/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240717.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, July 17, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 143
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Lindell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Paquette Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Peterson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Resh Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Rudel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
400GRADI: Wurm Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Employees
ACCESSIBE INC: Parikh Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
ADIDAS AMERICA: Barrantes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Faces Echevarria Class Suit Over Mass Layoff
APPLE INC: Collins Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
APPLE INC: Dwyer Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
APPLE INC: Giamanco Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
APPLE INC: Leonard Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
APPLE INC: Loewen Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
APPLE INC: Maxa Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
APPLE INC: Schermer Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
ASHLEY PACIFIC: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ASR GROUP: C.A. Curtze Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
ASR GROUP: Conspires to Fix Granulated Sugar Price, Cervellino Says
ASR GROUP: Edlin Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
ASR GROUP: Fowler Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
ASR GROUP: Golden Goose Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
ASR GROUP: Humphreys Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
ASR GROUP: KPH Healthcare Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
AT&T INC: Chernik Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
AURORA-NAPERVILLE ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Genetic Info Collection
BUZZY INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Karim Suit Alleges
CHENOA CORP: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Agostini Suit Alleges
CJ BERRY: Wiley Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. California
CLAYTON CHRISTIAN: Must Oppose Niman Class Cert Bid by August 2
COMPANION LIFE: Faces Block Suit Over Low Policy Interest Rates
CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS: Discloses Info to 3rd Parties, Sands Says
CONTINUUM HEALTH: Diaz Suit Removed from State Court to New Jersey
DELOITTE US: Faces Multiple Class Suits Over Medicaid System
EIS OFFICE: Valencia Seeks Blind Users' Equal Access to Website
EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Kovalczik Says
FIVE9 INC: Compels to Produce Subpoena Response Docs in Campbell
HOME DEPOT: E&G Suit Alleges Unlawful Tool Rental Program
INGO MONEY: Fails to Protect Customers' Private Info, Suit Says
LEFEVER MATTSON: Faces Claridge Suit Over Investment Fraud Scheme
MCLAREN GREATER: Walkington Seeks Unpaid Wages for Hospital Staff
MICHAELS MANAGEMENT: Faces Damare Fraud Suit Over Lease Agreements
NIKE INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
PAGE COUNTY, VA: Faces Whitfield Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Va.
PETAL & PUP: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Agostini Alleges
SEBASTIAN'S PIZZERIA: Veleva Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Servers
SPAULDING PARTNERS: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Brito Says
SPROUT SOCIAL: Faces Hollywood Police Suit Over Stock Price Drop
THINKWRITE TECHNOLOGIES: Blind Can't Access Website, Agostini Says
UNITED STATES: Prelim. Injunction Order in Tennessee Suit Appealed
USHG LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Hernandez Suit Claims
VEGAN GRILL: Layne Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
WORKS BARBERSHOP: Faces Colak Suit Over Website's Access Barriers
*********
3M COMPANY: Lindell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rj A. Lindell, 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-03309-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 -
Stephen A. Weisbrod, Esq.
Smith Tower
506 2nd Ave, Suite 1400
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 990-0390
- and -
Jim Hood, Esq.
Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq.
1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 803-5001
3M COMPANY: Paquette Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Paquette, 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-03314-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: Peterson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
Carl Peterson, 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-03295-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: Resh Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Joseph Resh, 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-03242-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: Rudel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert William Rudel, 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-03299-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 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
400GRADI: Wurm Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER WURM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 400GRADI, GRADI GROUP, and IGOR STEVOVIC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01651-L (N.D. Tex., June 28, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum
wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff worked as a server and a barista at 400Gradi since
May 2023
400Gradi is a restaurant owner and operator located in Dallas,
Texas.
Gradi Group is a restaurant owner and operator based in Australia.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Walker G. Harman, Jr.
HARMAN GREEN PC
824 Exposition Ave., Suite 8
Dallas, TX 75226
Telephone: (646) 248-2288
Email: wharman@theharmanfirm.com
ACCESSIBE INC: Parikh Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accessibe, Inc. The
case is styled as Sherwin K. Parikh MD, P.C. doing business as:
Tribeca Skin Center, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Accessibe, Inc., John Does 1-5, Case No. 1:24-cv-04848
(S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Accessible -- https://accessibe.com/ -- is the market leader in web
accessibility solutions and technologies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Stein, Esq.
STEIN & NIEPORENT LLP
1441 Broadway, Suite 6090
New York, NY 10018
Phone: (212) 308-3444
Fax: (212) 836-9595
Email: dstein@steinllp.com
ADIDAS AMERICA: Barrantes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adidas America, Inc.
The case is styled as Joshua Barrantes, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Adidas
America, Inc., Case No. 24CV012723 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., June 25, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Adidas America Inc. -- https://www.adidas.com/s/adidas-US --
designs and markets apparel products. The Company provides shoes,
apparel, and accessories for men, women, boys, girls, and infants
and toddlers, as well as offers sports collections including
basketball, football, and training shoes.[BN]
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Faces Echevarria Class Suit Over Mass Layoff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EBONY ECHEVARRIA and LUKE CIANCIOTTO, on behalf of themselves and a
putative class of similarly situated former employees v. AMAZON.COM
SERVICES LLC, AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., and AMAZON.COM, INC. as Joint
Employers, Case No. 1:24-cv-0567 (N.D. Ill., July 5, 2024) is a
class action complaint brought under the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act by the Plaintiffs on their own behalf
and on behalf of the other similarly situated persons against Four
Star, their employer for WARN Act purposes, and Amazon, their joint
employer for WARN Act purposes.
On or about June 11, 2024, with an effective date of June 25, 2024,
Four Star issued a notice informing all of its drivers that the
company would cease operations as of June 25, 2024.
Approximately 104 drivers are impacted by this mass layoff. Four
Star is a direct service provider for Amazon providing delivery
services for the multinational company in and around the Chicago,
Illinois area through Amazon's Delivery Service Partner ("DSP")
program. As described in greater detail below, given the nature of
the relationship between Four Star and Amazon, Amazon is the joint
employer of the Plaintiffs and the putative class of drivers. The
Defendants failed to provide 60 days' advance written notice as
required by the WARN Act to the affected employees, says the suit.
Four Star operates as a direct service provider for Amazon engaged
in making deliveries of products sold on Amazon's website, and as a
result Amazon and Four Star are joint employers of the drivers
delivering Amazon Products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI
& WALL, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 300
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 800-6225
Facsimile: (615) 994-8625
E-mail: ben@hsglawgroup.com
- and -
N. Elizabeth Reynolds, Esq.
Carlie W. Diserio, Esq.
ALLISON, SLUTSKY & KENNEDY, P.C.
230 W. Monroe St., Suite 2000
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 364-9400
Facsimile: (312) 364-9410
E-mail: reynolds@ask-attorneys.com
diserio@ask-attorneys.com
APPLE INC: Collins Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Deborah Collins, Hunter Collins, Henry Morales,
Thomas Leonard, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01796 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-07288 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:
Ben Michael Harrington, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: (510) 725-3000
Fax: (510) 725-3001
Email: benh@hbsslaw.com
- and -
James M. Finberg, Esq.
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: (415) 421-7151
Fax: (415) 362-8064
Email: jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com
APPLE INC: Dwyer Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Richard Dwyer, Aimen Halim, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No.
5:24-cv-01844 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 25, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07293-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:
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Jordan S. Elias, Esq.
Namita Dhawan, Esq.
Christina H. Sharp, Esq.
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: (415) 981-4800
Email: apolk@girardsharp.com
jelias@girardsharp.com
ndhawan@girardsharp.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: Giamanco Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joseph Giamanco, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-02694 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 25, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07238 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:
Steven Francis Molo, Esq.
Eric Posner, Esq.
Jordan Andrew Rice, Esq.
MOLOLAMKEN LLP
300 North LaSalle Street, Suite 5350
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: (312) 450-6700
Email: smolo@mololamken.com
eposner@mololamken.com
jrice@mololamken.com
- and -
Carol L O'Keeffe, Esq.
Stephen Matthew Tillery, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
Saint Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 241-4844
Email: cokeefe@koreintillery.com
stillery@koreintillery.com
- and -
David William Walchak, Esq.
George A. Zelcs, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY LLC
205 N Michigan Ave., Suite 1950
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 641-9750
Email: dwalchak@koreintillery.com
gzelcs@koreintillery.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James R.P. Hileman, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
300 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: (312) 469-7090
Email: james.hileman@kirkland.com
APPLE INC: Leonard Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Thomas Leonard, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-02156 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 25, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07253-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:
Corinne F. Johnson, Esq.
James M. Finberg, Esq.
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: (415) 421-7151
Fax: (415) 362-8064
Email: cjohnson@altber.com
jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com
- and -
Michael Rubin, Esq.
LANDMAN CORSI BALLAINE & FORD
One Gateway Center, Suite 400
Newark, NJ 07102-5311
Phone: (973) 623-2700
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: Loewen Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Erik D. Loewen, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-02006 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-07292-JXN-LDW 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:
Matthew Sinclair Weiler, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 740-2930
Email: mweiler@schneiderwallace.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: Maxa Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Aaron Maxa, on behalf of themself and all others
similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00639 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania, 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-07190 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:
Raphael Janove, Esq.
JANOVE PLLC
500 7th Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Phone: (646) 347-3940
Fax: (347) 696-1227
Email: raphael@janove.law
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: Schermer Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jared Schermer, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01815
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-07289-JXN-LDW 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 Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
STERLINGTON, PLLC
One World Trade Center, Ste 85th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 739-0622
Email: blake.yagman@sterlingtonlaw.com
- and -
Israel David, Esq.
FRIED FRANK HARRIS SHRIVER AND JACOBSON LLP
One New York Plaza
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 859-8218
Fax: (212) 859-4000
Email: israel.david@davidllc.com
- and -
Rebecca Mary Hoberg, Esq.
Mario Alberto Moya, Esq.
MOYA LAW FIRM
1300 Clay Street, Suite 600
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 926-6521
Email: rhoberg@moyalawfirm.com
mmoya@moyalawfirm.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
ASHLEY PACIFIC: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ashley Pacific
Northwest, LLC. The case is styled as Ricardo Perez, on behalf on
himself and all others similarly situated v. Ashley Pacific
Northwest, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0007480 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Joaquin Cty., June 25, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Ashley Pacific Northwest provides full-service logistics support to
customers and safe and reliable transportation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus J. Bradley, 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
ASR GROUP: C.A. Curtze Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as C.A. Curtze Co., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ASR Group International, Inc.,
American Sugar Refining, Inc., Domino Foods, Inc., United Sugar
Producers & Refiners Cooperative, Michigan Sugar Company, Commodity
Information, Inc., Richard Wistinsen, Case No. 1:24-cv-02352 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota on June 25, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02346-JWB-DTS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
ASR Group International, Inc. -- https://asr-group.com/ -- is the
world's largest refiner and marketer of cane sugar.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Linda P Nussbaum, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
1133 Avenue of the Americas, 31th Floor
New York, NY 10036-6710
Phone: (917) 438-9189
Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael Patrick Mitchell, Esq.
ALLEN OVERY SHEARMAN STERLING US LLP
401 9th Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: (202) 508-8000
Email: michael.mitchell@aoshearman.com
- and -
Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
555 Eleventh St, NW, Ste. 1000
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: (202) 637-2200
Fax: (202) 637-2201
Email: lawrence.buterman@lw.com
- and -
Nathan P. Eimer, Esq.
EIMER STAHL LLP
224 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 1100
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 660-7600
Fax: (312) 692-1718
Email: neimer@eimerstahl.com
ASR GROUP: Conspires to Fix Granulated Sugar Price, Cervellino Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL CERVELLINO and MICHAEL SANTILLI, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING, INC.; DOMINO FOODS, INC.; MICHIGAN SUGAR
COMPANY; UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS & REFINERS COOPERATIVE f/k/a UNITED
SUGARS CORPORATION; COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC.; and RICHARD
WISTISEN, Case No. 0:24-cv-02652 (D. Minn., July 8, 2024) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and
in a representative capacity on behalf of a Class of consumer
purchasers of Granulated Sugar in the United States, claiming
against the Defendants under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act
of 1890 and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act for
redress of the injury and damages caused by Defendants conspiracy
to fix prices of granulated sugar in the United States from at
least as early as January 1, 2019, 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 Class Period).
The Plaintiffs also claim under the antitrust and trade regulation
laws, and common law, of the States of Connecticut, Alabama,
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois,
Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia.
Beginning at least as early as January 1, 2019, Defendants
conspired to fix and artificially inflate the prices of Granulated
Sugar sold in the United States. To implement their price-fixing
conspiracy, the Defendants exchanged detailed, competitively
sensitive, non-public information about Granulated Sugar prices,
capacity, sales volume, supply, and demand.
Among the victims of the conspiracy are U.S. consumers of
Granulated Sugar, such as Plaintiffs. But for their conspiracy and
unlawful acts in furtherance, Plaintiffs and members of the Class
would have paid less for Granulated Sugar than they did during the
Class Period.
The Plaintiffs bring this action for redress of the injury and
damages she and members of the Class have suffered and continue to
suffer by reason of Defendants' continuing violations of law.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
John Seredynski, Esq.
ILVER GOLUB & TEITELL, LLP
1 Landmark Square, 15th Floor
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 325-4491
Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
E-mail: isloss@sgtlaw.com
jseredynski@sgtlaw.com
ASR GROUP: Edlin Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Matthew Edlin, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ASR Group International, Inc.,
American Sugar Refining, Inc., Domino Foods, Inc., United Sugar
Producers & Refiners Cooperative, Michigan Sugar Company, Commodity
Information, Inc., Richard Wistinsen, Case No. 1:24-cv-02352 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota on June 25, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02346-JWB-DTS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
ASR Group International, Inc. -- https://asr-group.com/ -- is the
world's largest refiner and marketer of cane sugar.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Chan Wolinsky, Esq.
Yavar Bathaee, Esq.
BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (332) 322-8835
- and -
Brian J. Dunne, Esq.
Edward M. Grauman, Esq.
BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
901 South MoPac Expressway
Barton Oaks Plaza I, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78746
Phone: (213) 462-2772
- and -
Allison J. Watson, Esq.
BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
3420 Bristol St Ste 600
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7133
Phone: (213) 462-2772
Email: across@bathaeedunne.com
ASR GROUP: Fowler Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Linda Fowler, Isabella Benmeleh, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. ASR Group
International, Inc., American Sugar Refining, Inc., Domino Foods,
Inc., United Sugar Producers & Refiners Cooperative, Michigan Sugar
Company, Commodity Information, Inc., Richard Wistinsen, Case No.
1:24-cv-01972 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota on June 25, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02235-JWB-DTS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
ASR Group International, Inc. -- https://asr-group.com/ -- is the
world's largest refiner and marketer of cane sugar.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq.
David W. Mitchell, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP (SAN DIEGO)
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 231-1058
Fax: (619) 231-7428
Email: xanb@rgrdlaw.com
DavidM@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
STERLINGTON, PLLC
One World Trade Center
Ste 85th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 739-0622
Email: blake.yagman@sterlingtonlaw.com
- and -
Israel David, Esq.
ISRAELDAVID LLC
17 State Street
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 739-0622
Email: israel.david@davidllc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Djordje Petkoski, Esq.
Michael Patrick Mitchell, Esq.
Todd Stenerson, Esq.
ALLEN OVERY SHEARMAN STERLING US LLP
401 9th Street, NW, Ste 800
Washington, DC 20004-2128
Phone: (202) 508-8083
Email: djordje.petkoski@aoshearman.com
michael.mitchell@aoshearman.com
todd.stenerson@aoshearman.com
ASR GROUP: Golden Goose Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Golden Goose Markets, Inc., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASR Group International,
Inc., American Sugar Refining, Inc., Domino Foods, Inc., United
Sugar Producers & Refiners Cooperative, Michigan Sugar Company,
Commodity Information, Inc., Richard Wistinsen, Case No.
1:24-cv-02159 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota on June 25, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02235-JWB-DTS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
ASR Group International, Inc. -- https://asr-group.com/ -- is the
world's largest refiner and marketer of cane sugar.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Burt, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 545-4600
Email: burt@whafh.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael Patrick Mitchell, Esq.
Todd Stenerson, Esq.
ALLEN OVERY SHEARMAN STERLING US LLP
401 9th Street, NW, Ste 800
Washington, DC 20004-2128
Phone: (202) 508-8083
Email: michael.mitchell@aoshearman.com
todd.stenerson@aoshearman.com
- and -
Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
555 Eleventh St., NW, Ste. 1000
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: (202) 637-2200
Fax: (202) 637-2201
Email: lawrence.buterman@lw.com
- and -
Nathan P. Eimer, Esq.
EIMER STAHL LLP
224 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 1100
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 660-7600
Fax: (312) 692-1718
Email: neimer@eimerstahl.com
ASR GROUP: Humphreys Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Heidi Humphreys, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ASR Group International, Inc.,
American Sugar Refining, Inc., Domino Foods, Inc., United Sugar
Producers & Refiners Cooperative, Michigan Sugar Company, Commodity
Information, Inc., Richard Wistinsen, Case No. 9:24-cv-80451 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota on June 25, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02342-JWB-DTS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
ASR Group International, Inc. -- https://asr-group.com/ -- is the
world's largest refiner and marketer of cane sugar.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dayron Silverio, Esq.
Matthew Weinshall, Esq.
Peter Prieto, Esq.
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
One S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 358-2800
Fax: (305) 358-2382
Email: dsilverio@podhurst.com
mweinshall@podhurst.com
pprieto@podhurst.com
- and -
Raphael Janove, Esq.
JANOVE PLLC
1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd, 20th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 267-0100
Email: raphael@janove.law
ASR GROUP: KPH Healthcare Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASR Group
International, Inc., American Sugar Refining, Inc., Domino Foods,
Inc., United Sugar Producers & Refiners Cooperative, Michigan Sugar
Company, Commodity Information, Inc., Richard Wistinsen, Case No.
1:24-cv-01941 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota on June 25, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02233-JWB-DTS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
ASR Group International, Inc. -- https://asr-group.com/ -- is the
world's largest refiner and marketer of cane sugar.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Allan Martin, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
165 Broadway, Suite 2301
New York, NY 00000
Phone: (212) 357-1195
Fax: (212) 202-4322
Email: smartin@hausfeld.com
- and -
Zahra R. Dean, Esq.
KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 238-1700
Fax: (215) 238-1968
Email: zdean@kohnswift.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Djordje Petkoski, Esq.
Michael Patrick Mitchell, Esq.
Todd Stenerson, Esq.
ALLEN OVERY SHEARMAN STERLING US LLP
401 9th Street, NW, Ste 800
Washington, DC 20004-2128
Phone: (202) 508-8083
Email: djordje.petkoski@aoshearman.com
michael.mitchell@aoshearman.com
todd.stenerson@aoshearman.com
AT&T INC: Chernik Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Zachary Chernik, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. AT&T Inc., DIRECTV, Case No.
1:24-cv-03054 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on June 24, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01543-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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kyle Pozan, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 596-4078
Email: kjpozan@locklaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel R. Warren, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
127 Public Square, Suite 2000
Cleveland, OH 44114-1214
Phone: (216) 861-7145
Fax: (216) 696-0740
Email: dwarren@bakerlaw.com
AURORA-NAPERVILLE ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Genetic Info Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leonel Cobar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Aurora-Naperville Enterprises, Inc. (d/b/a Valley
Honda), Case No. 2024LA000829 (Ill. Cir Ct., Dupage Cty., July 8,
2024) is a class action complaint against Aurora-Naperville
Enterprises for its violations of the Illinois Genetic Information
Privacy Act and to obtain redress for persons harmed by its conduct
from the misuse of individuals' genetic information by the
Defendant.
As a condition of employment, Valley Honda requires employee
candidates to undergo a physical exam during which genetic
information in the form of their family medical history is
requested. In spite of GIPA's prohibition to solicit family medical
information, the Defendant and other companies in Illinois continue
to request that their employees and prospective employees provide
protected family medical history in violation of GIPA. The
Defendant's deprivation of Plaintiffs' statutory rights conferred
by GIPA constitutes the actual injuries the Illinois Legislature
sought to prevent, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action for statutory and/or actual
damages, whichever is greater, and other remedies as a result of
Defendant's conduct in violating Plaintiff's Illinois genetic
privacy rights. On Plaintiff's own behalf, and on behalf of the
proposed Class, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring
Defendant to comply with GIPA, as well as an award of damages,
including statutory damages under GIPA, to the Class members,
together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.
In or around April 2024 the Plaintiff applied for a job at Valley
Honda and was subsequently hired to work for the company. During
the application and hiring process, and as a precondition of his
employment and during his pre-employment application process,
Defendant required Plaintiff to submit to a physical examination
and urine sample. During the examination, the Defendant asked
questions concerning Plaintiff's family medical history. Such
questions included whether the Plaintiff's family had a history of
high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, and other genetic
information in the form of diseases that had manifested in his
family members. By requiring Plaintiff to answer questions about
his family medical history and provide a urine sample, the
Defendant directly or indirectly solicited, requested, or required
Plaintiff to disclose his genetic information. The Plaintiff, in
response, disclosed his genetic information, including diseases and
disorders with which his family members have been diagnosed. The
Plaintiff was never informed by Defendant, either verbally or in
writing of his right to privacy under GIPA or otherwise informed he
was not legally obligated to disclose genetic information.
By collecting the genetic information of its prospective employees
in connection with its application process Defendant illegally
solicited and obtained the genetic information of hundreds of
Illinois residents and workers, including that of Plaintiff, in
violation of GIPA.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly
situated individuals pursuant to 735 ILCS section 5/2-801. The
Plaintiff seeks to represent a Class defined as follows:
"All individuals who, during the relevant time period, applied
for employment with Defendant in Illinois and from whom
Defendant requested or obtained family medical history or other
genetic information according to Defendant's records."
Excluded from the Class are any members of the judiciary assigned
to preside over this matter; any officer or director of Defendant;
and any immediate family member of such officers or directors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
FRADIN LAW
8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
11 ½ N. Franklin Street
Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com
BUZZY INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Karim Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Buzzy, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-05034 (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 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, Buzzyseeds.com provides to the public a wide array of
the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by
Buzzy. Yet, Buzzyseeds.com contains significant access barriers
that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and
visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers
make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even
complete a transaction on the website. This complaint also seeks
compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been
subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the suit.[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
CHENOA CORP: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Agostini Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUNIQUE AGOSTINI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Chenoa Corp., Case No. e 1:24-cv-05145 (S.D.N.Y., July
8, 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 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.
According to the complaint, Threadsalon.com provides to the public
a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other
programs offered by Chenoa. Yet, Threadsalon.com contains
significant access barriers that make it difficult if not
impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the
website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and
visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the
website. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to
compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful
discrimination, says the suit.[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
CJ BERRY: Wiley Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled THEODIS WILEY, JR., DAVID EDWARDS, and DERRICK
MASSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. CJ BERRY WELL SERVICES MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. BCV-24-100660,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Kern to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on June 28, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-00756-JLT-CDB to the proceeding.
The suit is brought over the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions
Code including (1) failure to pay overtime wages, (2) unpaid
minimum wages, (3) meal break violations, (4) rest break
violations, (5) failure to provide accurate wage statements, (6)
waiting time penalties, (7) failure to reimburse business expenses,
and (8) unfair competition.
CJ Berry Well Services Management, LLC is a provider of wellsite
services in California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq.
Andrew W. Russell, Esq.
Sarah Y. Oh, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 315-8200
Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
Email: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
arussell@mcguirewoods.com
soh@mcguirewoods.com
CLAYTON CHRISTIAN: Must Oppose Niman Class Cert Bid by August 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bethany Niman, et. al., v.
Clayton Christian, et al., Case No. 9:23-cv-00079-DWM (D. Mont.),
the Hon. Judge Donald Molloy entered an order granting the
Defendants' motion to continue the deadline to respond to the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
-- The Defendants' new deadline for responding to the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is Aug. 2, 2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0CIGhV at no extra
charge.[CC]
COMPANION LIFE: Faces Block Suit Over Low Policy Interest Rates
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BLOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COMPANION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:24-cv-04732 (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2024) is a class action to recover
amounts that Defendant took from Plaintiff and members of a class
of life insurance policy owners in breach of the express terms of
their policies.
The Plaintiff contends that Defendant breached and continues to
breach the Policies by imposing improperly low Policy interest
rates that reduce the interest credited to the Accumulation
Value of Class Members.
The terms of Plaintiff's life insurance policy provide for an
"Accumulation Value." The Defendant has kept the Interest Rate on
the policy’s Accumulation Value artificially low because it
failed to adjust interest rates in accordance with the express
terms of the policy. The Defendant has caused material harm to
Plaintiff and the proposed class members by keeping Interest Rates
so low. Because of Defendant's breaches, the Plaintiff and class
members earned less money to pay future premiums; increase their
death benefits; use as collateral for policy loans; or withdraw as
cash, says the suit.
The Plaintiff purchased from Defendant a flexible premium life
insurance policy bearing the policy number CL5091716, and a policy
date of February 6, 2006, with an initial death benefit of
$100,000. The Plaintiff was the "owner" and "insured" under the
Policy.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's alleged
breaches, the Plaintiff and the proposed class members have been
damaged. In particular, Plaintiff and Class Member Accumulation
Values are lower than they otherwise should have been. Moreover,
the Defendants actions have allegedly caused Policies to lapse when
they otherwise would not have.
The Plaintiff brings this case as a class action under Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of himself and an
Insurance Rate class defined as follows:
"All persons who own or owned a universal life policy issued by
companion on a policy that provides, “We will increase the
current Interest Rate applied to the unloaned accumulation
value by 0.5% in policy years six and later, if the then
current Interest Rate is greater than the guaranteed minimum
Interest Rate."
COMPANION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY operates as an insurance
firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
Joseph Gentile, Esq.
SARRAF GENTILE LLP
10 Bond Street, Suite 212
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 699-8890
Facsimile: (516) 699-8968
E-mail: joseph@sarrafgentile.com
ronen@sarrafgentile.com
- and -
Robert A. Izard, Esq.
Craig A. Raabe, Esq.
Seth R. Klein, Esq.
IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
29 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 493-6292
Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
craabe@ikrlaw.com
sklein@ikrlaw.com
CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS: Discloses Info to 3rd Parties, Sands Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SANDS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS, LTD., Case No. 0:24-cv-02615-PJS-DTS
(D. Minn., July 2, 2024) is a class action lawsuit to address
Defendant's unlawful and widespread unauthorized practice of
disclosing Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifying
information ("PII") or protected health information ("PHI") to
third parties.
According to the complaint, the Defendant warrants that the
services it offers on its website are safe and secure. For example,
it represents: "We work hard to protect the privacy of your health
information and we have rules for our employees on how to manage
this information."
Entities that gather and retain sensitive "PII" or PHI owe a duty
to the individuals to whom that data relates. This duty arises
because it is foreseeable that the exposure of consumers' PII or
PHI to unauthorized persons -- especially hackers with nefarious
intentions -- will cause harm to such individuals. The Defendant
claimed that it learned of the Data Breach on Feb. 12, 2024. Even
after the notice was posted, it was seen by very few consumers and
most of them did not know about the data breach, says the suit.
The Defendant provides radiology services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
Frances Mahoney-Mosedale, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
fmahoneymosedale@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street, NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-520
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
CONTINUUM HEALTH: Diaz Suit Removed from State Court to New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------
KIM DIAZ v. CONTINUUM HEALTH ALLIANCE, LLC, Case No. MON-L-1547-24,
was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden) on June
13, 2024.
The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-07015-ESK-EAP to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edward S. Kiel.
Continuum provides healthcare services.[BN]
Plaintiff KIM DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:
David J. Disabato, Esq.
SIRI GLIMSTAD LLP
8 Campus Drive, Suite 105
Parsippany, NJ 07054
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: ddisabato@sirillp.com
Defendant Continuum Health is represented by:
Irma Katsman, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP
18 Columbia Turnpike. Ste. 220
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Telephone: (424) 230-4265
E-mail: ikatsman@grsm.com
- and -
Ronald A. Giller, Esq,
GORDON & REES LLP
18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 220
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Telephone: (973) 549-2500
Facsimile: (973) 377-1911
E-mail: rgiller@grsm.com
DELOITTE US: Faces Multiple Class Suits Over Medicaid System
------------------------------------------------------------
Rachana Pradhan and Samantha Liss, writing for Louisiana
Illuminator, report that Deloitte, a global consultancy that
reported revenue last year of $65 billion, pulls in billions of
dollars from states and the federal government for supplying
technology it says will modernize Medicaid.
The company promotes itself as the industry leader in building
sophisticated and efficient systems for states that, among other
things, screen who is eligible for Medicaid. However, a KFF Health
News investigation of eligibility systems found widespread
problems.
The systems have generated incorrect notices to Medicaid
beneficiaries, sent their paperwork to the wrong addresses, and
been frozen for hours at a time, according to findings in state
audits, allegations and declarations in court documents, and
interviews. It can take months to fix problems, according to court
documents from a lawsuit in federal court in Tennessee, company
documents, and state agencies. Meanwhile, America's poorest
residents pay the price.
Deloitte dominates this important slice of government business:
Twenty-five states have awarded it eligibility systems contracts --
with 53 million Medicaid enrollees in those states as of April 1,
2023, when the unwinding of pandemic protections began, according
to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Deloitte's
contracts are worth at least $5 billion, according to a KFF Health
News review of government contracts, in which Deloitte commits to
design, develop, implement, or operate state systems.
State officials work hand in glove with Deloitte behind closed
doors to translate policy choices into computer code that forms the
backbone of eligibility systems. When things go wrong, it can be
difficult to know who's at fault, according to attorneys, consumer
advocates, and union workers. Sometimes it takes a lawsuit to pull
back the curtain.
Medicaid beneficiaries bear the brunt of system errors, said Steve
Catanese, president of Service Employees International Union Local
668 in Pennsylvania. The union chapter represents roughly 19,000
employees -- including government caseworkers who troubleshoot
problems for recipients of safety-net benefits such as health
coverage and cash assistance for food.
"Are you hungry? Wait. You sick? Wait," he said. "Delays can kill
people."
KFF Health News interviewed Medicaid recipients, attorneys, and
former caseworkers and government employees, and read thousands of
pages from contracts, ongoing lawsuits, company materials, and
state audits and documents that show problems with
Deloitte-operated systems around the country -- including in
Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Tennessee, and Texas.
In an interview, Kenneth Smith, a Deloitte executive who leads its
national human services division, said Medicaid eligibility
technology is state-owned and agencies "direct their operation" and
"make decisions about the policies and processes that they
implement."
"They're not Deloitte systems," he said, noting Deloitte is one
player among many who together administer Medicaid benefits.
Alleging "ongoing and nationwide" errors and "unfair and deceptive
trade practices," the National Health Law Program, a nonprofit that
advocates for people with low incomes, urged the Federal Trade
Commission to investigate Deloitte in a complaint filed in
January.
"Systems built by Deloitte have generated numerous errors,
resulting in inaccurate Medicaid eligibility determinations and
loss of Medicaid coverage for eligible individuals in many states,"
it argued. "The repetition of the same errors in Deloitte
eligibility systems across Texas and other states and over time
demonstrates that Deloitte has failed."
FTC spokesperson Juliana Gruenwald Henderson confirmed receipt of
the complaint but did not comment further.
Smith called the allegations "without merit."
The system problems are especially concerning as states wade
through millions of Medicaid eligibility checks to disenroll people
who no longer qualify -- a removal process that was paused for
three years to protect people from losing insurance during the
covid-19 public health emergency. In that time, nationwide Medicaid
enrollment grew by more than 22 million, to roughly 87 million
people. At least 22.8 million have been removed as of June 4 ,
according to a KFF analysis of government data.
Advocates worry many lost coverage despite being eligible. A KFF
survey of adults disenrolled from Medicaid during the first year of
the unwinding found that nearly 1 in 4 adults who were removed are
now uninsured. Nearly half who were removed were able to reenroll,
the survey showed, suggesting they should not have been dropped in
the first place.
"If there is a technology challenge or reason why someone can't
access health care that they're eligible for, and we're able to do
something," Smith said, "we work tirelessly to do so."
Deloitte's contracts with states regularly cost hundreds of
millions of dollars, and the federal government pays the bulk of
the cost.
"States become very dependent on the consultant for operating
complex systems of all kinds" to do government business, said
Michael Shaub, an accounting professor at Texas A&M University.
Georgia's contract with Deloitte to build and maintain its system
for health and social service programs, inked in 2014, as of
January 2023 was worth $528 million. This January, state officials
wrote in an assessment obtained by KFF Health News that its
eligibility system "lacks flexibility and adaptability, limiting
Georgia's ability to serve its customers efficiently, improve the
customer and worker experience across all programs, ensure data
security, reduce benefit errors and fraud, and advance the state's
goal of streamlining eligibility."
Deloitte and the Georgia Department of Community Health declined to
comment.
Deloitte is looking ahead with its "path to Medicaid in 2040,"
anticipating sweeping changes that will expand its own business
opportunity.
"State Medicaid leaders and policymakers are hungry to know what
the future of health care holds," the company said. "Deloitte
brings the innovative tools, subject matter expertise, and
time-tested experience to help states."
Trouble in Tennessee
When Medicaid eligibility systems fail, beneficiaries suffer the
consequences.
DiJuana Davis had chronic anemia that required iron infusions. In
2019, the 39-year-old Nashville resident scheduled separate
surgeries to prevent pregnancy and to remove the lining of her
uterus, which could alleviate blood loss and ease her anemia.
Then Davis, a mom of five, received a shock: Her family's Medicaid
coverage had vanished. The hospital canceled the procedures,
according to testimony in federal court in November.
Davis had kept her insurance for years without trouble. This time,
Tennessee had just launched a new Deloitte-built eligibility
system. It autofilled an incorrect address, where Davis had never
lived, to send paperwork, an error that left her uninsured for
nearly two months, according to an ongoing class-action lawsuit
Davis and other beneficiaries filed against the state.
The lawsuit, which does not name Deloitte as a defendant, seeks to
order Tennessee to restore coverage for those who wrongly lost it.
Kimberly Hagan, Tennessee Medicaid's director of member services,
said in a court filing defending the state's actions that many
issues "reflect some unforeseen flaws or gaps" with the eligibility
system and "some design errors."
Hagan's legal declaration in 2020 gave a view of what went wrong:
Davis lost coverage because of missteps by both Tennessee and
Deloitte during what's known as the "conversion process," when
eligibility data was migrated to a new system.
Tennessee's Medicaid agency, known as "TennCare, along with its
vendor, Deloitte, designed rules to govern the logic of
conversion," Hagan said in the legal declaration. She also cited a
"manual, keying error by a worker" made in 2017.
Davis' family was "incorrectly merged with another family during
conversion," Hagan said.
Davis regained coverage, but before she could rebook the surgeries,
she testified, she became pregnant and a serious complication
emerged. In June 2020, Davis rushed to the hospital. A physician
told her she had preeclampsia, a leading cause of maternal death.
Labor was induced and her son was born prematurely.
"Preeclampsia can kill the mom. It can kill the baby. It can kill
both of you," she testified. "That's like a death sentence."
Deloitte's Tennessee contract is worth $823 million. Deloitte
declined to comment on Davis' case or the litigation.
Speaking broadly, Smith said, "data conversion is incredibly
challenging and difficult."
Hagan called the problems one-time issues: "None of the Plaintiffs'
cases reflect ongoing systemic problems that have not already been
addressed or are scheduled to be addressed."
States leverage Deloitte's technology as part of a larger push
toward automation, legal aid attorneys and former caseworkers
said.
"We all know that big computer projects are fraught," said Gordon
Bonnyman, co-founder of the nonprofit Tennessee Justice Center.
"But a state that was concerned about inflicting collateral damage
when they moved to a different automated system would have a lot of
safeguards."
TennCare spokesperson Amy Lawrence called its eligibility system "a
transformative tool, streamlining processes and enhancing
accessibility."
When enrollees seek help at county offices, "you don't get to sit
down across from a real human being," Bonnyman said. "They point
you to the kiosk and say, ‘Good luck with that.'"
A backlog of 50,000 cases
As part of the Affordable Care Act rollout about a decade ago,
states invested in technological upgrades to determine who
qualifies for public programs. It was a financial boon to Deloitte
and such companies as Accenture and Optum, which landed government
contracts to build those complex systems.
Problems soon emerged. In Kentucky, a Deloitte-built system that
launched in February 2016 erroneously sent at least 25,000
automated letters telling people they would lose benefits,
according to local news reports. State officials manually worked
through a backlog of 50,000 cases caused by conflicting information
from newly merged systems, the reports say.
"We know that the rollout of Benefind has caused frustration and
concern for families and for field staff," senior Deloitte
executive Deborah Sills said during a March 2016 news conference
alongside Gov. Matt Bevin and other senior officials after Kentucky
was bombarded with complaints. Within two months, roughly 600
system defects were identified, found a report by the Kentucky
state auditor.
In Rhode Island, a botched rollout in September 2016 delayed tens
of thousands of Social Security payments, The Providence Journal
reported. Advocacy groups filed two class-action lawsuits, one
related to Medicaid and the other to food stamp benefits. Both were
settled, with Rhode Island officials denying wrongdoing. Neither
named Deloitte as a defendant.
In a 2018 statement for a Statehouse hearing, Sills of Deloitte
said, "We are very sorry for the impact that our system issues have
had on your constituents, on state workers, and on service
providers." The state's top human services official resigned.
A 2017 audit by a top Rhode Island official prepared for Gov. Gina
Raimondo found that Deloitte "delivered an IT system that is not
functioning effectively" and had "significant defects." "Widespread
issues," it said, "caused a significant deterioration in the
quality of service provided by the State."
"Deloitte held itself out as the leading vendor with significant
experience in developing integrated eligibility systems for other
states," the audit read. "It appears that Deloitte did not
sufficiently leverage this experience and expertise." Deloitte
declined to comment further about Rhode Island and Kentucky.
Deloitte invokes the phrase "no-touch" to describe its technology
-- approving benefits "without any tasks performed by the State
workers," it wrote in documents vying for an Arkansas contract.
In practice, enrollee advocates and former government caseworkers
say, the systems frequently have errors and require manual
workarounds.
As it considered hiring Deloitte, Arkansas officials asked the
company about problems, particularly in Rhode Island.
In response, the company said in 2017, "We do not believe Deloitte
Consulting LLP has had to implement a corrective action plan" for
any eligibility system project in the previous five years.
Arkansas awarded Deloitte a $345 million contract effective in 2019
to develop its system.
"It had a lot of bugs," said Bianca Garcia, a program eligibility
specialist for the Arkansas Department of Human Services from
August 2022 to October 2023.
Garcia said it could take weeks to fix errors in a family's details
and Medicaid enrollees wouldn't receive the state's requests for
information because of glitches. They would lose benefits because
workers couldn't confirm eligibility, she added.
The enrollees "were doing their part, but the system just failed,"
Garcia said.
Arkansas Department of Human Services spokesperson Gavin Lesnick
said: "With any large-scale system implementation, there
occasionally are issues that need to be addressed. We have worked
alongside our vendor to minimize these issues and to correct any
problems."
Deloitte declined to comment.
‘Heated' negotiations
In late 2020, Colorado officials were bracing for the inevitable
unwinding of pandemic-era Medicaid protections.
Colorado was three years into what is now a $354.4 million contract
with Deloitte to operate its eligibility system. A
state-commissioned audit that September had uncovered widespread
problems, and Kim Bimestefer, the state's top Medicaid official,
was in "heated" negotiations with the company.
The audit found 67% of the system notices it sampled contained
errors. Notices are federally required to safeguard against
eligible people being disenrolled, said MaryBeth Musumeci, an
associate teaching professor in public health at George Washington
University.
"This is, for many people, what's keeping them from being
uninsured," Musumeci said.
The Colorado audit found many enrollee notices contained inaccurate
response deadlines. One dated Dec. 19, 2019, requested a
beneficiary return information by Sept. 27, 2011 -- more than eight
years earlier.
"We're in intense negotiations with our vendor because we can't
turn around to the General Assembly and say, ‘Can I get money to
fix this?'" Bimestefer told lawmakers during the 2020 legislative
audit hearing. "I have to hold the vendor accountable for the tens
of millions we've been paying them over the years, and we still
have a system like this."
She said officials had increased oversight of Deloitte. Also,
dozens of initiatives were created to "improve eligibility accuracy
and correspondence," and the state renegotiated Deloitte's
contract, said Marc Williams, a state Medicaid agency spokesperson.
A contract amendment shows Deloitte credited Colorado with $5
million to offset payments for additional work.
But Deloitte's performance appeared to get worse. A 2023 state
audit found problems in 90% of sampled enrollee notices. Some were
violations of state Medicaid rules.
The audit blamed "flaws in system design" for populating notices
with incorrect dates.
In September, Danae Davison received a confusing notice at her
Arvada home stating that her daughter did not qualify for
coverage.
Lydia, 11, who uses a wheelchair and is learning to communicate via
a computer, has a seizure disorder that qualifies her for a
Medicaid benefit for those with disabilities. The denial threatened
access to nursing care, which enables her to live at home instead
of in a facility. Nothing had changed with Lydia's condition,
Davison said.
"She so clearly has the need," Davison said. "This is a system
problem."
Davison appealed. In October, a judge ruled that Lydia qualified
for coverage.
The notice generated by the Deloitte-operated system was deemed
"legally insufficient" because it omitted the date Lydia's coverage
would end. Her case highlights a known eligibility system problem:
Beneficiary notices contain "non-compliant or inconsistent dates"
and are "missing required elements and information," according to
the 2023 audit.
Deloitte declined to comment on Colorado. Speaking broadly, Smith
said, "Incorrect information can come in a lot of forms."
Last spring in Pennsylvania, Deloitte's eligibility role expanded
to include the Children's Health Insurance Program and 126,000
enrollees.
Pennsylvania's Department of Human Services said an error occurred
when converting to the state's eligibility system, maintained by
Deloitte through a $541 million contract. DHS triaged the errors,
but, for "a small window of time," some children who still had
coverage "were not able to use it."
These issues affected 9,269 children last June and 2,422 in
October, DHS said. A temporary solution was implemented in December
and a permanent fix came through in April.
Catanese, the union representative, said it was another in a long
history of problems. Among the most prevalent, he said: The system
freezes for hours. When asked about that, Smith said "it's
hyperbole."
Instead of the efficiency that Deloitte touted, Catanese said, "the
system constantly runs into errors that you have to duct tape and
patchwork around." [GN]
EIS OFFICE: Valencia Seeks Blind Users' Equal Access to Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN VALENCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EIS OFFICE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-04910 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and for
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.zumaoffice.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
EIS Office Solutions, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Kovalczik Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEC DAVID KOVALCZIK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, Case No. 2:24-cv-02479 (W.D.
Tenn., July 5, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to properly
secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII)
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.
According to the complaint, 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, 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:
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
FIVE9 INC: Compels to Produce Subpoena Response Docs in Campbell
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, STEPHAN CAMPBELL, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, v. FIVE9, INC., Case No.
1:24-mc-00334-UNA (D. Del., July 8, 2024), the Plaintiff moves
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d) and (g), for an order
compelling Five9 to produce documents responsive to the subpoena in
connection with Campbell v. Everything Breaks, Inc., Civil Action
No. 2:23-cv-00861, pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada.
The Plaintiff issued a subpoena under Rule 45 asking Five9 to
produce documents related to telemarketing campaigns attempting to
sell car insurance policies benefiting Everything Breaks.
Mr. Campbell received telemarketing calls soliciting the purchase
of car insurance policies in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
Everything Breaks' discovery responses in the Litigation confirm
the calls at issue were placed via Five9. Through the subpoena to
Five9, Mr. Campbell seeks to obtain call detail records to identify
class members and meet his burdens under Fed R. Civ. P. 23 in the
Litigation. In short, the subpoena seeks integral information to
the litigation that the Defendant has claimed it does not have
possession of due to a business dispute between Everything Breaks
and Five9.
The case stems from a class action arising under the TCPA,
Everything Breaks is an auto and home warranty company that placed
numerous calls to Mr. Campbell soliciting him to purchase a vehicle
warranty. At the time of the calls, Mr. Campbell's telephone number
was registered on the National Do-Not-Call registry. In addition,
Mr. Campbell communicated to Everything Breaks that he was not
interested in a vehicle warranty and did not need future calls from
Everything Breaks, but continued to receive calls, nonetheless.
Mr. Campbell seeks to certify two classes, one for Everything
Breaks’ violation of the TCPA’s National Do-Not-Call Registry
provisions, and another for violation of the TCPA's internal
do-not-call rules.
Everything Breaks does not dispute that it called Mr. Campbell but
contends that on June 25, 2022, approximately a year before it
began calling Mr. Campbell, Mr. Campbell consented to receive calls
from Everything Breaks by requesting an insurance quote via the
website www.ottoinsurance.com.
Even if this allegation is true, Everything Break's purported
consent defense fails because the manner in which the alleged
website, www.ottoinsurance.com, attempts to obtain consumer consent
is improper, says the Plaintiff.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James P. Hall, Esq.
PHILLIPS, MCLAUGHLIN & HALL, P.A.
1200 N. Broom Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19806
Telephone: (302) 655-4200
E-mail: jph@pmhdelaw.com
- and -
Max S. Morgan, Esq.
THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
1515 Market Street, #1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 587-6240
E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com
HOME DEPOT: E&G Suit Alleges Unlawful Tool Rental Program
---------------------------------------------------------
E&G ENTERPRISE, INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT USA, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-03020-ELR (N.D. Ga., July 8, 2024) is a nationwide class
action lawsuit by Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of a
putative class persons who rented tools from Home Depot pursuant to
the form 2015 contracts.
According to the complaint, Home Depot collects many millions, if
not billions, of dollars of revenue annually from its rental
program. A portion of that revenue is made through its practices
of:
(i) systematically overcharging customers for late fees they
did not incur; and
(ii) overcharging customers for Damage Protection above and
beyond the contractual price for Damage Protection.
The lawsuit is relevant to two time periods: December 17, 2015
through March 17, 2019; and December 9, 2022 through the present.
The 2015 Contract was a uniform "form" contract that was used at
all Home Depot stores throughout all the 50 states in the United
States from December 17, 2015 through March 17, 2019. This 2015
Contract is a sophisticated financial trap for the ordinary
consumer. Home Depot's corporate policies for employees carrying
out the 2015 Contract terms are carefully designed by the company
to take advantage of unsuspecting consumers, the suit asserts.
Home Depot Inc. is an American multinational home improvement
retail corporation that sells tools, construction products,
appliances, and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley W. Pratt, Esq.
Frank T. Bayuk, Esq.
BAYUK PRATT, LLC
4401 Northside Pkwy, Suite 390
Atlanta, GA 30327
Telephone: (404) 500-2669
E-mail: bradley@bayukpratt.com
- and -
John A. Lockett III, Esq.
Alexander M. Heideman, Esq.
THE LOCKETT LAW FIRM LLC
1397 Carroll Drive
Atlanta, GA 30318
Telephone: (404) 806-7448
E-mail: john@lockettlawfirm.com
- and -
Meredith C. Kincaid, Esq.
CROSS KINCAID LLC
Meredith C. Kincaid
315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave, Suite 715
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (404) 948-3022
E-mail: meredith@crosskincaid.com
INGO MONEY: Fails to Protect Customers' Private Info, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIE CORONA-CANTU, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. INGO MONEY, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03023-MHC (N.D. Ga.,
July 8, 2024) is a class action against Ingo Money for its failure
to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly
situated Ingo Money customers' names, Social Security numbers,
financial account information, driver's license numbers, and
addresses (the "Private Information") from hackers.
On or about June 27, 2024, Ingo Money filed official notice of a
hacking incident with the Attorney General of the State of Texas.
On or about June 25, 2024, Ingo Money also sent out data breach
letters to individuals whose information was compromised as a
result of the hacking incident.
Based on the Notice filed by the company, on Nov. 3, 2023, Ingo
Money detected unusual activity on some of its computer systems. In
response, the company initiated an investigation. The Ingo Money
investigation revealed that an unauthorized party had access to
certain company files sometime in the weeks before (the "Data
Breach"). Yet, Ingo Money waited seven months to notify the public
that they were at risk, the lawsuit says.
As a result of this delayed response, the Plaintiff and "Class
Members" had no idea for seven months that their Private
Information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue
to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other
forms of personal, social, and financial harm, the lawsuit adds.
The Plaintiff is an individual citizen of the State of California.
Ingo is a deposit risk management analytics and underwriting
company incorporated in Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MaryBeth V. Gibson. Esq.
GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108
Atlanta, GA 30342
Telephone: (678) 642-2503
E-mail: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com
- and -
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com
LEFEVER MATTSON: Faces Claridge Suit Over Investment Fraud Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD ALLEN CLARIDGE, individual and trustee of the Joint
Revocable Trust of Richard Allen Claridge Jr. & Capri Lynn Winser,
et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. TIMOTHY J. LEFEVER, an individual, et al., Case No.
3:24-cv-04093-SK (N.D. Cal., July 8, 2024) is brought as a class
action on behalf of the Class and Elder Subclass, in order to
preserve, protect from dissipation and misappropriation, recover,
and transparently and equitably distribute all Class members'
investments.
All Class and Subclass members made investments and reinvestments,
throughout the Class Period, in what were promoted, represented,
and sold to them by Defendants as percentage interests in specific
and separate limited partnerships and other investment vehicles in
real property assets. Accordingly, the case represents one of the
largest investment fraud cases of many elderly people and seeks
relief for hundreds of investors, many of whom entrusted their
life's savings, in the massive investment fraud perpetrated and
enabled by Defendants.
The Plaintiffs' investments now appear not to have been invested or
managed as Defendants represented. Instead, Plaintiffs' investments
now appear, as described in recent revelations, to have been
commingled, used to purchase unidentified properties, sold without
distribution to investors, and otherwise diverted and misused in an
investment scheme controlled and run by Defendants.
Specifically, the Defendants made the following representations to
Plaintiffs, the Class, and the Subclass to induce them to invest:
first, that money invested with Defendants would be applied to
acquisition of a specific real property owned by the partnership;
second, that the partnership would maintain a separate bank account
in the name of the partnership into which the proceeds would be
deposited; and third, that payments to investors would come from
the partnership's proceeds through the management and sale of those
properties, says the suit.
Further, the suit asserts that the investment scheme used a
uniform, defining feature that encouraged investors to make
additional investments and recommend that others do so: the regular
and consistent payments of interest on investments, as well as the
promise of increase in the value of the underlying real property
assets over time. These consistent payments sustained the
Investment.
The Plaintiffs include CAPRI LYNN WINSER; individual and trustee of
the Joint Revocable Trust of Richard Allen Claridge Jr. & Capri
Lynn Winser; TODD MICHERO, an individual; LORI MICHERO, an
individual; BROOKE SAMPLE, individual and trustee of the First
Amendment to the Brooke Sample Separate Property Trust; SCOTT A.
WALKER, individual and trustee of The Walker Family Living Trust;
and ELIZABETH L. WALKER, individual and trustee of The Walker
Family Living Trust.
The Defendants include KENNETH W. MATTSON, an individual; LEFEVER
MATTSON, INC., a corporation; KS MATTSON PARTNERS, LP, a limited
partnership; LEFEVER MATTSON I, LLC, a limited liability company;
HOME TAX SERVICE OF AMERICA, INC. (d/b/a LEFEVER MATTSON PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT), a corporation; DIVI DIVI TREE, LP, a limited
partnership; and SPECIALTY PROPERTIES PARTNERS, LP, a limited
partnership.
LEFEVER MATTSON, INC. is a full service real estate management and
maintenance company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
Blair V. Kittle, Esq.
Vasti S. Montiel, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
San Francisco Airport Office Center
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
bkittle@cpmlegal.com
vmontiel@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
Katherine Lubin Benson, Esq.
Michael K. Sheen, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
rheimann@lchb.com
kbenson@lchb.com
msheen@lchb.com
- and -
David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
Frederick Schenk, Esq.
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
Jeremy K. Robinson, Esq.
P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
Michael J. Benke, Esq.
CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA
BLATT & PENFIELD LLP
110 Laurel St.
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1811
Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
fschenk@cglaw.com
gmb@cglaw.com
jrobinson@cglaw.com
camille@cglaw.com
mbenke@cglaw.com
MCLAREN GREATER: Walkington Seeks Unpaid Wages for Hospital Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MCKENZIE WALKINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MCLAREN GREATER LANSING and
MCLAREN HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-11682-MFL-KGA (E.D. Mich., June 28, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Ms. Walkington has worked for the Defendants since approximately
March 2020 and as an emergency room technician at McLaren's Greater
Lansing facility from approximately January 2024 through the
present.
McLaren Greater Lansing is a healthcare services provider in
Lansing, Michigan.
McLaren Health Care Corporation is a healthcare services provider
headquartered in Grand Blanc, Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
FAGAN MCMANUS, PC
25892 Woodward Avenue
Royal Oak, MI 48067
Telephone: (248) 542-6300
Email: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Olivia R. Beale, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
obeale@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
MICHAELS MANAGEMENT: Faces Damare Fraud Suit Over Lease Agreements
------------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE DAMARE, and on behalf of those similarly situated, v.
MICHAELS MANAGEMENT AFFORDABLE, LLC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00554 (N.D.
Ind., July 8, 2024) is class action fraud complaint pursuant to
Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
According to the complaint, the class members entered into one or
more contract(s) for living space at LaSalle Apartments to which
those lease agreements included a parking space. Pursuant to those
lease agreements, LaSalle and Michael's Management made a material
misrepresentation of fact based on the ability to park, this
misrepresentation was false and carried out with the requisite
knowledge that the misrepresentation was false. The
misrepresentation was relied upon by the class members and
proximately caused their harm and damage. The class members have
been irreparably harmed by the fraudulent actions of LaSalle and
Michael's Management pursuant to the deceptive and fraudulent
leases each class member contractually entered into. LaSalle and
Michael's Management have failed to meet their contractual
obligations as it pertains to promising parking spaces for each
member of the class pursuant to the lease agreements, says the
suit.
Leslie is a resident of the LaSalle Apartments and is the named
class representative. All other class members were residents of the
State of Indiana, residing in St. Joseph County, Indiana.
Michael's is the management company responsible for the LaSalle
Apartments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Granfeldt, Esq.
Scott Seville, Esq.
ROBBINS AND SEVILLE, LLC
Main St.
Crown Point, IN 46307
Telephone: (219) 333-2375
E-mail: scott.granfeldt@roseattorneys.com
scott.seville@roseattorneys.com
NIKE INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs
investors that the firm has filed a securities fraud class action
lawsuit against NIKE, Inc. (NYSE:NKE) ("NIKE" or the "Company") on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired NIKE Class B common
stock between March 19, 2021, and March 21, 2024, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). This action, captioned City Pension Fund for
Firefighters and Police Officers in the City of Pembroke Pines v.
NIKE, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00974-AN was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Oregon and the
case is assigned to the Honorable Adrienne Camille Nelson.
Important Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired NIKE Class B common stock during the Class Period may, no
later than August 19, 2024, move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class.
If you suffered NIKE losses, you may CLICK HERE or go to:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/nike-inc?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=nke&mktm=r
You can also contact attorney Jonathan Naji, Esq. of Kessler Topaz
by calling (484) 270-1453 or by email at info@ktmc.com.
DEFENDANTS' MISCONDUCT
The Class Period begins on March 19, 2021, in connection with
NIKE's announcement of its financial results for the third quarter
of fiscal year 2021, and related investor earnings call. In
connection with these results, Defendant John J. Donahoe II (the
Company's President and Chief Executive Officer) touted that "NIKE
continues to deeply connect with consumers all over the world
driven by our strong competitive advantages" and that "[o]ur
strategy is working, as we accelerate innovation and create the
seamless, premium marketplace of the future." Defendant Matthew
Friend (the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer) similarly assured investors that "NIKE's brand momentum is
as strong as ever and we are driving focused growth against our
largest opportunities." On the related investor earnings call,
Defendant Donahoe emphasized NIKE's "tremendous success in digital"
and that "NIKE's digital transformation remains a unique
advantage."
Investors began to learn the truth about NIKE's inability to
generate sustainable revenue growth on June 27, 2022, when the
Company announced its fourth quarter and full year 2022 financial
results after market close. NIKE announced that quarterly revenues
declined 1% year-over-year and quarterly wholesale revenues
declined 7% year-over-year. However, Defendant Donahoe reassured
investors that NIKE's "strategy is working" by creating value
through its "competitive advantages, including [its] pipeline of
innovative product[s] and expanding digital leadership." He further
asserted that NIKE's investments in digital and other areas
prompted Defendants to be "very confident in our long-term strategy
and our growth outlook." On this news, the price of NIKE Class B
common stock declined $7.72 per share, or nearly 7%, from a close
of $110.50 per share on June 27, 2022, to close at $102.78 per
share on June 28, 2022.
Three months later, on September 29, 2022, investors learned more
when NIKE reported its first quarter fiscal year 2023 financial
earnings after market close. In spite of modest revenue growth,
NIKE reported that its net income declined 22% year-over-year and
that diluted earnings per share similarly declined 20%
year-over-year. NIKE also reported a significant reduction in gross
margin (down 220 basis points year-over-year) driven by the
disposal of excess inventory-which was 44% higher than in the first
quarter of 2022. On this news, the price of NIKE Class B common
stock declined $12.21 per share, or nearly 13%, from a close of
$95.33 per share on September 29, 2022, to close at $83.12 per
share on September 30, 2022.
Notwithstanding the Company's struggles with NIKE Direct and its
direct-to-consumer strategy, Defendants continued to tout the
purported strength of NIKE's business model over the next year,
telling investors that NIKE's "competitive advantages continue to
fuel our momentum" and that NIKE is primed to "leverage our
competitive advantages to not only gain share but also grow the
market."
On December 21, 2023, however, investors learned more about the
competitive pressures facing NIKE when the Company issued its
second quarter fiscal year 2024 financial results and held its
related investor earnings call after market close. Defendant Friend
admitted that NIKE's "total retail sales across the marketplace
fell short of our expectations," and that NIKE's digital platforms
lost consumer traffic to competitors because of "higher promotional
activity across the marketplace." Given these challenges, Defendant
Friend revealed that NIKE was "adjusting [its] channel growth plans
for the remainder of the year" and "identifying opportunities
across the company to deliver up to $2 billion in cumulative cost
savings over the next 3 years." On this news, the price of NIKE
Class B common stock declined $14.49 per share, or nearly 12%, from
a close of $122.53 per share on December 21, 2023, to close at
$108.04 per share on December 22, 2023.
Finally, on March 21, 2024, NIKE announced its third quarter fiscal
year 2024 financial results after market close, revealing a 3%
year-over-year decline in revenue in its Europe, Middle East, and
Africa segment, a 3% year-over-year decline in NIKE Digital
revenue, and scant quarterly revenue growth of approximately 0.4%
year-over-year in NIKE Direct. On the related investor earnings
call held that same day, Defendant Donahoe admitted that "NIKE is
not performing [to its] potential" even though moments earlier he
claimed that "Q3 performed in line with our expectations."
Moreover, Defendant Donahoe revealed the Company's decision to
reduce reliance on its direct-to-consumer strategy and "lean in
with our wholesale partners to elevate our brand and grow the total
marketplace." According to Defendant Donahoe, NIKE made a
"reinvestment with our wholesale partners, so we bring a more
holistic offense that grows the market and gets in the path of our
consumer." Furthermore, Defendant Friend revealed that NIKE was
"prudently planning for revenue in the first half of the fiscal
year [2025] to be down low single digits" as Defendants "shift our
product portfolio toward newness and innovation." On this news, the
price of NIKE Class B common stock declined $6.96 per share, or
nearly 7%, from a close of $100.82 per share on March 21, 2024, to
close at $93.86 per share on March 22, 2024.
WHAT CAN I DO?
NIKEinvestors may, no later than August 19, 2024, move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff for the class, through Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLPor other counsel, or may choose to do nothing
and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP encourages NIKE investors who have suffered significant losses
to contact the firm directly to acquire more information.
WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?
A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries.
For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
please visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
Jonathan Naji, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(484) 270-1453
info@ktmc.com [GN]
PAGE COUNTY, VA: Faces Whitfield Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
MADISON WHITFIELD, MORGAN COFFMAN, ANGELA WAMPLER, ALLISHA
SHIFFLETT, NATHAN STILLMAN, MICHAEL SELBY, MAEGHAN KISLING, DALE
HOUSDEN, TERRY CHAPMAN, DEREK FRANKS, JAEGER SCHUTT, and BRANDON
REIFSNYDER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. PAGE COUNTY FIRE & EMS, COUNTY OF PAGE,
VIRGINIA, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00048-EKD-JCH (W.D. Va., June
30, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to
pay its employees for all hours worked, including overtime, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Overtime
Wage Act, and the Virginia Wage Payment Act.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as emergency medical
technicians at any time between 2010 and 2024.
Page County Fire & EMS is a provider of emergency and rescue
services in Page County, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua Erlich, Esq.
Katherine L. Herrmann, Esq.
THE ERLICH LAW OFFICE, PLLC
1550 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700
Arlington, VA 22209
Telephone: (703) 791-9087
Facsimile: (703) 722-8114
Email: jerlich@erlichlawoffice.com
kherrmann@erlichlawoffice.com
- and -
Zev Antell, Esq.
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
BUTLERCURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
Email: zev@butlercurwood.com
craig@butlercurwood.com
PETAL & PUP: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Agostini Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
LUNIQUE AGOSTINI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Petal & Pup USA, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-05019
(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 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.
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.
Because Defendant's website, Petalandpup.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 Petal & Pup USA's policies, practices, and procedures to 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, says the suit.
Petalandpup.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Petal & Pup
USA.[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
SEBASTIAN'S PIZZERIA: Veleva Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Servers
----------------------------------------------------------------
VALENTINA VELEVA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEBASTIAN'S PIZZERIA INC. d/b/a
LAZZARA'S PIZZA, SEBASTIAN LAZZARA, and TONY LAZZARA, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-04930 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including illegal deductions from
gratuities, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
spread-of-hours, and failure to provide wage notice.
Ms. Veleva was employed by the Defendants as a server from January
2024 to June 2024.
Sebastian's Pizzeria Inc., doing business as Lazzara's Pizza, is a
restaurant owner and operator located in Manhattan, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 688-5640
Facsimile: (212) 981-9587
SPAULDING PARTNERS: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Brito Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO v. SPAULDING PARTNERS LLC and SABOR BORINQUENO INC
d/b/a MOFONGO'S RESTAURANT, Case No. 1:24-cv-22574 (S.D. Fla., July
8, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired
individuals, seeking for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA").
According to the complaint, the Defendants have discriminated
against the Plaintiff by denying him access to full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages and/or accommodations of their places of public
accommodation or commercial restaurant facility, in violation of 42
U.S.C. section 12181 et seq. and 28 CFR 36.302 et seq.
The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and
pursuant to the ADA. Mr. Brito is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his
T-6 vertebrae down) and is therefore substantially limited in major
life activities due to his impairment, including, but not limited
to, not being able to walk or stand. The Plaintiff requires the
use of a wheelchair to ambulate.
The subject commercial property and restaurant is open to the
public and is located in Miami, Florida. The individual Plaintiff
visits the commercial property and restaurant, to include visits to
the commercial property and business located within the commercial
property on May 17th, 2024, and encountered multiple violations of
the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the
commercial property.
The complaint further asserts that the Plaintiff often visits the
commercial property and restaurant business in order to avail
himself of the goods and services offered there, and because it is
approximately 19 miles from his residence and is near other
business and restaurant he frequents as a patron. He plans to
return to the commercial property within two months from the date
of the filing of this Complaint.
The Defendant owned and operated a commercial restaurant located at
1644 SW 8th Street Miami, Florida and conducted a substantial
amount of business in that place of public accommodation in
Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Telephone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Primary E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
Secondary E-Mail: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
SPROUT SOCIAL: Faces Hollywood Police Suit Over Stock Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF HOLLYWOOD POLICE OFFICERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPROUT SOCIAL,
INC., JUSTYN HOWARD, RYAN BARRETTO, and JOE DEL PRETO, Case No.
1:24-cv-05582 (N.D. Ill., July 2, 2024) is a federal securities
class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Sprout Social securities between Nov. 3, 2021
and May 2, 2024, against Sprout Social and certain of its officers
and executives, seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Leading up to the Class Period, Sprout Social began to change its
business mix, targeting larger customers for annual contracts. For
example, on May 5, 2021, the Company noted the shift to a "50-50
split between month-to-month and annual contracts," with the
Defendants expecting to "see that widening over the longer term."
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants touted "continued
momentum in the mid-market and enterprise and our ability to kind
of go upmarket," as it transitioned to larger customers that would
sign annual contracts. Then, after the close of the markets on May
2, 2024, the truth was fully revealed when Sprout Social issued a
press release announcing a $20 million downward revision to the
Company's revenue guidance for the year. The press release noted
that the Company had endured "self-induced sales execution
headwinds," says the suit.
On this news, the price of Sprout Social stock plunged 40.1% --
from a closing price of $48.15 per share on May 2, 2024, to a
closing price of $28.82 per share on May 3, 2024 -- wiping out a
substantial amount of shareholder value.
Based in Chicago, Illinois, Sprout Social is a software company
that offers a centralized platform for businesses to manage social
media marketing and operations. The Company generates revenue
primarily from subscriptions to its social media management
platform under a software-as-a-service model. When Sprout Social
became a public company in 2019, 60% of its business consisted of
smaller customers on month-to-month contracts, while a smaller
portion of its business mix consisted of mid-market or enterprise
customers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 629-3737
Facsimile: (312) 357-0369
E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Rachel A. Avan, Esq.
Marco A. Duenas, Esq.
Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33434
Telephone: (561) 394-3399
Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
E-mail: lhooker@saxenawhite.com
ravan@saxenawhite.com
mduenas@saxenawhite.com
- and -
Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN
& LEVINSON
7080 NW 4th Street
Plantation, FL 33317
Telephone: (954) 916-1202
Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com
THINKWRITE TECHNOLOGIES: Blind Can't Access Website, Agostini Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LUNIQUE AGOSTINI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THINKWRITE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-04925 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York State Civil Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law,
and for declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.twtaudio.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading
hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing
of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive
elements, repetitive of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible
drop-down menus, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields,
redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address,
and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a
mouse, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
ThinkWrite Technologies, LLC is a company that sells online goods
and services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, PC
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: glevyfirm@gmail.com
UNITED STATES: Prelim. Injunction Order in Tennessee Suit Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL CARDONA, in his official capacity as Secretary of Education,
et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit State
of Tennessee, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Miguel Cardona, in his official
capacity as Secretary of Education, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-00072, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Kentucky.
The case concerns an attempt by the Defendants to dramatically
alter the purpose and meaning of Title IX through rulemaking. The
Plaintiffs argue that the new rule contravenes the plain text of
Title IX by redefining "sex" to include gender identity, violates
government employees' First Amendment rights, and is the result of
arbitrary and capricious rulemaking.
On May 3, 2024, and May 16, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed motions for
preliminary injunction, which the Court granted through an Order
entered by Judge Danny C. Reeves on June 17, 2024. The U.S.
Department of Education and Secretary Miguel Cardona were enjoined
and restrained from implementing, enacting, enforcing, or taking
any action to enforce the Final Rule, Nondiscrimination on the
Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal
Financial Assistance, which is scheduled to take effect on Aug. 1,
2024. This injunction is limited to the Plaintiff-States of
Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia and
extends to intervening Plaintiffs Christian Educators and A.C. in
these six states.
The appellate case is captioned Tennessee, et al. v. Miguel
Cardona, et al., Case No. 24-5588, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit, filed on June 26, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Whitney D. Hermandorfer, Esq.
Virginia Adamson, Esq.
Steven James Griffin, Esq.
James Matthew Rice, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
P.O. Box 20207
Nashville, TN 37202
Telephone: (615) 741-7403
(615) 741-3491
(615) 741-9598
(615) 532-6026
- and –
Brian Daniel Mounce, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
500 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 741-1400
- and –
Matthew Franklin Kuhn, Esq.
Lindsey Keiser, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
700 Capital Avenue, Suite 118
Frankfort, KY 40601
Telephone: (502) 696-5300
- and –
Charles P. Wisdom, Jr., Esq.
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY
260 W. Vine Street, Suite 300
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (859) 233-2661
- and –
Thomas Elliot Gaiser, Esq.
Mathura Jaya Sridharan, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
30 E. Broad Street, 17th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (440) 821-6380
- and –
James A. Barta, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
302 Washington Street
Indiana Government Center South 5th Floor
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 232-6231
- and –
Kevin Michael Gallagher, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
202 N. Ninth Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 786-7773
- and –
Michael Ray Williams, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
1900 Kanawha Boulevard, E.
Building 1, Room 26E
Charleston, WV 25305
Telephone: (304) 558-2021
- and –
John J. Bursch, Esq.
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM
440 First Street, N.W., Suite 600
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 393-8690
- and –
Edward L. Metzger, III, Esq.
OMEGA LAW
P.O. Box 559
Union, KY 41091
Telephone: (859) 898-2140
- and –
Jonathan Andrew Scruggs, Esq.
Jacob P. Warner, Esq.
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM
15100 N. 90th Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Telephone: (480) 444-0020
Defendants-Appellants U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al. are
represented by:
Steven A. Myers, Esq.
Melissa N. Patterson, Esq.
Jack Starcher, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 7232
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 305-8648
(202) 514-1201
(202) 553-8877
- and –
Pardis Gheibi, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1100 L Street, N.W., Suite 10144
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 305-3246
USHG LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Hernandez Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. USHG, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04605
(E.D.N.Y., June 28, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant
for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the New York City Human Rights Law, and for declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.themodernnyc.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
USHG, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing
business in New York. [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
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
VEGAN GRILL: Layne Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DALE LAYNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. VEGAN GRILL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04602
(E.D.N.Y., June 28, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant
for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the New York City Human Rights Law, and for declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.vegangrillnyc.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Vegan Grill, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [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
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
WORKS BARBERSHOP: Faces Colak Suit Over Website's Access Barriers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALI COLAK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. THE WORKS BARBERSHOP CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-04583 (E.D.N.Y., June 28, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and for
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.theworksbarbershop.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
The Works Barbershop Corporation is a company that sells online
goods and services, doing business in New York. [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
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***