting to happen again."
The company's sign outside the Maumee facility reads "Not in Our
House. It's a slogan UPS says means it does not tolerate
inappropriate behavior.
UPS declined an on-camera interview and provided the following
written statement:
"UPS is committed to maintaining a workplace environment that is
respectful, inclusive, and free of harassment and discrimination.
Upon learning of these allegations, we completed a prompt and
thorough investigation, and took swift and decisive corrective
action, terminating the employment of the person who was
responsible."
But the anonymous employee believes it isn't enough.
"We already do all these diversity initiatives and I've heard they
were told we don't care about that. I know you all think that's a
priority, but our priority is production," he said.
He told WTOL 11 that he's seen racist acts at the Maumee facility
for years.
"We had things happen in feeders, we've had employees called the
N-word, we've just had a lot of racial issues," he said. "Some days
it's just tough to sleep because you know you have to go back in
because you don't know what's going to happen, or the atmosphere."
He believes the culture at the Maumee hub has normalized this kind
of behavior.
"The first time something like this happens, it's a mistake," he
said. "But things keep happening over and over again. What is it if
it's not the culture they're breeding?"
If this is the culture inside Maumee's distribution center, why is
he still there?
"Honestly, it's all I have. I don't have a degree, so I'm kind of
stuck in this environment and you kind of feel helpless," he said.
"At UPS, you make pretty good money. There's nowhere else where I
could make this kind of money without a degree or education, so
there's nowhere for me to go."
Toledo City Council member Cerssandra McPherson, who brought this
story to WTOL 11's attention, says she was shocked to hear the
allegation, but not surprised.
She says it needs to be taught that racism will not be tolerated.
[GN]
US HOME PROS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Murillo Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
JAVIER MURILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. US HOME PROS INC.; JUST GREEN, INC.; PACIFIC
MANAGEMENT STAR GROUP CO.; UNITED MANAGEMENT STAR, INC.; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV1414 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., June 5, 2024) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.
Plaintiff Murillo was employed by the Defendants as a laborer.
is a construction management company, doing business as "CAL
RETROFIT", operating out of Los 25 Angeles County, California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq.
SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (818) 473-5003
Facsimile: (818) 476-5619
Email: contact@slawla.com
VALLEY PACIFIC: Moore Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Jessie Moore, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public
v. Valley Pacific Petroleum Services, Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2024-0007423 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June
24, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Valley Pacific -- https://valleypacific.com/ -- supplies
high-quality, competitively-priced fuels and lubricants throughout
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Keledjian, Esq.
D. LAW, INC.
880 E. Broadway
Glendale, CA 91205
Phone: 818-962-6465
Email: david@setarehlaw.com
VICTORIA GOLD: Supreme Court Approves Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Finance reports that the Supreme Court of British Columbia
has approved a settlement between Victoria Gold Corp. ("Victoria
Gold"), John McConnell, T. Sean Harvey, Michael McInnis, Sean
Roosen, Marty Rendall, Orion Co-VI Ltd., BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc.,
CIBC World Markets Inc. and PI Financial Corp. and the Plaintiff in
a class action.
Your legal rights are affected even if you do nothing. Please read
this notice carefully.
The class action was commenced on behalf all persons and entities,
wherever they may reside or may be domiciled, who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Victoria Gold either:
1. in the secondary offering of Victoria Gold's common shares
which closed on September 30, 2020, and held all or some of those
securities as of November 13, 2020; or
2. on a stock exchange between July 1, 2020 and November 12,
2020, and held all or some of those securities as of November 13,
2020.
Under the settlement, Victoria Gold will pay or cause to be paid
CAD $925,000. The Defendants do not admit any wrongdoing or
liability on their part and the Court has not made any findings of
wrongdoing or liability in respect of the Defendants.
YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT:
You have two options:
Submit a Claim Form:
Fill out a Claim Form online and submit it with supporting
documentation by the deadline to apply for compensation. The
deadline for Claim Form submission is October 31, 2024.
Do Nothing:
Give up any right to compensation.
To make a claim for compensation, you must complete a Claim Form
online and submit it along with documentation confirming your
acquisition of Victoria Gold's securities. The Claim Form is
available at https://knd.law/class-actions/victoria-gold-corp/. You
must submit your Claim Form and documentation using this website by
October 31, 2024 to be able to receive compensation.
Further information can be found in the Settlement Agreement,
Court-approved Plan of Allocation, and other relevant documents,
which are available at
https://knd.law/class-actions/victoria-gold-corp/.
The lawyers for the Plaintiff and the Class in this class action
are KND Complex Litigation. [GN]
VIRGINIA: Faces Puryear Class Action Suit Over Illegal Detention
----------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE PURYEAR, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated v. CHADWICK DOTSON, in his individual capacity, HAROLD
CLARKE, in his individual capacity, Case No. 3:24-cv-00479 (E.D.
Va., June 28, 2024) challenges the alleged illegal and
unconstitutional detention of people who were incarcerated in
Virginia Department of Corrections ("VADOC") prisons who, pursuant
to the 2020 revision of Virginia's earned sentence credit ("ESC")
program, were clearly eligible for release as early as July of
2022, but who were not released until approximately November of
2023.
The proposed class here consists of people with convictions for
inchoate offenses related to robbery and carjacking who, through
their good conduct and program participation, had earned sufficient
sentence credits to entitle them to release, but who were
nevertheless subject to prolonged and illegal detention pursuant to
Defendants' policy of wrongfully excluding individuals completing
sentences for these offenses from the expanded ESC program.
Virginia has long had an ESC program, whereby people who are
incarcerated can earn time off their sentences through good conduct
and program participation. Each ESC amounts to one day deducted
from a person's term of incarceration. In 2020, Virginia's General
Assembly amended the existing ESC program to increase the rate at
which qualifying individuals can earn credits, dramatically
reducing the amount of time they had to serve in VADOC custody
before they were entitled to release.
The purpose of this amendment was to ensure that individuals who
participated in rehabilitative programming were not detained longer
than necessary, to encourage individuals to participate in such
programming, and to save the Commonwealth money. The amended law
reduced the sentences of hundreds if not thousands of people in
VADOC custody by granting them expanded ESCs. Previously, people in
VADOC custody could earn a maximum of 4.5 ESCs for every 30 days of
incarceration. Under the new law, individuals are entitled to up to
15 ESCs for every 30 days in prison, says the suit.
The expanded ESCs are retroactive, and if a person's credits
calculated retroactively under the new scheme made them eligible
for release on or prior to the statute's effective date of July 1,
2022, VADOC was mandated to release them within 60 days of that
date. The expanded ESCs are mandatory. The text of the new law
removes the discretion that VADOC previously had to determine
whether and to what extent individuals received ESCs.
Plaintiff Leslie Puryear is a Virginia resident who was, for the
period relevant to this Complaint, incarcerated at Lunenburg
Correctional Center, a middle-security facility in Victoria,
Virginia operated by VADOC. He was released in November 2023.
Defendant Chadwick Dotson has been the Director of VADOC since
September 2023 and is named in his individual capacity. Director
Dotson is ultimately responsible for all of VADOC's policies and
procedures, including those relating to the ESC program. The
Defendant Dotson makes final, agency-wide decisions on how to
administer the statutorily mandated ESC program.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Allen, Esq.
Rebecca Livengood, Esq.
Ellora Thadaney Israni, Esq.
David DePriest, Esq.
RELMAN COLFAX, PLLC
1225 19th St. NW, Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 728-1888
Facsimile: (202) 728-0848
E-mail: mallen@relmanlaw.com
rlivengood@relmanlaw.com
eisrani@relmanlaw.com
ddepriest@relmanlaw.com
WEEE! INC: S.D.N.Y. Refuses to Transfer Jia Suit to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled HELEN JIA, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WEEE! INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00534-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
denies the Plaintiffs' motion to transfer.
Plaintiffs Helen Jia, Tingting Ding, Haoquan Liang, and Xiaofang
Mei have filed a letter motion requesting that the case be
transferred back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, where the case was originally filed.
Defendant WEEE! Inc. opposes the motion.
On May 11, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed the instant putative class
action against WEEE!, an online grocery service, in the Northern
District of California, on behalf of themselves and "all customers
in the United States whose PII [personally identifiable
information] was compromised" during a February 2023 data breach of
WEEE!. WEEE! moved to dismiss or transfer the case to this
District, where an almost identical putative class action against
it for the same data breach had been filed-two months earlier--on
Feb. 10, 2023 (Tyson Liau v. WEEE! Inc., No. 23 Civ. 1177 (PAE)
("Liau")).
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the Northern District of
California granted the motion to transfer the case to this
District, based on the "first-to-file rule. In reaching that
result, Judge Ryu evaluated: (1) the chronology of the lawsuits,
(2) the similarity of the parties involved, and (3) the similarity
of the issues at stake. All three factors, she found, supported
transfer to this District, as the case before her ("Jia") had been
filed after Liau had been filed, involved substantially
similar--but not identical--parties, and implicated substantially
similar legal and factual issues.
On Jan. 26, 2024, Jia was transferred to this District, and
assigned to this Court, based on its supervision of the related
Liau case. On Feb. 22, 2024, the Court in Liau granted WEEE!'s
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) with prejudice, finding that
the plaintiffs alleged injury failed to establish Article III
standing (Tyson Liau v. WEEE! Inc., No. 23 Civ. 1177 (PAE), Dkt.
23).
On April 3, 2024, the Court issued an order in Jia seeking guidance
from the parties as to next steps in the case in light of the
dismissal of Liau. The Plaintiffs requested by letter that Jia be
transferred back to the Northern District of California; WEEE!
opposed the request.
The Plaintiffs argue that Jia should be transferred back to the
Northern District of California, because the reason for the initial
transfer--the first-to-file rule--no longer applies given that Liau
has now been dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiffs argue that
transfer is warranted under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) because the
Northern District of California is the more desirable forum based
on the location of evidence and witnesses.
The Court denies this motion because transferring the case back to
the Northern District of California would needlessly waste time and
judicial resources. The Plaintiffs' request for a second transfer
of the case, back to where it was originally filed, would not be in
the interest of justice or for the convenience of parties and
witnesses.
Although Liau has been decided, Judge Engelmayer holds that these
underlying principles continue to apply to--and control--this case.
Having decided the first-filed case, Liau, the Court is familiar
with the factual and legal issues common to both cases. Given this
knowledge, the Court is in a superior position to resolve the
present dispute in a quick and efficient manner, and in a way that
avoids any conflict with the decision in Liau.
Indeed, the Plaintiffs' transfer motion appears to be a transparent
bid to avoid Liau's holding that the Plaintiffs there lacked
standing--authority the Plaintiffs may fear will prove persuasive
here, Judge Engelmayer points out.
Keeping the case in this District also respects Judge Ryu's
considered judgment that transfer to this District was warranted,
Judge Engelmayer opines. Undoing that decision, months later, would
delay resolution of Jia and waste the parties' and counsels' time
and judicial resources. This would not serve the interest of
justice or the convenience of the parties and witnesses.
The Court will not disturb Judge Ryu's decision to transfer the
case to this District and declines the Plaintiffs' motion to
transfer the case back to the Northern District of California.
The Court denies the motion to transfer. This litigation is to move
forward. To the extent that WEEE! intends to move to dismiss, it
cannot rely on the motion to dismiss it had filed in the Northern
District of California, because that motion was administratively
closed out when the case was transferred to this District. Should
WEEE! intend to file such a motion, it is directed to consult the
Court's Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 24, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdhyetuu from PacerMonitor.com.
WHOLE EARTH: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Sababa Affiliates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has
recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm
in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and
investigated Whole Earth Brands, Inc. (Nasdaq: FREE ), relating to
its proposed merger with affiliates of Sababa Holdings FREE LLC.
Under the terms of the agreement, Whole Earth Brands shareholders
will receive $4.875 per share of Whole Earth Brands stock they
own.
The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for July 31, 2024.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/whole-earth-brands-inc/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders. . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq. [GN]
[*] B.C. Supreme Court Certifies 'Sham' Consultant Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Langton, writing for Investment Executive, reports that The
Supreme Court of British Columbia has certified a proposed class
action against a long list of companies, issuers and individuals in
connection with an alleged scheme of deceptive private placements.
The proposed class action on behalf of investors relates to a
scheme that has been the subject in a couple of enforcement actions
by the B.C. Securities Commission (BCSC) involving issuers
allegedly raising millions of dollars from investors in private
placements and funnelling proceeds to purported consultants as part
of "sham" consulting deals.
"The scheme allegedly benefited the issuers by enabling them to
retain a portion of the private placement proceeds, while falsely
informing the market . . . that there was over-subscribed investor
interest in the issuers, and that the issuers had greater capital
for use in their operations than was truly the case," the court
said.
The purported consultants also benefited from the proceeds of the
private placements, while investors were harmed by overpaying for
the issuers' shares or participating in deals they wouldn't
otherwise have bought into had it not been for the false impression
created by the scheme, the plaintiffs allege.
The court certified the case as a class action against a long list
of issuers, consultants, and officers and directors of the various
companies on behalf of investors globally, alleging liability for
various claims including conspiracy, secondary market
misrepresentation and fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation.
The court also ruled that the various requirements for a proceeding
to be certified as a class action were met in this case, including
that the claims against various companies and individuals all
relate to the same basic conduct.
"The fact that the scheme ultimately involved 12 different private
placements, with some involving different participants, does not
change the nature of the alleged overarching conspiracy into 12
separate conspiracies," the court said in its decision.
"There is a strong basis in fact which indicates that trying the
proposed claims in a single proceeding, rather than in separate
proceedings for each issuer, would achieve considerable judicial
economy by avoiding a substantial repetition in fact-finding and
legal analysis," it said.
None of the allegations detailed in the class action has been
proven. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***