/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240814.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, August 14, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 163
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Dixon Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Faces Ellis Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Fedor Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Film-Forming Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Dear Says
3M COMPANY: Lewis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Mitchell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Sayre Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Smedley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
79 BISCAYNE: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Brito Says
ABRAMS-LLEWELLYN II: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property
ACADIAN AMBULANCE: Broussard Files Suit in W.D. Louisiana
ACADIAN AMBULANCE: Stanford Files Suit in W.D. Louisiana
ACCEL SCHOOLS: Hubbard Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
ADMI CORP: Fact Discovery in Hollaway Suit Due July 15, 2025
AFFINITY INSURANCE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 3, 2025
AJ INC: Gaudreau Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Lucas Sues Over Mandarin Oranges' False Ads
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Seal Class Cert Briefing in Simon Denied
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Brown Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
AMAZON STUDIOS: Ferguson Suit Removed to C.D. California
AMAZON.COM INC: Bid to Compel Discovery Granted in Rittmann Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Orders Provisional Sealing of Docs in Brown
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties in Crosby Must Confer Joint Status Report
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties in De Coster Seek to Seal Class Cert Brief
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties in Frame-Wilson Seek to Seal Docs
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Jones Sues Over ADA, Labor Law Breaches
AMAZON.COM: Waithaka Seeks to Certify Flex Delivery Driver Class
ANTOJITOS & NATURAL JUICE: Guerrero Sues Over Unpaid Wages
ANYWHERE REAL: Joint Status Report in Goodwill Suit Due August 23
APL LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE: Ponce Suit Removed to C.D. California
ARAMARK CAMPUS LLC: Dale Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ARCADIA HOME: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Karim Says
ARIRANG HIBACHI: Raheel Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ARISA HEALTH INC: Burgess Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas
ASHLEY MOOS: Claude Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ASR GROUP: Madison Pizza Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
AXON ENTERPRISE: GovernmentGPT Hits Monopoly of Body-worn Cameras
BANK OF AMERICA: Nelson Loses Class Certification Bid
BAY BRIDGE: Class Action Settlement in Phillips Gets Final Nod
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Filing in Cabrera Revised to Dec. 16
BIG INDIE PICTURES: Ferguson Suit Removed to C.D. California
BOND VETERINARY INC: Krause Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
BOYLAND AUTO: Armstrong's Request for Stay Denied
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Parties Must File Joint Report Supplement
BRANCH MESSENGER: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Faulkner Claims
BROWN INTERNATIONAL: Mitschke Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
CABOT OIL: Oct. 3 Settlement Proof of Claim Deadline Set
CAPITALJ INC: Fernandez Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
CASEY'S GENERAL STORES: Schmitz Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Use
CENCORA INC: Fails to Safeguard Clients' Info, Coggins Alleges
CENCORA INC: Lopez Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
CHILDTIME CHILDCARE: Class Discovery in Covington Due Feb 6, 2026
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Gill Sues Over Hidden Service Fees to Customers
CHRISTIES INC: Graifman Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
CLEANCHOICE ENERGY: Appeals Court Ruling in Weinberg Suit
CLIFF HOUSE: Whittaker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
COMPASS MINERALS: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Action
CONCOURSE REHABILITATION: Genova Sues Over Illegal Employment Terms
CORNERSTONE HEALTHCARE: Mireles Sues Over Data Security Failure
CREATIVE IMPORTS: Karim Sues Over Website Inaccessibility
DAINESE USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Murphy Suit Alleges
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Sept. 16 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Norman Appeals Class Cert. Ruling to 4th Circuit
EVOLVE BANK: Dubray Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Vojita Alleges
EXPRESS LLC: Cantwell Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
FAO ROC: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Hernandez Claims
FENIX INTERNET: OnlyFans Subscribers Sue Over Chatter Scams
FINISH LINE: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
FISHERS VENTURE: Lummis Seeks for Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
FIVE BELOW: Faces Himes Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
FRAGRANCEX.COM INC: Danso Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
GENERAL MOTORS: Melberg Sues Over Unlawful Data Collection
GOGO BUS: Davis Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Paratransit Drivers
GOOGLE: Calif. Crane Appeals Denial of Bid to Set Aside Judgment
GORES SPONSOR: Drulias Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duties
GREEN BAY PACKAGING: Craighead Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
GREYHOUND LINES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Eldridge Alleges
GUAVA FAMILY: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Espinal Alleges
GUNNING RIVER: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Property Under ADA
HYPERLITE MOUNTAIN: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says
IMMERSIVELY INC: Calcano Sues Over Website's Accessibility Issues
INDEPENDENT LIVING: Gallagher-Stevens Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
INTERNAL HEALTH: Taylor Class Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
IQVIA INC: Lyngaas Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 3rd Circuit
IRON STEEL MAPESA: Masqui Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage
IVY CITY CO: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Bunting Suit Says
JACKY'S GALAXIE: Fails to Pay Chefs' Minimum, OT Wages, Gao Alleges
JANIE AND JACK: Hernandez Seeks Blind's Access to Online Store
JEFF ZMUDA: Liles Bid for Class Certification Tossed
JOHN BALDWIN: Peters Loses Bid for New Trial
KANSAS CITY LIFE: Seeks to Supplement Opposition to Class Cert Bid
KELLER WILLIAMS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 16
KENVUE INC: Acne Drug Products Contain Benzene, Jones Suit Alleges
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Settles Respironics Class Action for $479M
KONSCIOUS LLC: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Fernandez Claims
L & R DISTRIBUTORS: Evans Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
LAND ROVER: Seeks OK of Summary Judgment Bid vs Dibartolomeo
LENOVO INC: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Oct. 4
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Response
LOVE'S TRAVEL: Jackson Sues Over Sexual Harassment & Unpaid Wages
LOWE'S HOME: Lipari Sues Over Workplace Discrimination, Harassment
LUBBOCK HEART: Class Settlement in Lara Suit Wins Final Nod
MACKRES FAMILY: Maurer Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers
MARY MAHONEY: Faces Class Suit Over Misbranding Seafoods
MDL 3078: Class Cert Filing in Dillon v. GPSI Due Nov. 3, 2025
MDL 3078: Class Cert Filing in Kates v. GPSI Due Nov. 3, 2025
MDL 3078: Class Cert Filing in Moon v. GPSI Due Nov. 3, 2025
MDL 3078: Class Cert Filing in Zukas v. GPSI Due Nov. 3, 2025
MDL 3083: Morris Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Private Info
MISSFRESH LIMITED: $4.9MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 10
MISSISSIPPI: Sterling Appeals Case Dismissal to 5th Cir.
MULTIPLAN INC: ECMC Sues Over Reimbursement Anticompetitive Scheme
NIKE INC: Mehta Alleges Securities Law Violations
NRA GROUP: Mercado Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Dushok Suit Over Compromised Info
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Everett Says
PARAGON 28: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
PNC FINANCIAL: McCauley Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 3rd Cir.
PRIMECARE MEDICAL: Bid for Summary Judgment vs Fleenor Tossed
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Appeals Ruling in Freeman Suit to 4th Cir.
QUALCOMM INC: $75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 27
RITE AID: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Edwards Says
SIMS MUSIC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Walkup Suit Says
STATE FARM: Declines Damaged Vehicle's Insurance Claim, Suit Says
STELLANTIS NV: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
STUDENTUNIVERSE.COM INC: Installs Illegal Software, Haviland Says
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Has Until August 21 to File Reply Brief
T AND DS LUBE: Lyles Seeks to Recover Proper Wages for Pumpers
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Faces Kelley Suit Over Unlawful Profits' Scheme
UNCOMMON GROUNDS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Wahab Says
UNITED AIRLINES: Sambrano Appeals Class Cert. Order to 5th Cir.
UNITED OF OMAHA: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Dobson Says
UNITED STATES: Representatives Sued Over Columbia Encampment
VENTURA FOODS: Underpays Non-Exempt Workers, Kingsley Suit Says
VERA BRADLEY: Discloses Consumers' Info to Signifyd, Filio Alleges
WELLS FARGO: Bujold Alleges Deceptive Business Practices
WHITEFISH, MT: Settles Overcharged Impact Fees Class Action
WHITESTONE HOME: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Cantwell Says
ZHU ENTERPRISES: Faces Danso Suit Over Website's Access Barriers
[*] Pierce Atwood Presents 2024 2nd Quarter Class Action Update
*********
3M COMPANY: Dixon Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Jerome Dixon, et al., and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No.
2:24-cv-00869 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina on Aug. 1, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04242-RMG to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Product Liability.
3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational
conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
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
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregory M. Taube, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
201 17th Street, NW, Suite 1700
Atlanta, GA 30363
Phone: (404) 322-6000
Fax: (404) 322-6050
Email: greg.taube@nelsonmullins.com
3M COMPANY: Faces Ellis Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARVIN ERNEST ELLIS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., et al., Case
No. 2:24-cv-04259-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 1, 2024) is a class action
seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear
(TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would
expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
The Defendants further designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to
the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities
Mr. Ellis is a resident and citizen of Madison County, Tennessee.
He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in
training and to extinguish fires during his military career. He was
diagnosed with Ulcerative Colitis as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants include AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY;
CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA,
INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC INC.; L.N.
CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MDL No. 2873 Master Docket No.: 2:18-mn-2873
Judge Richard M. Gergel Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-04258-RMG Date
Filed 08/01/24 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 46 2 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY
SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET
MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS
LP, as successor-ininterest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES, INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP.
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David L. Selby, II, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
3000 Riverchase Galleria, Suite 905
Birmingham, AL 35244
Telephone: (205) 988-9253
Facsimile: (205) 788-4896
E-mail: dselby@baileyglasser.com
3M COMPANY: Fedor Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Fedor, individually and as personal representative for
Decedent, David Edwin Tipton, and other similarly situated v. 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY
LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION;
SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P. as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L.
GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-04175-RMG (D.S.C., July
26, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting
from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and
firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter who was diagnosed
with Ulcerative Colitis as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
or TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30624
Phone: 404-381-2888
Email: buck@lawrsd.com
3M COMPANY: Film-Forming Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Dear Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ALLEN DEAR v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., et al., Case
No. 2:24-cv-04258-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 1, 2024) is a class action
seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear
(TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would
expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
The Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to
the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities.
Mr. Dear is a resident and citizen of Jefferson Davis Parish,
Louisiana. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his military
career. He was diagnosed with Hypothyroidism and Thyroid Disease as
a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants include AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY;
CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA,
INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC INC.; L.N.
CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MDL No. 2873 Master Docket No.: 2:18-mn-2873
Judge Richard M. Gergel Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-04258-RMG Date
Filed 08/01/24 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 46 2 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY
SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET
MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS
LP, as successor-ininterest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES, INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP.
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David L. Selby, II, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
3000 Riverchase Galleria, Suite 905
Birmingham, AL 35244
Telephone: (205) 988-9253
Facsimile: (205) 788-4896
E-mail: dselby@baileyglasser.com
3M COMPANY: Lewis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daryl Jody Lewis, individually and as personal representative for
Decedent, David Edwin Tipton, and other similarly situated v. 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY
LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION;
SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P. as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L.
GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-04176-RMG (D.S.C., July
26, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting
from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and
firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter who was diagnosed
with Testicular Cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
or TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30624
Phone: 404-381-2888
Email: buck@lawrsd.com
3M COMPANY: Mitchell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Ann Mitchell, individually and as personal representative
for Decedent, David Edwin Tipton, and other similarly situated v.
3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY
LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION;
SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P. as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L.
GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-04177-RMG (D.S.C., July
26, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting
from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and
firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter who was diagnosed
with Kidney Cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or
TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30624
Phone: 404-381-2888
Email: buck@lawrsd.com
3M COMPANY: Sayre Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Byron Sayre, individually and as personal representative for
Decedent, David Edwin Tipton, and other similarly situated v. 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY
LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION;
SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P. as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L.
GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-04247-RMG (D.S.C., Aug.
1, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter
turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS
includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA")
and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter who was diagnosed
with Thyroid Disease as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or
TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30624
Phone: 404-381-2888
Email: buck@lawrsd.com
3M COMPANY: Smedley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Douglas Smedley, individually and as personal representative
for Decedent, David Edwin Tipton, and other similarly situated v.
3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY
LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION;
SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P. as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L.
GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-04169-RMG (D.S.C., July
26, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting
from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and
firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter who was diagnosed
with Ulcerative Colitis as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
or TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30624
Phone: 404-381-2888
Email: buck@lawrsd.com
79 BISCAYNE: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Brito Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 79 BISCAYNE PLAZA LLC; SABOR TROPICAL #4,
INC. d/b/a SABOR TROPICAL SUPERMARKET; and GUARAPO JUICE BAR INC.
d/b/a GUARAPO JUICE BAR & CAFE, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-22889-JEM (S.D. Fla., July 30, 2024) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
commercial properties located at 551 NE 81st Street, Miami,
Florida, 33138, 425 NE 79th Street, Miami, Florida, 33138, and 8011
NE 5th Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33138, are not accessible to
mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA.
79 Biscayne Plaza LLC owned and operated the Commercial Property
that holds itself out to the public as Midpoint Shopping Center.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, Fl 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
amejias@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com
ABRAMS-LLEWELLYN II: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property
----------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals v. ABRAMS-LLEWELLYN II LLC,
Case No. 1:24-cv-22958-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 2, 2024), is brought
for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and
costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a
result of the Defendants' commercial retail plaza (hereinafter the
"Commercial Property") being inaccessible to people who are
disabled.
Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided
commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act.
The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant
lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since
1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who
are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of
Defendants' property and the businesses.
The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property, and the business
located within the Commercial Property and Restaurant Property to
be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered
architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, Restaurant
Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property and
wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property, Restaurant
Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property.
The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, Restaurant
Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property
have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the
Commercial Property, Restaurant Property, and businesses located
within the Commercial Property, and have endangered his safety in
violation of the ADA.
The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located
therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae
down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate.
ABRAMS-LLEWELLYN II LLC, owned a commercial property at 2521 NW
72nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33122.[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
Phone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Primary Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
ACADIAN AMBULANCE: Broussard Files Suit in W.D. Louisiana
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acadian Ambulance
Service Inc. The case is styled as Angela Broussard, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Acadian Ambulance
Service Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-01033 (W.D. La., Aug. 2, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
Acadian Ambulance -- https://acadianambulance.com/ -- is an
employee-owner private ambulance service that covers most of the
state of Louisiana, a large portion of Texas, two counties in
Tennessee, and one county in Mississippi.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Allen Lemmon, Esq.
LEMMON LAW FIRM (NO)
5301 Canal Blvd Ste A
New Orleans, LA 70124
Phone: (985) 783-6789
Email: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com
ACADIAN AMBULANCE: Stanford Files Suit in W.D. Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acadian Ambulance
Service Inc. The case is styled as Dylan Stanford, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Acadian Ambulance
Service Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-01038 (W.D. La., Aug. 2, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Acadian Ambulance -- https://acadianambulance.com/ -- is an
employee-owner private ambulance service that covers most of the
state of Louisiana, a large portion of Texas, two counties in
Tennessee, and one county in Mississippi.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Allen Lemmon, Esq.
LEMMON LAW FIRM (NO)
5301 Canal Blvd Ste A
New Orleans, LA 70124
Phone: (985) 783-6789
Email: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com
ACCEL SCHOOLS: Hubbard Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Raymond Hubbard, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated v. ACCEL SCHOOLS LLC, a foreign
limited liability company doing business as VIRTUAL PREPARATORY
ACADEMY of WASHINGTON; DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington
entities, Case No. 24-2-14258-4 SEA was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King, to
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on July 26, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01127.
The Complaint sets forth one cause of action against Defendant,
premised on Defendant's alleged use of job postings that do not
include the wage scales or salary ranges to be offered to hired
applicants. The Complaint is styled as a class action and asserts
allegations on behalf of a putative class under Washington Civil
Rule 23.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
Paul Cipriani, Esq.
EMERY REDDY, PLLC
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 442-9106
Fax: (206) 441-9711
Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
reddyp@emeryreddy.com
paul@emeryreddy.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Breanne Sheetz Martell, Esq.
Derek A. Bishop, Esq.
Madhura Panjini, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
One Union Square
600 University Street, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101.3122
Phone: 206.623.3300
Facsimile: 206.447.6965
Email: bsmartell@littler.com
debishop@littler.com
mpanjini@littler.com
ADMI CORP: Fact Discovery in Hollaway Suit Due July 15, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE A. HOLLAWAY, v.
ADMI CORP., ET AL., Case No. 2:24-cv-01415-DJC-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures If not already completed, all
parties appearing shall make initial disclosures pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a)(1) no later than
Aug.
2, 2024.
-- All fact discovery shall be completed no later than July
15,2025.
-- Expert Discovery The parties shall disclose initial experts and
produce reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure
26(a)(2) by no later than Aug. 15, 2025.
-- With regard to expert testimony intended solely for rebuttal,
those experts shall be disclosed and reports produced in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) on or
before Oct. 15, 2025. All expert discovery shall be completed
no
later than Nov. 15, 2025.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, including any
expert reports upon which Plaintiff relies in her motion shall
be
filed on or before Aug. 15, 2024, and shall be noticed for
hearing
before Judge Calabretta on Jan. 22, 2026, at 1:30 p.m.
ADMI Corp. operates as a healthcare services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GKhGAk at no extra
charge.[CC]
AFFINITY INSURANCE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 3, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISABEL WILLIAMS, v.
AFFINITY INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No.
4:23-cv-06347-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an
order setting the following case deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10:
Event Deadline
Deadline to add parties or amend the pleadings Oct. 24, 2024
Class certification motion and Plaintiff's class Apr. 3, 2025
certification expert disclosures due
Class certification opposition, Defendants' June 12,
2025
class certification expert disclosures, and
Defendants' Daubert motions due
Class certification expert discovery cut-off July 24, 2025
Class certification reply and Plaintiff's Aug. 7, 2025
Daubert motions due
Counsel may not modify these dates without leave of court. The
parties shall comply with the Court's standing orders, which are
available https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/tigar-jon-s-jst/.
The Court sets a further case management conference on November 1,
2024 at 1:30 p.m. (because more than one conference will be set at
that time, the conference may not begin precisely at 1:30 p.m.).
The conference will proceed by video. The parties must file a joint
case management conference statement by October 25, 2024 at noon.
For that statement only, the parties should disregard the local
rules concerning the content of case management statements.
Affinity Insurance specializes in developing, marketing and
administering customized insurance programs.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tH2e1o at no extra
charge.[CC]
AJ INC: Gaudreau Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW B. GAUDREAU,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AJ,
INC. d/b/a SUSHI O SUSHI, et. al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02202-MDB (D.
Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. Conditionally certifying this case to proceed as a
"collective
action", defining the collective to be noticed as:
"All non-managerial employees paid a salary for work
performed
at Sushi O Sushi at any time between August 28, 2021 and the
present."
2. Approving the Notice and Consent to Join form.
3. Approving distribution of condensed text message notice
stating:
"Sushi O Sushi Overtime Lawsuit: Records show that you were
paid
a salary for work you did at Sushi O Sushi and may be
eligible
to join this lawsuit. Click below for more information" and
shall contain links to electronic versions of the approved
Notice and Consent to Join Form,
and authorizing the collection of electronic signatures.
4. Directing the Defendant to produce to Plaintiff the last
known
postal and email addresses and all phone numbers for all
potential members of the above-defined collective within 14
days
after entry of the Court's Order.
5. Directing the Plaintiff to deliver the Notice and Consent to
Join form to all potential collective action members via
first-
class U.S. Mail, text message and email within 30 days after
the
Court's Order
6. Directing that the putative class members shall have 60 days
from the date the Plaintiff disseminates the Notice in which
to
opt-in to the action.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by paying him and others similarly situated on a
salary basis, which salary the Defendant failed to increase for
payment of required overtime premiums.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8weSQV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew H. Turner, Esq.
MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC
2400 Broadway – Unit B
Boulder, CO 80304
Telephone: (303)-305-8230
E-mail: andrew@milsteinturner.com
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Lucas Sues Over Mandarin Oranges' False Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN LUCAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-04675-JSC
(N.D. Cal., Aug. 1, 2024) is a class action brought by the
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
consumers who purchased Signature Select Sliced Peaches in 100%
Juice-15 Oz ("Sliced Peaches"), Signature Select Fruit Cup Mandarin
Oranges in 100% Fruit Juice – 4-4 Oz ("4-4 Oz. Mandarin Oranges")
and Signature Select Fruit Cup Mandarin Oranges in 100% Fruit Juice
Family Pack - 12-4 Oz ("12-4 Oz Mandarin Oranges").
The Defendant markets the Products as being contained in "100%
fruit juice" and "100% juice." However, the Products contain one or
both of the following synthetic additives: ascorbic acid and citric
acid. In each event, the inclusion of either ascorbic acid and/or
citric acid, two synthetic preservatives, renders Defendant's
front-label claims that the Products are comprised of 100% juice or
100% fruit juice false and misleading, the Plaintiff contends.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings claims against the Defendant for
violations of (1) California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, (2)
California's Unfair Competition Law, (3) Violation of California's
False Advertising Law, and (4) Breach of Express Warranty.
The Plaintiff and the California Subclass seek actual and punitive
damages, restitution, reasonable costs and attorneys' fee, and to
enjoin the unlawful acts and practices pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code
section 1780.
Mr. Lucas purchased Defendant's Mandarin Oranges Product for his
personal use on or about June 2024 from a Safeway store in
Berkeley, California.
Albertsons Companies retails food and drugs products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joshua B. Glatt, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
jglatt@bursor.com
- and -
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
Benjamin Rozenshteyn, Esq.
GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC.
140 Broadway, Suite 4667
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 884-4230
Facsimile: (212) 884-4230
E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com
ben@gr-firm.com
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Seal Class Cert Briefing in Simon Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIMON AND SIMON, PC, et
al., v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 20-cv-03754-VC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order regarding
outstanding sealing motions:
-- Align's requests to seal portions of its briefing and the
record
at the class certification and summary judgement stages of the
Section 2 claims are, again, denied as overbroad.
-- Align may have one more opportunity to narrow its sealing
requests
to truly confidential information and justify the need for
secrecy. But the Court does not anticipate giving Align any
further chances if the next set of filings seeks to seal a
similar
amount of information from the public.
Align Technology is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners
and Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6nI1UI at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Brown Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLIN BROWN suing
individually on his own behalf and representatively on behalf of a
class of plaintiffs similarly situated, v. THE ALLSTATE
CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-05096-KAM-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff, pursuant to the Court's Order of June 12, 2024, and FRCP
23, will move the Court for an order, as follows:
1. certifying a class action defined as:
"All "Eligible Injured Persons," as that term is defined by
11
NYCRR sections65-1.1–65-1.3, covered under a policy of
insurance
issued or administered by The Allstate Corporation, Allstate
Insurance Company, Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance
Company,
Allstate Indemnity Company, Allstate Property & Casualty
Insurance Company, Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company,
Allstate New Jersey Property & Casualty Insurance Company,
Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company, Allstate Vehicle and
Property Insurance Company, Deerbrook Insurance Company,
Encompass Holdings, LLC, Encompass Insurance Company,
Encompass
Indemnity Company, Esurance Insurance Company, Esurance
Property
& Casualty Insurance Company and/or Allstate County Mutual
Insurance Company, all of which are referred to as
"Allstate,"
and subject to the provisions of Insurance Law section5102,
who
earned gross monthly wages in excess of two thousand dollars
per
month at any point during the period in which they were
covered,
who have submitted First Party Benefit claims to, and
received
payment from, Allstate for First Party Benefits that included
claims for lost wages, and which, after paying at least one
month of First Party wage benefits, Allstate claimed full
exhaustion of mandatory $50,000 coverage, whether defined as
Personal Injury Protection (PIP), no-fault coverage, or
Economic
Loss Benefits, on or after March 13, 2013."
Excluded from the Class are the defendant companies; any
entity
that has a controlling interest in the defendant companies;
and
any current or former directors, officers and counsel of the
defendant companies.
2. appointing the Plaintiff as the class representative, and the
undersigned as class counsel.
3. directing the parties to submit to the Court proposed forms
and
schedules for providing notice to the class.
4. establishing a schedule for notice, fact discovery, future
motions practice, and trial.
Allstate engages in the property and casualty insurance business
and the sale of life, accident, and health insurance products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 29, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dmxDTI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin P. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
Dirk Marschhausen, Esq.
MARSCHHAUSEN & FITZPATRICK, P.C.
73 Heitz Place
Hicksville, NY 11801
Telephone: (516) 747-8000
E-mail: kfitzpatrick@marschfitz.com
- and -
John K. Weston, Esq.
SACKS WESTON LLC
55th Floor - 1 Liberty Place
1650 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 925-8200
E-mail: jweston@sackslaw.com
AMAZON STUDIOS: Ferguson Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as David Ferguson, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated v. AMAZON STUDIOS, LLC, a
California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive Case No. 24STCV11571 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on July 31, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-06480.
The Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges the
following causes of action against Defendant: Failure to Pay All
Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to
Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay Final
Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage
Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Camilo Echavarria, Esq.
Stephen Franz, Esq.
Frances J. Choi, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
Phone: (213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
Email: camiloechavarria@dwt.com
stephenfranz@dwt.com
franceschoi@dwt.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Bid to Compel Discovery Granted in Rittmann Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADEAN RITTMANN, et
al., v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01554-JCC (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Coughenour entered an order granting
the Defendants' motion to compel discovery.
The Court has described the relevant background of this case
previously, and will not repeat that information here.
The Plaintiffs' counsel declined those requests, asserting that
production from opt-in Plaintiffs, of any kind, is not appropriate
until such time as the Court conditionally certifies a class and
allows for notice and a formal opt-in process, as provided by the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants disagree, noting that the discovery they seek is
necessary and relevant to challenge a motion for conditional
certification.
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FsgEll at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Orders Provisional Sealing of Docs in Brown
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BROWN, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:22-cv-00965-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an
order regarding sealing of class certification briefing.
Accordingly, in order to ensure that such materials are treated
appropriately under the applicable protective order, and to reduce
burdens on the Court, the Parties, and non-Parties, pursuant to LCR
7(2)(1) and 10(g), the Parties and their respective counsel
stipulate and agree to the following procedure for filing and
sealing in connection with the class certification briefing,
subject to the Court's approval.
Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(2), each Party will provisionally file under
seal its class certification briefs (including any opening,
response, and reply briefs), expert declarations or reports,
exhibits, and all other evidence and declarations on which that
Party relies (collectively, "Class Certification Papers") which
contain material designated Confidential or Highly
Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only by any Party or Non-Party.
Within four weeks of the filing of the Plaintiffs' Reply brief,
pursuant to LCR 5(g), the Parties, and any necessary Non-Parties,
will meet and confer and, as appropriate, file (1) public versions
of their Class Certification Papers, with necessary redactions, and
(2) corresponding motion(s) to seal pursuant to LCR 5(g)3. The
schedule for filing any such public versions of the Parties' Class
Certification Papers and corresponding motion(s) to seal shall be
as follows:
De Coster Frame-Wilson Brown
Reply in support Jan. 24, 2025 May 23, 2025 Sept. 16,
2025
of Motion to
Certify class
Filing of public Feb. 21, 2025 June 20, 2025 Oct. 14,
2025
versions of Class
Certification
Papers and
Corresponding
Motions to Seal
The Party or Non-Party seeking to maintain material under seal (or
under redaction) shall be the movant for purposes of any such
motion(s) to seal associated with the Parties’ class
certification briefing.
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lzG2hZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
Shane Kelly, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com
shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Martha L. Goodman, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
mgoodman@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties in Crosby Must Confer Joint Status Report
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRAIG CROSBY and
CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01083-JCC (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Coughenour entered an order directing
the Parties, within the next 30 days, to meet and confer and
provide the Court with a joint status report.
It should include the status of jurisdictional discovery and a
proposed revised case management schedule for this matter, through
class certification, the Court says.
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pKpvnX at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties in De Coster Seek to Seal Class Cert Brief
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH DE COSTER, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:21-cv-00693-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order sealing of class certification briefing.
Accordingly, in order to ensure that such materials are treated
appropriately under the applicable protective order, and to reduce
burdens on the Court, the Parties, and non-Parties, pursuant to LCR
7(2)(1) and 10(g), the Parties and their respective counsel
stipulate and agree to the following procedure for filing and
sealing in connection with the class certification briefing,
subject to the Court's approval.
Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(2), each Party will provisionally file under
seal its class certification briefs (including any opening,
response, and reply briefs), expert declarations or reports,
exhibits, and all other evidence and declarations on which that
Party relies (collectively, "Class Certification Papers") which
contain material designated Confidential or Highly
Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only by any Party or Non-Party.
Within four weeks of the filing of the Plaintiffs' Reply brief,
pursuant to LCR 5(g), the Parties, and any necessary Non-Parties,
will meet and confer and, as appropriate, file (1) public versions
of their Class Certification Papers, with necessary redactions, and
(2) corresponding motion(s) to seal pursuant to LCR 5(g)3. The
schedule for filing any such public versions of the Parties' Class
Certification Papers and corresponding motion(s) to seal shall be
as follows:
De Coster Frame-Wilson Brown
Reply in support Jan. 24, 2025 May 23, 2025 Sept. 16,
2025
of Motion to
Certify class
Filing of public Feb. 21, 2025 June 20, 2025 Oct. 14,
2025
versions of Class
Certification
Papers and
Corresponding
Motions to Seal
The Party or Non-Party seeking to maintain material under seal (or
under redaction) shall be the movant for purposes of any such
motion(s) to seal associated with the Parties’ class
certification briefing.
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 31, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yyFcoM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
Shane Kelly, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com
shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Martha L. Goodman, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
mgoodman@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties in Frame-Wilson Seek to Seal Docs
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order sealing of class certification briefing.
Accordingly, in order to ensure that such materials are treated
appropriately under the applicable protective order, and to reduce
burdens on the Court, the Parties, and non-Parties, pursuant to LCR
7(2)(1) and 10(g), the Parties and their respective counsel
stipulate and agree to the following procedure for filing and
sealing in connection with the class certification briefing,
subject to the Court's approval.
Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(2), each Party will provisionally file under
seal its class certification briefs (including any opening,
response, and reply briefs), expert declarations or reports,
exhibits, and all other evidence and declarations on which that
Party relies (collectively, "Class Certification Papers") which
contain material designated Confidential or Highly
Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only by any Party or Non-Party.
Within four weeks of the filing of the Plaintiffs' Reply brief,
pursuant to LCR 5(g), the Parties, and any necessary Non-Parties,
will meet and confer and, as appropriate, file (1) public versions
of their Class Certification Papers, with necessary redactions, and
(2) corresponding motion(s) to seal pursuant to LCR 5(g)3. The
schedule for filing any such public versions of the Parties' Class
Certification Papers and corresponding motion(s) to seal shall be
as follows:
De Coster Frame-Wilson Brown
Reply in support Jan. 24, 2025 May 23, 2025 Sept. 16,
2025
of Motion to
Certify class
Filing of public Feb. 21, 2025 June 20, 2025 Oct. 14,
2025
versions of Class
Certification
Papers and
Corresponding
Motions to Seal
The Party or Non-Party seeking to maintain material under seal (or
under redaction) shall be the movant for purposes of any such
motion(s) to seal associated with the Parties’ class
certification briefing.
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 31, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i98rXN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
Shane Kelly, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com
shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Martha L. Goodman, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
mgoodman@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Jones Sues Over ADA, Labor Law Breaches
------------------------------------------------------------
Othea Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Amazon.com Services LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-01806-L (N.D. Tex., July 15, 2024) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Texas Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from October 5, 2023 to
January 14, 2024, when Plaintiff was abruptly terminated because
she had accrued too many absences, particularly in November when
Defendant refused to allow Plaintiff to work. The Plaintiff made
known to Defendant that she was disabled. Despite this, Defendant
did absolutely nothing to ascertain what, if any, reasonable
accommodation Plaintiff needed. The Defendant failed to even
attempt to have a two-way conversation with Plaintiff about
Plaintiff's disability. Moreover, the Defendant's human resource
app routinely denies employees their accommodations and is a per se
failure to engage the interactive process, says the suit.
Headquartered in Seattle, WA, Amazon.com Services LLC provides
e-commerce services, retailing books, diamond jewelry, electronics,
appliances, apparels, and accessories. [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
E-mail: wharman@theharmanfirm.com
erichardson@theharmanfirm.com
AMAZON.COM: Waithaka Seeks to Certify Flex Delivery Driver Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNARD WAITHAKA, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM
INC. and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01320-JCC (W.D.
Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a
class of all Amazon Flex delivery drivers who have worked in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts at any time since Aug. 23, 2014.
Because common issues predominate, class treatment is appropriate.
Finally, this case offers a readily identifiable class of people in
a limited geographical area (Massachusetts), which presents no
unusual management problems. Thus, for all these reasons, the
superiority requirement of Rule 23(b) has been met.
Class treatment is appropriate because adjudication of the putative
class's claims for expense reimbursement under Mass. Gen. L. c. 149
section 148 and minimum wages under Mass. Gen. L. c. 151 §§ 1, 7
turn on the same legal question -- whether Amazon Flex drivers are
independent contractors or employees under Massachusetts law, Mass.
Gen. L. c. 149 section 148B.
This case is brought on behalf of Amazon Flex drivers who have
performed delivery services in Massachusetts for Defendants
Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Logistics, Inc.
The Plaintiff Bernard Waithaka alleges that he and other Amazon
Flex delivery drivers are employees under Mass. Gen. L. c. 149
section 148B, and not independent contractors as Amazon has
classified them.
As a result of their misclassification, these drivers have been
forced to bear expenses necessary to perform their job and have not
been paid the minimum wage for all hours worked. These drivers also
work beyond their scheduled shift to complete deliveries, without
additional compensation.
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LjX5q4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Jeremy Abay, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
hlichten@llrlaw.com
jabay@llrlaw.com
- and -
Michael C. Subit, Esq.
FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 682-6711
E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com
ANTOJITOS & NATURAL JUICE: Guerrero Sues Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Bella Yris Soto Guerrero, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ANTOJITOS & NATURAL JUICE BAR II LLC,
ANTOJITOS JUICE BAR CORP., and VIVIANA SURIEL, individually, Case
No. 1:24-cv-05774 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2024), is brought as a wage
and hour action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
The Defendant knowingly and willfully violated Plaintiff's rights
by failing to pay lawful minimum wages at rates set forth in the
New York Labor Law. Each Defendant knowingly and willfully violated
Plaintiff's rights by failing to pay overtime compensation at rates
of not less than one and one-half times Plaintiff's regular hourly
rate of pay, for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek. Each Defendant did not provide Plaintiff with a document
or written statement accurately accounting for their actual hours
worked, and setting forth her hourly rate of pay, regular wage,
and/or overtime wages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was ostensibly employed as a counter worker, food
preparer, and cashier.
The Defendants own and operate Antojito's Juice Bar which operates
Restaurants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Oscar Alvarado, Esq.
SACCO & FILLAS LLP
3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor
Astoria, NY 11102
Phone: 718-269-2207
Fax: 718-559-6517
Email: OAlvarado@SaccoFillas.com
ANYWHERE REAL: Joint Status Report in Goodwill Suit Due August 23
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GOODWILL v. ANYWHERE REAL
ESTATE INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00407 (D. Maine., Filed Dec.
21, 2022), the Hon. Judge Lance E. Walker entered an order
-- The parties represented that they needed more time to meet and
confer as to outstanding discovery issues and whether the
Plaintiff intends to pursue class certification.
-- The parties to meet and confer about these issues by Aug. 16,
2024, and then submit a joint status report with proposed
scheduling order deadlines by Aug. 23, 2024.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment.[CC]
APL LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE: Ponce Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Thomas Ponce, Jr. and Maribel Herrera,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APL
LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a Florida
corporation; BARONHR GROUP, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company; CHARTWELL STAFFING SERVICES, INC., a New York Corporation,
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV14365 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on Aug. 1, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-06515.
The Action asserts claims for: Failure to Pay Wages Including
Overtime as Required by Labor Code; Failure to Provide Meal Periods
as Required by Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; Failure to Provide
Rest Periods as Required by Labor Code; Failure to Provide Accurate
Wage Statements Required by Labor Code; Failure to Pay Timely Wages
Required by Labor Code; Failure to Pay Vesting Vacation Pay as
required by Labor Code; Check cashing fees, in violation of Labor
Code; Failure to Accurately Record and Pay Sick Leave as Required
by Labor Code; and Violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jared L. Palmer, Esq.
Carolyn B. Hall, Esq.
Ethan Lai, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-442-4810
Facsimile: 415-442-4870
Email: jared.palmer@ogletree.com
carolyn.hall@ogletree.com
ethan.lai@ogletree.com
- and -
Ricardo R. Bours, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Esplanade Center III, Suite 800
2415 East Camelback Road
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: 602-778-3700
Facsimile: 602-778-3750
Email: ricardo.bours@ogletree.com
ARAMARK CAMPUS LLC: Dale Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aramark Campus, LLC.
The case is styled as Julia Dale, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Aramark Campus, LLC, Case No.
24CV085374 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 30, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Aramark -- https://www.aramark.com/ -- provides food service,
facilities and uniform services to hospitals, universities, school
districts, stadiums and other businesses around the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92318
Phone: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6676
Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
ARCADIA HOME: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Karim Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Arcadia Home Design, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-05707 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2024) is a civil rights
action against Arcadia Home Design for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website,
https://www.arcadiahomeinc.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Plaintiff Karim has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase
on Arcadiahomeinc.com. Firstly, she tried to purchase a pillow on
February 25, 2024, and then she tried again on February 26, 2024.
All these times she was unable to complete the purchase
independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant's
website. These access barriers have caused Arcadiahomeinc.com to be
inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and
visually-impaired persons.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Arcadia Home Design's policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Arcadia Home Design, Inc. owns the website that provides consumers
with access to an array of goods and services, including, the
ability to view home and holiday decorations, including pillows,
ornaments, Christmas goods, wall decor, and dog accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
ARIRANG HIBACHI: Raheel Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Aishia Raheel, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. Arirang Hibachi Steak House, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-05400 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 1, 2024), is brought against the
Defendants for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully and equally accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually
impaired people.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services Arirang
Hibachi Steak House provides to their non-disabled customers
through https://www.partyonthegrill.com (hereinafter
"Partyonthegrill.com" or "the website"). Defendant's denial of full
and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its
services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations,
is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (the "ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Partyonthegrill.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 Arirang Hibachi Steak House'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
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
Arirang Hibachi Steak House, Inc., is a New York Corporation doing
business in this State with its principal place of business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr,
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Phone: +1 (718) 501-3122
Email: Cohenhasher@gmail.com
ARISA HEALTH INC: Burgess Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arisa Health, Inc.
The case is styled as Nicholas Burgess, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Arisa Health, Inc., Case No.
5:24-cv-05160-TLB (W.D. Ark., July 31, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Arisa Health -- https://www.arisahealth.org/ -- is Arkansas'
largest non-profit behavioral health services provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Martha Ayres, Esq.
TABLE LAW PLLC
10201 W. Markham St., Suite 311
Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: (501) 491-0300
Email: martha@tablelaw.com
ASHLEY MOOS: Claude Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
Wislande Claude, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ASHLEY MOOS INTERIORS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Case
No. 2:24-cv-08059 (S.D.N.Y., July 26, 2024), is brought against
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website,
www.ahomesummit.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to
blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates
www.ahomesummit.com offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
ASR GROUP: Madison Pizza Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Madison Pizza LLC doing business as: Rosati's of
Madison (East), RRG Scottsdale Pizza LLC, 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. 3:24-cv-00257 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 31,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02351-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:
Mark A. Solheim, Esq.
LARSON KING, LLP
30 E 7th St. Ste 2800
St Paul, MN 55101-4922
Phone: (651) 312-6500
Fax: (651) 312-6618
Email: msolheim@larsonking.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Andre T. Hanson, Esq.
ALLEN OVERY SHEARMAN STERLING US LLP
300 W. 6th Street, Ste. 2250
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (512) 647-1941
Email: andre.hanson@aoshearman.com
AXON ENTERPRISE: GovernmentGPT Hits Monopoly of Body-worn Cameras
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GOVERNMENTGPT, INC., RAJ ABHYANKER, individually and on behalf of
all other taxpayers similarly situated; and, Municipality and
Police Departments DOES 1-500, Plaintiffs v. AXON ENTERPRISE, INC.,
formerly d/b/a TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC., MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01869-SMB (D. Ariz.,
July 29, 2024) allege that Axon and Microsoft engaged in a series
of anticompetitive, monopolistic, and deceptive practices in the
market for body-worn cameras and digital evidence management
systems used by law enforcement agencies across the United States.
This class action litigation addresses the monopolistic practices
and privacy violations by the Defendants resulting in inflated
costs for municipalities and police departments, which have
subsequently been passed on to taxpayers in the form of higher
income, sales and/or property taxes. Additionally, Axon's failure
to disclose the presence of Quectel chips in its Axon Body 4
cameras poses significant national security risks due to potential
ties to the Chinese government.
The Plaintiffs file this suit to restore fair competition in the
market for body-worn cameras and digital evidence management
systems, ensure transparency and accountability, and protect the
economic and security interests of taxpayers and law enforcement
agencies.
Axon Enterprise designs, manufactures, and sells body-worn cameras
and digital evidence management systems under the brand
Evidence.com.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Spencer Keller, Esq.
Raj V. Abhyanker, Esq.
LEGALFORCE RAPC WORLDWIDE, P.C.
1580 W. El Camino Real, Suite 10
Mountain View, CA 94040
Telephone: (650) 965-8731
Facsimile: (650) 989-2131
E-mail: spencer@legalforcelaw.com
raj@legalforcelaw.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Nelson Loses Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY NELSON, et al. v.
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 5:23-cv-00255-JS
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Juan Sanchez entered an order denying
the following motions without prejudice to reassertion in the event
the settlement is not consummated:
-- Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment;
-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification;
-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and
-- Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Remand.
Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MPOpNy at no extra
charge.[CC]
BAY BRIDGE: Class Action Settlement in Phillips Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kurt Phillips, et al., v.
Bay Bridge Administrators, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00022-DAE (W.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge David Alan Ezra entered an order granting
final approval of class action settlement.
-- The Court Awards class counsel $838,963.33 in attorneys' fees
and
reimbursement of expenses of $19,157.68 to be paid according to
the terms of Settlement Agreement.
-- The Court awards the class representatives, Plaintiffs Kurt
Phillips, Michael Manson, Thomas Graham, and Austin Kohl,
$3,000
each to be paid according to the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.
Bay Bridge is a full-service, third party administrator of
fully-insured employee benefit plans.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aeRgZd at no extra
charge.[CC]
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Filing in Cabrera Revised to Dec. 16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMILLE CABRERA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC and BAYER CORPORATION, Case No.
2:17-cv-08525-JAK-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Kronstadt
entered a revised scheduling order as follows:
Current New
Deadline Deadline
Deadline to file Motion for Sept. 16, 2024 Dec. 16,
2024
Class Certification
Deadline to file Opposition to Oct. 15, 2024 Jan. 27,
2025
Motion for Class Certification
Deadline to file Reply in Oct. 28, 2024 Feb. 10,
2025
Support of Motion for Class
Certification
Hearing on Motion for Class Nov. 18, 2024 Feb. 24,
2025
Certification
Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off Mar. 17, 2025 May 19, 2025
Initial Expert Disclosures Mar. 31, 2025 June 2,
2025
Rebuttal Expert Disclosures April 14, 2025 June 16,
2025
Expert Discovery Cut-Off April 14, 2025 June 30,
2025
Last day to file All Motions April 14, 2025 June 30,
2025
(including discovery motions)
Bayer Healthcare discovers and manufactures healthcare and medical
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J35YfF at no extra
charge.[CC]
BIG INDIE PICTURES: Ferguson Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as David Ferguson, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated v. BIG INDIE PICTURES, INC., a
foreign corporation; AMAZON STUDIOS, LLC, a California limited
liability company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV11214
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on July 31, 2024, and assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-06479.
The Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges the
following causes of action against Defendant: Failure to Pay All
Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to
Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay Final
Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage
Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Camilo Echavarria, Esq.
Stephen Franz, Esq.
Frances J. Choi, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
Phone: (213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
Email: camiloechavarria@dwt.com
stephenfranz@dwt.com
franceschoi@dwt.com
BOND VETERINARY INC: Krause Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bond Veterinary, Inc.
The case is styled as Laura Krause, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Bond Veterinary, Inc., Case No.
2484CV01990 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., July 30, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Business Litigation."
Bond Veterinary, Inc. -- https://bondvet.com/ -- offer
compassionate, thorough, & friendly pet care in a warm, comfortable
environment. Walk in or book online.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel D Smith, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, P.C.
867 Boylston St. Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02116
Phone: (617) 377-7404
BOYLAND AUTO: Armstrong's Request for Stay Denied
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM LOUIS ARMSTRONG,
v. BOYLAND AUTO BGMC, LLC, GENERAL MOTORS, KUNES BUICK GMC,
AUTOMOTIVE EXPERTS LLC, NATIONAL BUSINESS BROKERS, DORIAN BOYLAND,
and KAUFMAN DOLOWICH, Case No. 2:24-cv-00765-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the
Hon. Judge J. P. Stadtmueller entered an order that:
-- the Plaintiff William Louis Armstrong's request for a stay, be
and
the same is denied;
-- the Plaintiff William Louis Armstrong's request for appointment
of
"interim counsel," be and the same is denied; and
-- on or before Sept. 13, 2024, the Plaintiff William Louis
Armstrong
shall either (1) file a notice with the Court indicating that
he
intends to proceed on a pro se basis solely on behalf of
himself;
(2) file a notice with the Court indicating that he has
obtained
counsel on his own; or (3) file a renewed motion for
appointment
of counsel, if warranted.
Failure to timely undertake one of these courses of action will
result in dismissal of this case.
Unfortunately, the Court is unable to grant the Plaintiff the
relief he now requests. It cannot stay this case indefinitely until
the Plaintiff is ready to proceed with it. The Plaintiff gives no
indication as to when he expects to be prepared to proceed with the
case. It would not be a wise exercise of the Court's discretion to
grant a stay for which the end point is unclear. Nor can the Court,
at least at this juncture, grant Plaintiff's request that the Court
appoint counsel to represent him and the putative class.
In light of the foregoing, the Plaintiff may choose to pursue one
of several options. First, and as the Court previously noted, he
can choose to continue on a pro se basis solely on behalf of
himself. Second, he can obtain representation on his own and
attempt, through retained counsel, to seek class certification.
Third, he can renew his request for appointment of pro bono
counsel, bearing in mind not only that he must demonstrate that he
meets the standard for such an appointment, but also that the
likelihood of successfully obtaining pro bono counsel is extremely
low.
The Plaintiff has until September 13, 2024 to either (1) file a
notice with the Court indicating that he intends to proceed on a
pro se basis solely on behalf of himself; (2) file a notice with
the Court indicating that he has obtained counsel on his own; or
(3) file a renewed motion for appointment of counsel, if warranted.
Failure to timely undertake one of these three courses of action
will result in dismissal of this case.
The Plaintiff has indicated that, "beyond commencing the action and
asking for a stay, [he is] not well positioned to" litigate this
case "right now." Unfortunately, that is not how litigation works;
Plaintiff initiated this action, and he now has the responsibility
of prosecuting it appropriately.
In June 2024, Plaintiff William Louis Armstrong, proceeding pro se,
sued Defendants Boyland Auto BGMC, LLC, General Motors, Kunes Buick
GMC, Automotive Experts LLC, National Business Brokers, Dorian
Boyland, and Kaufman Dolowich for violations of both state and
federal law. He also moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
In July 2024, the Court entered an order noting that it would defer
addressing Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and the process of screening his complaint pending
resolution of a threshold issue: Plaintiff's characterization of
his case as a class action and his request for class
certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Tj5QZ4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Parties Must File Joint Report Supplement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOE v. BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-03360 (D.C.C., Filed Nov. 8, 2023), the
Hon. Judge Timothy J. Kelly entered an order
-- The parties shall serve their Rule 26(a)(1) Aug. 13, 2024
initial disclosures by:
-- The Parties must meet, confer, and file a Aug. 30, 2024
supplement to the joint report pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and
Local Rule 16.3 by:
The nature of suit states Constitutionality of State Statutes.
Bozzuto was founded in 1988. The company's line of business
includes renting, buying, selling and appraising real estate.[CC]
BRANCH MESSENGER: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Faulkner Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA FAULKNER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRANCH MESSENGER, INC. and EVOLVE BANK &
TRUST, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00651-DPM (E.D. Ark., July 31,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust
enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored on its network
systems following a data breach announced on or about June 25,
2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result,
the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Branch Messenger, Inc. is a software company headquartered in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Evolve Bank & Trust is a bank headquartered in West Memphis,
Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq.
Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
One Allied Drive, Suite 1400
Little Rock, AR 72202
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
Email: hbates@cbplaw.com
rpulliam@cbplaw.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ronald Podolny, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
Email: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com
BROWN INTERNATIONAL: Mitschke Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
KJ Mitschke, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BROWN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-02111 (D. Colo., July 31, 2024), is brought arising from
Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the California Labor Code ("Labor Code"), the California
Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order No. 4, the
California Business & Professions Code and common law as a result
of unpaid compensation.
The Plaintiff and the Hourly Employees regularly worked beyond 40
hours in a workweek and 8 or more hours in a workday but were not
paid (either regular or overtime wages) for all hours worked. The
Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Hourly Employees
for the substantial time they spent fielding calls from team-mates
and Defendant's customers regarding, among other things, equipment
troubleshooting. The FLSA and California law require employers to
compensate employees for work performed beyond 40 hours in each
given workweek at a rate of, at least, one and one-half times the
employees' regular rates. and as a matter of company policy,
practice, and procedure, Defendant intentionally, knowingly, and
systematically failed and refused to pay Plaintiff and the Hourly
Employees minimum wage for all hours worked, including the
off-the-clock work outlined herein, and overtime premiums for
overtime hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek and 8 in a workday.
Defendant's conduct in that regard amounts to a willful violation
of the overtime provisions of the FLSA and California state law,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a non-exempt Hourly Employee
with the specific job titles of Electro Mechanic Grade I and Lead
Service Mechanic.
The Defendant is in the machinery manufacturing business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Alana A. Karbal, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Town Square
Southfield, MI 48076
Phone: (248) 355-0300
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
akarbal@sommerspc.com
CABOT OIL: Oct. 3 Settlement Proof of Claim Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DELAWARE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CABOT OIL & GAS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-02045
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
CABOT OIL & GAS CORPORATION ("CABOT") COMMON STOCK BETWEEN FEBRUARY
22, 2016, AND JUNE 12, 2020, INCLUSIVE, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY
("CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS")
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas ("Court"), that the
above-captioned action ("Litigation") has been certified as a class
action, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded
from the Class by definition as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement dated June 3, 2024 ("Stipulation") and the detailed
Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice"). The Stipulation and Notice can be viewed at
www.CabotOilSecuritiesLitigation.com.
YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that Delaware County Employees
Retirement System and Iron Workers District Counsel (Philadelphia
and Vicinity) Retirement and Pension Plan (together, "Plaintiffs"),
and defendants Cabot, Dan O. Dinges, and Scott C. Schroeder
(collectively, "Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of
the Litigation on behalf of the Class for $40 million in cash
("Settlement"). If approved by the Court, the Settlement will
resolve all claims in the Litigation.
YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on October
24, 2024, at 3:00 p.m., before the Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal at
the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, Bob Casey United States Courthouse, 515 Rusk
Street, Houston, TX 77002, to determine whether: (1) the
Settlement of the above-captioned Litigation as set forth in the
Stipulation for $40 million in cash should be approved by the Court
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided
under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Litigation
with prejudice; (3) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees
and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice)
and, if so, in what amounts; (4) to award Plaintiffs their costs
and expenses in representing the Class out of the Settlement Fund
and, if so, in what amounts; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should
be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
There exists the possibility that the Court may decide to change
the date and/or time of the Settlement Hearing, conduct the hearing
by video or telephonic conference, or otherwise allow Class Members
to appear at the hearing by telephone or videoconference, without
further written notice to the Class. It is important that you
check the website, www.CabotOilSecuritiesLitigation.com, before
making any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Any updates
regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date
or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or telephonic
appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the website. Also,
if the Court requires or allows Class Members to participate in the
hearing by telephone or videoconference, the access information
will be posted to the website.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Cabot common stock between
February 22, 2016, and June 12, 2020, inclusive, and were damaged
thereby, your rights are affected by the settlement of this
Litigation.
To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than October
16, 2024) or electronically via the website (no later than October
16, 2024). Failure to submit your Proof of Claim by October 16,
2024, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude you from
receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of
this Litigation. If you are a Class Member and do not request
exclusion from the Class (as described below), you will be bound by
the Settlement and any judgment and releases entered in the
Litigation, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or
not you submit a Proof of Claim.
The Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your
rights thereunder (including your right to object to the
Settlement), the Proof of Claim, the Stipulation (which, among
other things, contains definitions for the capitalized terms used
in this Summary Notice), and other important documents, may be
accessed online at www.CabotOilSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by
writing to:
Cabot Oil Securities Litigation
Claims Administrator
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91217
Seattle, WA 98111
Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim, may be made to Class Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 800/449-4900
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Andrew L. Zivitz
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: 610/667-7706
info@ktmc.com
If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion such that it is postmarked by October 3,
2024, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by
any releases, judgments, or orders entered by the Court in the
Litigation and you will not receive any benefits from the
Settlement. Excluding yourself from the Class is the only option
that may allow you to be part of any other current or future
lawsuit against Defendants or any of the other Released Defendant
Parties concerning the claims being resolved by the Settlement.
If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, the request by Class Counsel
for an award of attorneys' fees not to exceed 33-1/3% of the $40
million Settlement Amount and expenses not to exceed $1,750,000,
plus interest on both amounts, and/or the request for an award to
Plaintiffs for their costs and expenses. Any objections must be
filed with the Court and sent to Class Counsel and Defendants'
Counsel by October 3, 2024, in the manner and form explained in the
Notice.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Proofs of Claim, requests for exclusion, objections, and other
correspondence that are legibly postmarked will be treated as
received on the postmark date. Please be advised that the U.S.
Postal Service may not postmark mail which is not presented in
person.
CAPITALJ INC: Fernandez Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CapitalJ Inc. The
case is styled as Andrew Fernandez, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons v. CapitalJ Inc., Juno, Case No.
4:24-cv-00656-JM (E.D. Ark., Aug. 1, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Juno (CapitalJ Inc.) -- https://juno.finance/ -- is a financial
technology company, not a bank.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street, 6th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 221-6583
Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
- and -
Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq.
Randall Keith Pulliam, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 West Seventh Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: (501) 312-8500
Email: hbates@cbplaw.com
rpulliam@cbplaw.com
- and -
Ronald Podolny, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN (TAMPA OFFICE)
201 N Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 223-5505
Fax: (813) 223-5402
Email: ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com
CASEY'S GENERAL STORES: Schmitz Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Use
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Schmitz and Danielle Connor, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CASEY'S GENERAL STORES, INC.,
SYNQ3 RESTAURANT SOLUTIONS, LLC, and SOUNDHOUND AI, INC., Case No.
4:24-cv-04143-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill., Aug. 2, 2024), is brought arising
out of Defendants' actions in collecting, capturing, otherwise
obtaining, using, and/or storing the biometric identifiers and/or
biometric information, including the unique "voiceprints," of
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals, without
informing them in writing or obtaining their written consent, as
required by the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA").
BIPA, provides, inter alia, that no private entity may collect,
capture, or otherwise obtain biometric identifiers (including
voiceprints) or biometric information without first informing the
subject in writing of the fact, purpose, and length of the
collection and receiving a written release from the subject. BIPA
also prohibits private entities from profiting from the biometric
identifiers or information. BIPA further requires that private
entities in possession of biometric identifiers or biometric
information must develop a publicly-available written policy
establishing a schedule for their retention and, importantly, their
destruction, within certain statutory time limits.
Although BIPA was enacted in 2008, Defendants have been violating
the statute by collecting, capturing, otherwise obtaining, using,
and/or storing the unique and highly sensitive "voiceprints" of
thousands of individuals in Illinois, without their knowledge or
consent, through the use of artificial intelligence ("AI")-assisted
voice technology for Casey's customers' telephone orders, developed
by Defendant SYNQ3.
The Defendants do not have publicly available, written policies
containing retention schedules or guidelines for permanently
destroying biometric identifiers or biometric information, as
required by BIPA. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all
individuals who had their voiceprints, biometric identifiers,
and/or biometric information collected, captured, otherwise
obtained, used, and/or stored, when making a telephone order at a
Casey's location in Illinois at any time within the applicable
statute of limitations, to prevent Defendants from further
violating Illinois law and to recover damages for Defendants'
violations of their and other Class members' statutorily-protected
rights to privacy under BIPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs called the Casey's location to place an order for
food, and interacted with AI-assisted voice technology during that
call.
Casey's and its direct and indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries
operate convenience stores and gas stations primarily under the
names "Casey's" and "Casey's General Store" in 17 states.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Ryan Lopatka, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
161 N. Clark St., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 759-9700
Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
Email: j.lopatka@ksfcounsel.com
- and -
Kim E. Miller, Esq.
250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10177
Phone: (212) 696-3732
Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
Email: kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com
- and -
Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
Melissa H. Harris, Esq.
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 960
New Orleans, LA 70163
Phone: (504) 455-1400
Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
melissa.harris@ksfcounsel.com
- and -
Don Bivens, Esq.
Teresita Mercado, Esq.
DON BIVENS, PLLC
15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Phone: 602-708-1450
Email: don@donbivens.com
teresita@donbivens.com
CENCORA INC: Fails to Safeguard Clients' Info, Coggins Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL COGGINS, ELIZABETH FAGOT, and BRIDGET REARDON, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
CENCORA, INC., THE LASH GROUP, LLC, BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY,
and BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB PATIENT ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03554-CMR (E.D. Pa., July 31, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence
per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract,
unjust enrichment, third-party beneficiary claim for breach of
contract, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and
protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated individuals following a data breach in February 2024. The
Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result,
the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties.
Cencora, Inc. is a pharmaceutical corporation based in
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
The Lash Group, LLC is a division of Cencora, Inc. based in
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
Bristol Myers Squibb Company is a multinational pharmaceutical
company based in Princeton, New Jersey.
Bristol Myers Squibb Patient Assistance Foundation, Inc. is a
non-profit organization based in Princeton, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
Email: cshaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Amanda M. Rolon, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Fl.
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
arolon@scott-scott.com
CENCORA INC: Lopez Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Margie Lopez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Cencora, Inc., Does, Case No.
5:24-cv-01508 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 31, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03541-MRP to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Cencora, Inc. -- https://www.cencora.com/ -- formerly known as
AmerisourceBergen, is an American drug wholesale company and a
contract research organization that was formed by the merger of
Bergen Brunswig and AmeriSource in 2001.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark D. Potter, Esq.
James Michael Treglio, Esq.
POTTER HANDY LLP
100 Pine Street Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 534-1911
Fax: (888) 422-5191
Email: mark@potterhandy.com
jimt@potterhandy.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Joseph Duffy, Esq.
Megan A. Suehiro, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
300 South Grand Ave., 22nd Fl.
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Phone: (213) 612-2500
Fax: (213) 612-2501
Email: jduffy@morganlewis.com
CHILDTIME CHILDCARE: Class Discovery in Covington Due Feb 6, 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as James Covington on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Childtime
Childcare, Inc. and Learning Care Group, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00710-BKS-MJK (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mitchell Katz
entered an order that:
(1) The deadlines set in this scheduling order supersede the
deadlines set forth in fed. r. civ. p.26(a)(3) and are firm
and
will not be extended, even by stipulation of the parties,
absent good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).
(2) Any motion to join any person as a party to this action
shall
be made on or before Aug. 12, 2024.
(3) Any motion to amend any pleading in this action shall be
made
on or before Aug. 12, 2024.
(4) All discovery in this matter is to be completed on or before
Feb. 6, 2026.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oPFiWs at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Gill Sues Over Hidden Service Fees to Customers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HUDSON GILL and CLAIR AWAD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL,
INC., Defendant, (C.D. Cal., July 31, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and the New
York General Business Law, quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and
fraud.
The case is brought against Chipotle for lying to its online
customers, including the Plaintiffs, placing delivery orders that
they are paying artificially high taxes, when in fact, they are
paying Chipotle's service fees. By hiding its service fees under
the cloak of taxes, Chipotle can unjustly enrich itself by falsely
making people believe they are paying taxes for the public good. As
a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiffs and Class
members suffered damages, says the suit.
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator,
with its principal place of business in Newport Beach, California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
sbogdanovich@bursor.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646)-837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
CHRISTIES INC: Graifman Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
GARY GRAIFMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTIE'S INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-05714 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2024) is an action to remedy
harms inflicted by Defendant in failing to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal
identifiable information.
On May 30, 2024, the Plaintiff received an e-mail involving a data
breach notice from Defendant which stated, inter alia, that "an
unauthorized third party had downloaded information relating to
client ID checks, which [Christie's is] required to retain for
compliance reasons." The infiltration of Defendant's unsecured
network and the theft of customers' sensitive PII was discovered on
May 9, 2024. No information has been provided as to how the
cybercriminals illegally accessed Defendant's network, and access
to Defendant's website was disrupted for a period of 10 days
following the discovery of the breach, says the suit.
The Defendant's failure to secure and protect its customers' PII
places Plaintiff and Class Members at heightened, imminent, and
permanent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class
Members have also lost the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket
expenses incurred to mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and
the value of their time reasonably incurred to mitigate the effects
of the data breach, the suit asserts.
Christie's Inc. is one of the world's oldest and largest auction
houses, first established in Britain in 1766.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Howard T. Longman, Esq.
LONGMAN LAW, P.C.
354 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 1800
Livingston, NJ 07039
Telephone: (973) 994-2315
E-mail: hlongman@longman.law
CLEANCHOICE ENERGY: Appeals Court Ruling in Weinberg Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
CLEANCHOICE ENERGY, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order in
the lawsuit entitled Eric Weinberg, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. CleanChoice
Energy, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-9685, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
As previously stated in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to redress CleanChoice's alleged deceptive and bad faith
pricing practices that have caused the Plaintiffs and over a
hundred thousand consumers in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Ohio, Maryland, Washington, D.C., and Illinois to pay
considerably more for their electricity than they should otherwise
have paid.
On Jan. 18, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to compel
arbitration.
On May 15, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss.
On July 17, 2024, the Court entered its Opinion and Order through
Judge Philip M. Halpern. In its Order, the Court granted the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration with respect to Plaintiff
Eric Weinberg and denied the motion to compel arbitration with
respect to Plaintiffs Robert Sudakow and Joanne Sudakow. Mr.
Weinberg's claims are stayed pending the conclusion of the
arbitration proceedings. The Court also granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss Plaintiff Robert Sudakow for lack of standing
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and the request for
injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on
consent. The Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss for
improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). The
Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) with
respect to the seventh (unjust enrichment) claim against Plaintiff
Joanne Sudakow and denied the motion with respect to Plaintiff
Joanne Sudakows first (breach of contract), second (breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing), third (violation
of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Sec. 349), fourth (violation of N.Y. Gen.
Bus. Law Sec. 349-d (3)), fifth (violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law
Sec. 349-d (7)), and sixth (violation of state consumer protection
statutes) claims for relief. These claims shall proceed to
discovery with respect to Plaintiff Joanne Sudakow's the first,
second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth claims for relief.
The appellate case is captioned Weinberg v. CleanChoice Energy,
Inc., Case No. 24-1988, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on July 25, 2024. [BN]
Defendant-Appellant CLEANCHOICE ENERGY, INC. is represented by:
Michael D. Matthews, Jr.
MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP
1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2400
Houston, TX 77002
CLIFF HOUSE: Whittaker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cliff House of Folsom
a Business Entity of Unknown Nature. The case is styled as Kyle
Whittaker, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cliff
House of Folsom a Business Entity of Unknown Nature, Case No.
24CV015490 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 2, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Cliff House of Folsom grille -- https://cliffhouseoffolsom.com/ --
offers feel-good, fresh, American comfort food in a friendly and
casual ambiance.[BN]
COMPASS MINERALS: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOCAL 295 IBT EMPLOYER
GROUP WELFARE FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. COMPASS MINERALS INTERNATIONAL, INC., et
al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02432-EFM-ADM (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order:
(1) appointing Local 338 and Local 295 as Class Representatives;
(2) appointing Kirby McInerney LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd
LLP as Class Counsel; and
(3) certifying this securities fraud action as a class action on
behalf of a class of investors consisting of:
"All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired
Compass Minerals International, Inc. common stock between
Oct. 31, 2017 and Nov. 18, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), and were damaged thereby."
Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants1 and members of
their immediate families; (ii) the officers and directors of
the Company, at all relevant times, and members of their
immediate families; (iii) the legal representatives, heirs,
successors, or assigns of any of the foregoing; and (iv) any
entity in which any defendant has or had a controlling
interest.
Compass is a producer of minerals, including salt, magnesium
chloride and sulfate of potash.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dcvseg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Darryl J. Alvarado, Esq.
Heather G. Geiger, Esq.
Joseph J. Tull, Esq.
Erin W. Boardman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com
hgeiger@rgrdlaw.com
jtull@rgrdlaw.com
eboardman@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Andrew M. Mcneela, Esq.
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
Ira M. Press, Esq.
Lauren Wands, Esq.
KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
New York, NY 10177
Telephone: (212) 317-2300
Facsimile: (212) 751-2540
E-mail: amcneela@kmllp.com
telrod@kmllp.com
ipress@kmllp.com
lwands@kmllp.com
- and -
Eugene Friedman, Esq.
Daniel Treiman, Esq.
FRIEDMAN & ANSPACH
1500 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 354-4500
E-mail: efriedman@friedmananspach.com
dtreiman@friedmananspach.com
CONCOURSE REHABILITATION: Genova Sues Over Illegal Employment Terms
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALYDA PATRICIA GENOVA, MELANIE GAN, and MARIA KRISZELDA ICUSPIT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CONCOURSE REHABILITATION & NURSING CENTER, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05725 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2024) is an
action for damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and
other remedies for violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection
Act, the Anti-Peonage Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and
the New York State Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is a nursing home that
recruits nurses from the Philippines to work for it in this
District under contracts of indentured servitude. However, the
Defendant's standard employment contract contains illegal penalties
designed to keep Filipino nurses working for them. Once the
Filipino nurses are locked into the contracts of indentured
servitude, they learn that the Defendant is not paying them the
same wages as their similarly situated, American co-workers. The
Defendant also discriminates against the Filipino nurses by
attempting to coerce them to engage in Medicaid and other forms of
healthcare fraud, and by assigning them excessive working hours
with inadequate staffing. To keep the Filipino nurses from leaving,
the Defendant threatens them with serious harm, including
enforcement of the illegal indenture and penalties in the
employment contract and the threat to have them deported, says the
suit.
On behalf of themselves and all other Filipino nurses who have been
employed by the defendant since July 28, 2014, the Plaintiffs seek
a judgment for compensatory and punitive damages for violations of
the state and federal laws.
Concourse Rehabilitation & Nursing Center, Inc. is a for-profit
corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John J.P. Howley, Esq.
THE HOWLEY LAW FIRM P.C.
1345 Avenue of the Americas, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10105
Telephone: (212) 601-2728
CORNERSTONE HEALTHCARE: Mireles Sues Over Data Security Failure
---------------------------------------------------------------
EMILIO MIRELES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CORNERSTONE HEALTHCARE GROUP MANAGEMENT
SERVICES LLC d/b/a CORNERSTONE SPECIALTY HOSPITALS, Defendant, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00410-DJH (W.D. Ky., July 16, 2024) arises out of
Defendant's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or
timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members'
sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired
and stored for its business purposes.
This failure to secure and monitor its network resulted in a
December 2023 data breach of highly sensitive documents and
information stored on the computer network of Cornerstone. Despite
learning of the data breach on or about December 19, 2023, and
determining that private information was involved in the breach,
the Defendant did not begin sending notices of the data breach
until July 1, 2024. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for
Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary
duty, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief.
Headquartered in Louisville, KY, Cornerstone Healthcare provides
long-term acute care and specialized rehabilitation to medically
complex patients who need continued acute care after a hospital
stay. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Whitfield, Esq.
WHITFIELD CROSBY & FLYNN, PLLC
19 N. Main Street
Madisonville, KY 42431
Telephone: (270) 821-0656
Facsimile: (270) 825-1163
E-mail: jwhitfield@wcfjustice.com
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
lwhite@masonllp.com
CREATIVE IMPORTS: Karim Sues Over Website Inaccessibility
---------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Creative Imports, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-05345 (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's website contains significant
access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for her
and for other blind and visually-impaired customers to use the
website. Despite readily available accessible technology, Defendant
has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface. Accordingly,
the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and
asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City
Human Rights Law.
Creative Imports, LLC, is an Illinois Limited Liability Company
that owns and operates the website, Macduggal.com, which provides
consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including,
the ability to view a wide range of gowns, dresses, tops, skirts,
wedding attire, and handbags. [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
DAINESE USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Murphy Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. DAINESE USA, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05841 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 1, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://www.dainese.com/us/en/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
June 3, 2024, in an attempt to purchase an Avro 5 Tex Jacket from
the Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the
Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied the
Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person
and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the
public and made available to the public, the lawsuit claims.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue
to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation,
the lawsuit asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Mr. Murphy is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Dainese offers motorcycle clothing, motor bike shoes, sportswear
and protective gear and winter sport accessories and protective
equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legaL
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Sept. 16 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Girard Sharp LLP, and The Hall
Law Firm, Ltd. issused the following statement regarding the DXC
Litigation:
SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO ACQUIRED DXC TECHNOLOGY COMPANY COMMON STOCK IN
DIRECT EXCHANGE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, INC. SECURITIES
IN THE APRIL 1, 2017 MERGER EXCHANGE (THE "CLASS"). A California
court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a
lawyer. PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION CASE PENDING IN
COURT.
You are hereby notified that your rights may be affected by a
lawsuit pending in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara (the "Court"), against DXC Technology Company
("DXC"), Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company ("HPE"), Mukesh Aghi,
Amy E. Alving, David Herzog, Sachin Lawande, J. Michael Lawrie,
Julio A. Portalatin, Peter Rutland, Manoj P. Singh, Robert F.
Woods, Rishi Varma, Timothy C. Stonesifer, Jeremy K. Cox, and
Margaret C. Whitman ("Individual Defendants," and together with DXC
and HPE, "Defendants"). In April 2017, HPE spun off its Enterprise
Services business segment and merged it with Computer Sciences
Corporation, Inc. ("CSC"), forming DXC (the "Merger" or "Merger
Exchange"). Plaintiffs allege that in connection with the Merger,
DXC issued approximately 140 million new shares of common stock
pursuant to a materially false and misleading registration
statement and prospectus (collectively, with the documents
incorporated therein, the "Offering Materials"). You may read a
copy of the Complaint here: www.DXCLitigation.com.
The Court has determined that this litigation, titled In re HPE
Enterprise Services -- DXC Technology Co. Merger Litigation, No.
19CV353132 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cnty.) (the "Litigation"),
may proceed as a class action on behalf of the Class, except for
certain persons and entities that are excluded from the Class by
definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of Class Action
("Notice"). This Summary Notice provides only limited information
about the Litigation. The full printed Notice is currently being
mailed to known Class members. If you have not yet received a full
printed Notice, you may obtain a copy from the website for the
Litigation at www.DXCLitigation.com or by contacting Gilardi & Co.
LLC ("Notice Administrator"). The Notice Administrator's contact
information is:
DXC Technology Co. Merger Litigation
Notice Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 301170
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1170
Email: info@DXCLitigation.com
Telephone: 1-888-726-1699
If you did not receive the Notice by mail and you believe you are a
member of the Class, please send your name and address (both mail
and email) to the Notice Administrator so if any future notices are
disseminated in connection with the Litigation, you will receive
them.
Who is Included in the Class? You are a Class member if you
acquired DXC common stock in direct exchange for CSC securities
pursuant to the Offering Materials issued in connection with the
April 1, 2017 Merger Exchange. Excluded from the Class are
Defendants and their families; the officers, directors, and
affiliates of Defendants, at all relevant times; members of
Defendants' immediate families and their legal representatives,
heirs, successors, or assigns; and any entity in which Defendants
have or had a controlling interest.
What are my Rights and Options? If you are a Class member, by doing
nothing you will keep the possibility of getting money or benefits,
if any, from this Litigation. If you stay in the Class and
Plaintiffs obtain money or benefits for the Class, you will be
notified about how to apply for a share. By staying in the Class,
you will also be legally bound by all orders the Court issues and
the judgment the Court makes in this Litigation. If you do nothing
now, regardless of whether Plaintiffs win or lose, you will give up
your right to sue or continue to sue Defendants as part of any
other lawsuit about the same legal claims, or those that could have
been brought, in this lawsuit.
If you do not want to be a member of the Class, you must opt out
pursuant to the instructions below. If you opt out of the Class,
you may not be able to assert individual claims asserting
securities law violations against Defendants, as such claims may no
longer be timely. It will be for you to decide whether to pursue
any individual lawsuit, claim, or remedy that you may have at your
own expense. You are encouraged to seek legal advice concerning the
potential impact of opting out on your legal rights, including to
determine if your claims would be barred by the applicable statutes
of limitation or repose. If you do not want to be a member of the
Class, you must send a signed letter by U.S. Mail saying you want
to be excluded from the Class and include the information listed
below.
Your request must contain the following information: (a) your name,
telephone number, email address, and mailing address; (b) your
statement that you believe you are a Class member and you wish to
be excluded from the Class; (c) the name and docket number of this
case: In re HPE Enterprise Services -- DXC Technology Co. Merger
Litigation, No. 19CV353132 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cnty.);
and (d) your personally signed signature.
Your request to exclude yourself may not be signed by a lawyer or
anyone acting on your behalf.
Mail the request to the following address:
DXC Technology Co. Merger Litigation
Notice Administrator - EXCLUSIONS
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 5100
Larkspur, CA 94977-5100
Be sure to sign the request and complete all required information.
To be valid, opt-out requests must be received no later than
September 16, 2024.
This Notice is not an expression of any opinion by the Court as to
the merits of any of the claims or defenses asserted by any party
in this Litigation or whether Defendants engaged in any wrongdoing.
If you have any questions concerning the matter raised in this
Summary Notice or the full Notice, you may contact the Notice
Administrator or address your questions to:
Court-Appointed Class Counsel
Adam E. Polk
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
apolk@girardsharp.com
David W. Hall THE HALL FIRM, LTD.
Four Embarcadero Center
Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 766-3534
Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
dhall@hallfirmltd.com
James I. Jaconette
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway
Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
jamesj@rgrdlaw.com
Central case documents can be found online at:
www.DXCLitigation.com. The pleadings and other records in this
Litigation may be examined: (a) online on the Superior Court of
California, County of Santa Clara's Electronic Filing and Service
Website available on the Court's website
(https://www.scscourt.org/) or through the Santa Clara Superior
Court Portal at https://portal.scscourt.org/; or (b) in person at
Records, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 191
N. 1st Street, San Jose, California 95113, between the hours of
8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court
holidays and closures.
PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE OR CONTACT THE COURT, CLERK OF THE COURT,
OR DEFENDANTS (OR THEIR COUNSEL) TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS NOTICE.
THIS IS ONLY A SUMMARY NOTICE. IF YOU BELIEVE YOU MAY BE A MEMBER
OF THE CLASS, YOU ARE URGED TO OBTAIN A COPY OF THE FULL NOTICE,
WHICH IS ACCESSIBLE AT WWW.DXCLITIGATION.COM OR BY CONTACTING THE
NOTICE ADMINISTRATOR AT 1-888-726-1699, OR DXC TECHNOLOGY CO.
MERGER LITIGATION, NOTICE ADMINISTRATOR, C/O GILARDI & CO. LLC,
P.O. BOX 301170, LOS ANGELES, CA 90030-1170 OR AT
INFO@DXCLITIGATION.COM.
Dated: June 28, 2024
By Order of the Superior Court of California County of Santa Clara
The Honorable Charles F. Adams
Requests for exclusion that are legibly postmarked will be treated
as received on the postmark date. Please be advised that the U.S.
Postal Service may not postmark mail which is not presented in
person.
ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Norman Appeals Class Cert. Ruling to 4th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA L. NORMAN is taking an interlocutory appeal from a court
order in the lawsuit entitled Brenda Norman, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Encompass
Health Rehabilitation Hospital of Northern Virginia, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01518-AJT-WBP, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
sued on Sept. 26, 2023, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated current and former case manager employees of the
Defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act (VOWA).
On Mar. 19, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class,
which Judge Anthony J. Trenga granted on July 12, 2024, insofar as
it requests the conditional certification of a collective of
similarly situated employees from within the Commonwealth of
Virginia pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the court, the Plaintiff has met her burden at this
stage of the collective certification analysis for the Court to
grant the Motion in part and order that notice be issued.
The appellate case is captioned Brenda Norman v. Encompass Health
Rehabilitation Hospital, Case No. 24-205, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on July 23, 2024.
[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner BRENDA L. NORMAN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, et al. is represented by:
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street
Richmond, VA 23227
- and –
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Richard J. Prieto, Esq.
WAGE & HOUR FIRM
5050 Quorum Drive
Dallas, TX 75254
Defendants-Respondents ENCOMPASS HEALTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF
NORTHERN VIRGINIA, LLC, et al., are represented by:
Amy M. Pocklington, Esq.
Scott Andrew Siegner, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC
901 East Byrd Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 663-2330
- and –
Steven Frederick Pockrass, Esq.
Kenneth B. Siepman, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC
300 North Meridian
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EVOLVE BANK: Dubray Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
JACKSON DUBRAY, JASMINE MACK, d/b/a J. MACK ENTERPRISES, WILLIAM
BRITTON, TRAE SANTIAGO and TERRANCE PRUITT, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EVOLVE BANK &
TRUST, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00642-JM (E.D. Ark., July 29,
2024) is a class action against Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information of
potentially several hundred thousand individuals and businesses,
including, but not limited to, name, date of birth, federal/state
identification numbers, tax identification number, social security
number and/or financial account information, and other information
such as phone number, address, and email address.
On June 26, 2024, the Defendant learned of a data breach on its
network that occurred on June 23, 2024. The Defendant determined
that, during the data breach, a ransomware gang accessed and/or
acquired the PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members. On June 26, 2024,
Defendant began notifying Plaintiffs and Class Members of the data
breach.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons whose PII
was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i)
adequately protect the PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members; (ii)
warn Plaintiffs and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate
information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure
hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and effective
security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents.
Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and violates federal and
state statutes.
The Plaintiffs further bring claims for negligence, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, breach of express contract,
breach of implied contract, and, in the alternative to their
contract-based claims, unjust enrichment.
Evolve Bank & Trust is a banking institution charted in Arkansas
which provides personal and commercial banking, and mortgage
services, based in West Memphis, Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq.
Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
One Allied Drive, Suite 1400
Little Rock, AK 72202
Tel: (501) 312-8500
Email: hbates@cbplaw.com
rpulliam@cbplaw.com
- and -
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
Email: medelson@edelson-law.com
lverderame@edelson-law.com
- and -
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
Email: leigh@ellzeylaw.com
EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Vojita Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES VOJITA; and ALISHA MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-136-BSM (E.D. Ark., July 31, 2024) is
an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure
and safeguard sensitive information of its customers.
According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of
the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a
foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that
Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired
by data thieves.
Evolve Bank & Trust as a bank. The Bank accepts deposits, makes
loans, and provides mortgage solutions, card facilities, and online
banking services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Poynter, Esq.
Daniel Holland, Esq.
Scout Snowden, Esq.
Clay Ellis, Esq.
POYNTER LAW GROUP
4924 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Little Rock, AR 72207
Tel: (501) 812-3943
Email: scott@poynterlawgroup.com
daniel@poynterlawgroup.com
scout@poynterlawgroup.com
clay@poynterlawgroup.com
EXPRESS LLC: Cantwell Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
----------------------------------------------------------------
LISA CANTWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXPRESS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-05358 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law and
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.express.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: missing alternative-text (alt-text), hidden elements on
web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups,
unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that
some events be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Express, LLC 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
FAO ROC: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Hernandez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FAO ROC HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-05349 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law and
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.faoschwarz.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: missing alternative-text (alt-text), hidden elements on
web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups,
unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that
some events be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Fao Roc Holdings, 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
FENIX INTERNET: OnlyFans Subscribers Sue Over Chatter Scams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that five OnlyFans
subscribers are suing the platform's owner, Fenix Internet.
Why: The plaintiffs say they were duped and their privacy was
exposed by professional "chatters" who pretended to be the content
creators they were looking at online.
Where: The OnlyFans content class action lawsuit was filed in a
California federal court.
The peer-to-peer sexual content platform OnlyFans has been hit with
a class action lawsuit alleging it knowingly allows professional
"chatters" to impersonate content creators on its subscription
website.
Five plaintiffs who are identified only by their initials filed the
class action complaint against Fenix Internet LLC -- the owner of
OnlyFans -- and others on July 29 in a California federal court,
alleging violations of state and federal consumer and privacy laws.
According to the lawsuit, 'chatters' deceive OnlyFans users into
believing they are directly communicating with the individuals they
have paid to connect with, resulting in the sharing of personal
information with strangers.
The platform is predominantly known for hosting sexually-oriented
content, and users often pay to engage in intimate conversations
with models and content creators, the lawsuit says. It argues that,
despite OnlyFans' claims of monitoring platform activities, the
platform does not prevent the use of chatters.
Users subjected to 'systemic deception,' lawsuit says
The lawsuit alleges that paying users are unknowingly interacting
with hired impersonators who persuade them to spend more money.
"This case goes beyond typical romance scams by involving an online
platform used to perpetrate a systemic deception that exploits
victims' trust on an unprecedented scale, affecting hundreds of
thousands, or even millions, of people simultaneously," the lawsuit
states.
This deception leads to significant breaches of confidentiality and
privacy violations, as sensitive information, including photos and
videos, may end up in unauthorized hands.
For example, plaintiff B.L., from Tennessee, says he spent up to
$25,000 on the platform over four years. Another plaintiff, N.Z.,
from California, said they shared photos, videos, and personal
information with creators, unaware that the information was being
disclosed to agents.
OnlyFans aware of the scheme, lawsuit says
The plaintiffs claim that the impersonators, referred to as
"chatters," are employed by management agencies operating OnlyFans
accounts, and receive training and scripts. They say OnlyFans is
well aware of the chatters.
"OnlyFans knows about the agencies perpetrating the Chatter Scams;
indeed, it has co-hosted events with at least one agency named as a
defendant in this Complaint," the lawsuit says.
Despite being aware of the allegedly illegal practices, OnlyFans
allegedly takes no action because it profits from a 20% cut of all
creator earnings on the platform, the lawsuit states. In 2021, the
platform generated approximately $2 billion in revenue, the
plaintiffs say.
As a result, the plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of
OnlyFans users who had a fan account on OnlyFans and paid premium
content fees to any creator who was represented by one of the
defendant agencies that used chatters to communicate with the
fans.
They are suing for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, the federal Video Privacy Protection
Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and California's false
advertising and unfair competition laws, along with claims of
breach of contract and fraud.
Meanwhile, Fenix Internet LLC was last year hit with a class action
lawsuit alleging it engages in an unlawful OnlyFans auto-renew
subscription scheme that is difficult for consumers to cancel.
The plaintiffs are represented by Christopher Pitoun, Robert B.
Carey and Michella A. Kras of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.
The OnlyFans content class action lawsuit is N.Z. et al. v. Fenix
International Ltd., Case No. 8:24-cv-01655, for the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. [GN]
FINISH LINE: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Finish Line Inc., Defendant, Case No.
0:24-cv-03033 (D. Minn., July 29, 2024) arises because Defendant's
Website, www.finishline.com, is not fully and equally accessible to
Plaintiff and other people who are blind or who have low vision in
violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the
effective communication and auxiliary aids and services
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Minnesota Human Rights Act.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others who are similarly
situated, seeks relief including an injunction requiring Defendant
to make its Website accessible to Plaintiff and the putative class;
and requiring Defendant to adopt sufficient policies, practices,
and procedures to ensure that Defendant's website remains
accessible in the future. The Plaintiffs also seek an award of
statutory attorney's fees and costs, damages, a damages multiplier,
a civil penalty, and such other relief as the Court deems just,
equitable, and appropriate.
The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence
of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and
discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online
Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with
screen reader technology, says the suit.
The Finish Line Inc. offers shoes, clothing, and accessories for
sale including but not limited to, sandals, wedges, heels, shorts,
sweatshirts, joggers, backpacks, wallets, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8 th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
FISHERS VENTURE: Lummis Seeks for Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
ASHTON W. LUMMIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FISHERS VENTURE LLC d/b/a WALK
ON’S SPORTS BISTREAUX, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv 01182-JRS-MJD
(S.D. Ind., July 15, 2024), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
unpaid minimum wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Lummis worked for Defendant as a server from
approximately April 24, 2024 until he voluntarily resigned on May
19, 2024. Allegedly, the Defendant is wrongfully misappropriating
pooled tips, credit card and debit card paid tips intended for
Plaintiff and its other server employees in each and every work
week.
Fishers Venture LLC owns and operates the bar and restaurant called
Walk On’s Sports Bistreaux and located in Fishers, Hamilton
County, Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq.
HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
100 Cherry St.
Terre Haute, IN 47807
Telephone: (812) 232-9691
E-mail: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com
FIVE BELOW: Faces Himes Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER HIMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. FIVE BELOW, INC., and JOEL ANDERSON, Case No.
2:24-cv-03638-GAM (E.D. Pa., Aug. 1, 2024) is a federal securities
class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired FIVE's securities between March 20, 2024, to July 16,
2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws.
The suit alleges that the Defendants provided investors with false
and/or materially misleading information about FIVE's financial
strength and operations, including its outlook for the first
quarter and full year 2024. This information included FIVE's
statement that net sales are expected to be in the range of $826
million to $846 million based on opening approximately 55 to 60 new
stores in the first quarter. Further, FIVE claimed that net sales
for the full year are expected to be in the range of $3.97 billion
to $4.07 billion based on opening between 225 and 235 new stores.
Investors discovered that these statements were false and/or
materially misleading when, on June 5, 2024, FIVE announced
disappointing first quarter 2024 sales result and cut its full year
2024 guidance stating, "Net sales are expected to be in the range
of $3.79 billion to $3.87 billion based on opening approximately
230 new stores." At the same time, FIVE claimed that for the second
quarter, "Net sales are expected to be in the range of $830 million
to $850 million based on opening approximately 60 new stores," the
Plaintiff avers.
In response to the disclosure, FIVE's stock price declined
$14.07/per share within the span of just one day. The following
month, investors discovered that FIVE's financial and operational
problems were significantly worse than represented. On July 16,
2024, FIVE announced the sudden departure of CEO Joel Anderson and
guidance cut for the second quarter. In pertinent part, FIVE told
investors that "the Company now expects sales for the fiscal second
quarter ending Aug. 3, 2024 to be in the range of $820 million to
$826 million." In response to the news, FIVE's stock price declined
by $25.57/share, the suit further asserts.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated investors to recover the losses they sustained
as a result of Defendants' false and/or materially misleading
statements.
The Plaintiff purchased FIVE's common stock at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the
revelation of the Defendants' fraud.
Five Below is an American chain of specialty discount stores that
prices most of its products at $5 or less, plus a smaller
assortment of products priced up to $25.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Klauder, Esq.
Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
BIELLI & KLAUDER, LLC
1204 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 803-4600
E-mail: dklauder@bk-legal.com
rernst@bk-legal.com
- and -
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: aapton@zlk.com
FRAGRANCEX.COM INC: Danso Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHARITY DANSO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRAGRANCEX.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-05803 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law and
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.fragrancex.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: missing alternative-text (alt-text), hidden elements on
web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups,
unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that
some events be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Fragrancex.com, 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
GENERAL MOTORS: Melberg Sues Over Unlawful Data Collection
----------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER MELBERG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ONSTAR LLC, LEXISNEXIS
RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., and VERISK ANALYTICS, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:24-cv-03135-TWT (N.D. Ga., July 16, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of unfair trade practices, invasion of privacy and
unjust enrichment in connection with their unlawful collection and
transmission of Plaintiff's and Class member's personal, private,
driver behavior data.
Allegedly, this driver behavior data was taken out of context and
because it was surreptitiously collected, precluded drivers from
providing any reasonable explanation as to the various driving
patterns depicted in this data, such as sudden stops. Nonetheless,
drivers were damaged when this out of context and misleading driver
behavior data was provided to their respective insurance carriers
by LexisNexis and/or Verisk, resulting in their paying increased
premiums or preventing them from obtaining vehicle insurance at
reasonable premiums elsewhere. Moreover, the Plaintiff has since
obtained her LexisNexis Report, which, among other things, contains
several years worth of her driving behavior data, despite the fact
that she never consented to the collection of that information,
says the suit.
Headquartered in Detroit MI, General Motors is a multinational
automotive manufacturing company that owns and manufactures four
automobile brands: Chevrolet, GMC, Cadillac, and Buick. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
John R. Bevis, Esq.
J. Cameron Tribble, Esq.
BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Telephone: (770) 227-6375
E-mail: roy@barneslawgroup.com
bevis@barneslawgroup.com
ctribble@barneslawgroup.com
- and -
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
Andre J. Arias, Esq.
KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
135 Chestnut Ridge Rd., Suite 200
Montvale, NJ 07645
Telephone: (201) 391-7000
E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
aarias@kgglaw.com
- and -
Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
THE GRANT LAW FIRM, PLLC
521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (212) 292-4441
E-mail: LGrant@grantfirm.com
- and -
Howard T. Longman, Esq.
LONGMAN LAW, P.C.
354 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 1800
Livingston, NJ 07039
Telephone: (973) 994-2315
E-mail: hlongman@longman.law
GOGO BUS: Davis Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Paratransit Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
MASON DAVIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOGO BUS TOURS INC. d/b/a 2GO BUS and JAY
LIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05369 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation,
failure to provide payroll notices, and failure to provide wage
statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a paratransit
driver from in or about November 2022 until on or about July 18,
2024.
Gogo Bus Tours Inc., doing business as 2GO Bus, is an owner and
operator of a transportation enterprise based in Brooklyn, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc A. Rapaport, Esq.
RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
80 Eighth Avenue, Suite 206
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 382-1600
Email: mrapaport@rapaportlaw.com
GOOGLE: Calif. Crane Appeals Denial of Bid to Set Aside Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CALIFORNIA CRANE SCHOOL, INC. is taking an appeal from a court
order denying its motion to set aside judgment in the lawsuit
entitled California Crane School, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Google LLC, et al.,
Defendants, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is
brought under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act for
actual and potential damages and injunctive relief caused by the
suppression, elimination, and/or the foreclosing of other search
providers and/or potential search providers, and non-Google favored
advertisers.
In June 2023, the Google Defendants moved to compel arbitration,
and all Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
On March 21, 2024, the Court granted in part Google's motion to
compel arbitration (denying the motion only as to the Plaintiff's
claim for public injunctive relief), granted Google's motion to
dismiss that remaining claim, and granted Apple's motion to dismiss
all the claims against the Apple Defendants.
On April 18, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside
judgment, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge
P. Casey Pitts on July 18, 2024. The Court ruled that the Plaintiff
has not cleared the high hurdle to warrant the requested relief.
The appellate case is captioned California Crane School, Inc. v.
Google LLC, et al., Case No. 24-4604, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 26, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 31,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on September 4, 2024;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on October 4, 2024.
[BN]
GORES SPONSOR: Drulias Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
DEAN WILLIAM DRULIAS, Plaintiff, v. GORES SPONSOR V, LLC, AEG
HOLDINGS, LLC, ALEC GORES, RANDALL BORT, WILLIAM PATTON, JEFFREY
REA, MARK STONE, and ANDREW MCBRIDE, Defendants, Case No. 2024-0806
(Del. Ch., July 29, 2024) is a verified class action brought by the
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated current and
former stockholders of Gores Holdings V, Inc., asserting: (i)
breach of fiduciary duty claims arising from Gores V's August 4,
2021 merger with Ardagh Metal Packaging S.A. (AMPSA), a division of
the Ardagh Group S.A. against Defendants; and (ii) unjust
enrichment against all Defendants. Defendants' actions described
herein impaired stockholders' ability to exercise their redemption
rights and decide whether to approve the merger on a fully informed
basis.
As directors of Gores V, the Director Defendants owed Plaintiff and
the Class the utmost fiduciary duties of care and loyalty, which
subsume an obligation to act in good faith, with candor, and to
make accurate material disclosures to Gores V stockholders. The
duties required them to place the interests of Gores V stockholders
above their personal interests and the interests of the Controller
Defendants.
Through the events and actions, the Director Defendants allegedly
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and candor to Plaintiff
and the Class by prioritizing their own personal, financial, and/or
reputational interests in a manner unfair to and misleading to the
Plaintiff and the Class by failing to adequately inform public
stockholders of material information necessary to allow them to
make an informed redemption decision.
As a result, the Plaintiff and the Class were harmed due to the
impairment of their redemption rights prior to the Merger. In
addition, by virtue of misstatements and omissions in the Proxy,
members of the Class could not exercise their vote in an informed
manner and approved the Merger with Legacy Ardagh based on false
and misleading information. The Plaintiff and the Class suffered
damages in an amount to be determined at trial, says the suit.
GORES SPONSOR V, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, was the
Sponsor of Gores V, a special purpose acquisition company. The
Sponsor controlled Gores V. AEG controlled the Sponsor as its
managing member.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
Rebecca A. Musarra, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
123 S. Justison Street, 7th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7000
Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
E-mail: ktucker@gelaw.com
rmusarra@gelaw.com
- and -
David Wissbroecker, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
2325 Third Street, Suite 329
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: (415) 339-9720
Facsimile: (415) 789-4367
E-mail: dwissbroecker@gelaw.com
- and -
Michael Klausner, Esq.
559 Nathon Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305
Telephone: (650) 740-1194
GREEN BAY PACKAGING: Craighead Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dalton Craighead, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GREEN BAY PACKAGING INC., a Wisconsin
corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-00975 (E.D. Wis., Aug. 1, 2024), is
brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Plaintiff and those similarly situated are entitled to overtime
pay equal to 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff and those similarly
situated regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and were
paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that did not
include Defendant's shift differentials, incentive pay, or other
remuneration as required by the FLSA. As a result of these prima
facie FLSA violations, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff and those
similarly situated for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorney's fees and costs, interest, and any other relief deemed
appropriate by the Court, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has been employed with Defendant since June 27, 2022
as an hourly, non-exempt bander operator.
Green Bay Packaging, Inc. is a Wisconsin corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Phone: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
- and -
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
Phone: (269) 250-7500
Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Town Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, Michigan 48076
Phone: (248) 355-0300
Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Laura Supanich, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 824-3828
Email: jm@melmedlaw.com
lms@melmedlaw.com
GREYHOUND LINES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Eldridge Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN ELDRIDGE; SHANE SMITH; NATHANIEL COPELAND; SEAN REED; and
ADOLPHUS MCCLEAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC.; FLIX SE;
FLIX NORTH AMERICA, INC.; FIRSTGROUP, PLC; and FIRSTGROUP SERVICES,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05773 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2024)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as customer service
agents.
Greyhound Lines, Inc. owned and operated the largest intercity bus
service in North America. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jacqueline L. Aiello, Esq.
Nicholas P Iannuzzi, Esq.
BOYD RICHARDS PARKER & COLONNELLI, P.L.
1500 Broadway, Suite 505
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 400-0626
GUAVA FAMILY: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Espinal Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. GUAVA FAMILY, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05912
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2024) alleges that Overland failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Because Defendant's website, e, https://www.guavafamily.com, is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its
Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen
reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired
individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services
-- all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby
increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons
that Title III was meant to redress, says the suit.
The Defendant operates the Guava online retail store, as well
as the Guava interactive Website and advertises, markets, and
operates in the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
GUNNING RIVER: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Property Under ADA
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS MAURER, an Individual, v. GUNNING RIVER MALL, LLC, a New
Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. e 3:24-cv-08268 (D.N.J.,
Aug. 5, 2024) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf
of all other similarly situated mobility impaired persons seeking
injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses,
and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
The Defendant owns or operates a place of public accommodation, in
this instance a shopping center/plaza, alleged by the Plaintiff to
be operating in violation of Title III of the ADA and the LAD. The
Defendant's property is known as Gunning River Mall and is located
at 849 W. Bay Avenue, Barnegat, New Jersey 080051. Venue is
properly located in the District of New Jersey because venue lies
in the judicial district of the property situs. The Defendant's
property is located in and does business within this judicial
district Mr. Maurer is a staunch advocate of the ADA.
Since becoming mobility impaired (and having to fully rely on the
use of his wheelchair to ambulate), the Plaintiff has dedicated his
life to the elimination of accessibility discrimination so that he,
and others like him, may have full and equal enjoyment of all
public accommodations without fear of discrimination and repeated
exposure to architectural barriers.
Generally speaking, Mr. Maurer continues to encounter architectural
barriers at many of the places that he visits. Seemingly trivial
architectural features such as parking spaces, curb ramps, and door
handles are taken for granted by the non-disabled but, when
implemented improperly, become arduous and even dangerous -- the
same holds true at the Property in instant matter.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq.
SHADINGER LAW, LLC
717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7
Vineland, NJ 08360
Telephone: (609) 319-5399
E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com
HYPERLITE MOUNTAIN: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS CALCANO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HYPERLITE MOUNTAIN GEAR INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-05748 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2024) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.hyperlitemountaingear.com/, is not fully or
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers,
including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Hyperlite Mountain Gear Inc. is a designer, manufacturer, and
supplier of ultralight Cuben Fiber outdoor gear and lightweight
equipment. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
IMMERSIVELY INC: Calcano Sues Over Website's Accessibility Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS CALCANO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IMMERSIVELY INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-05798 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 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 the New
York City Human Rights Law.
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.opus.pro, 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: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text
equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and
linked images missing alt-text.
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.
Immersively Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
INDEPENDENT LIVING: Gallagher-Stevens Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SAMUEL GALLAGHER-STEVENS, an individual, on behalf
of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. INDEPENDENT LIVING SYSTEMS, LLC, a Limited Liability
Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
CGC-24-614434, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Francisco to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-04582 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brings the Class Action, pursuant to California Code
of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a California class, defined as all
individuals who are or previously were employed by Defendant in
California.
Independent Living Systems, LLC is a health service company that
develops, delivers, and manages community-based services.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jonathan P. Schmidt, Esq.
Kelli M. Dreger, Esq.
Rochelle N. Miller, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 885-1360
Facsimile: (949) 885-1380
E-mail: Jonathan.Schmidt@jacksonlewis.com
Kelli.Dreger@jacksonlewis.com
Rochelle.Miller@jacksonlewis.com
INTERNAL HEALTH: Taylor Class Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA TAYLOR, SANDRA COX
and TONYA DIXON, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, v. INTERNAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES,
LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company, and MARGARET
HENDERSON-LEE, an Individual, Case No. 2:23-cv-02663-SHL-cgc (W.D.
Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
motion to facilitate notice of this action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
(1) authorizing their overtime claims to proceed as a Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") Collective Action on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated hourly-paid
employees;
(2) directing the Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs' counsel
with a computer-readable file containing the names (last
names
first), last known physical addresses, last known email
addresses, social security numbers, dates of employment, and
last known telephone number of all putative class members;
(3) providing that the Court-approved notice be posted at all
Defendants' facilities where they currently employ anyone
who
falls within the scope of the putative class, enclosed with
all
currently employed putative class members' next regularly
scheduled paycheck/stub, and be mailed and emailed to the
putative class;
(4) tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class as
of
the date this is fully briefed; and
(5) requiring that the opt-in plaintiffs' Consent to Join forms
be
deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked.
Internal Health is a healthcare provider, offering a range of
comprehensive medical services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PfdJn8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood IV
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT
OWEN & BRYANT
Attorneys at Law
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
IQVIA INC: Lyngaas Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 3rd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, DDS, PLLC is taking an appeal from a court order
in the lawsuit entitled Brian Lyngaas, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. IQVIA
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2-20-cv-02370, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
As previously stated in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks statutory and treble damages, injunctive relief, compensation
and attorney fees for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
On Jan. 10, 2023, and Feb. 15, 2023, the Plaintiff filed motions
for class certification, which the Court denied through an Order
entered by Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro on July 9, 2024.
The appellate case is captioned Brian Lyngaas v. IQVIA Inc., Case
No. 24-8028, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, filed on July 23, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S., P.L.L.C.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is
represented by:
Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
BOCK LAW FIRM
820 W. 41st Street, Suite 35
Miami Beach, FL 33140
Telephone: (305) 239-8726
- and –
Robert M. Hatch, Esq.
Jonathan B. Piper, Esq.
BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM
203 N. La Salle Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 658-5501
(312) 658-5500
Defendant-Respondent IQVIA INC. is represented by:
Tiffany Cheung, Esq.
Camille Framroze, Esq.
William Frentzen, Esq.
Bonnie Lau, Esq.
Melody E. Wong, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
(415) 268-7624
(415) 268-6024
- and –
Edward C. Eberspacher, Esq.
MEYER LAW GROUP
30 N. Lasalle Street, Suite 1410
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 265-0565
- and –
Joe N. Nguyen, Esq.
STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG
2005 Market Street, Suite 2600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 564-8095
IRON STEEL MAPESA: Masqui Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Estefania Arias Masqui, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. IRON STEEL MAPESA CORP. and OSCAR
AGUALONGO and MAURO AGUALONGO, as individuals, Case No.
1:24-cv-05365 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024), is brought against the
Defendants to recover minimum wage and overtime wage and damages
for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws
arising out of Plaintiff's employment under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was regularly required to work approximately 44.5 to
55 hours per week from November 2023 until January 2024. Thus,
Defendants failed to timely compensate Plaintiff for her first two
weeks of work and failed to compensate Plaintiff at all for all
work performed from in or late November 2023 through January 2024.
The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the legally prescribed
minimum wage for her hours worked from November 2023 until January
2024, a blatant violation of the minimum wage provisions contained
in the FLSA and NYLL.
Although Plaintiff worked approximately 44.5 to 55 hours or more
hours per week from November 2023 until January 2024, Defendants
did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a
blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA
and NYLL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from November 2023 until
January 2024.
OSCAR AGUALONGO and MAURO AGUALONGO own and operate IRON STEEL
MAPESA CORP.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Phone: 718-263-9591
Fax: 718-263-9598
IVY CITY CO: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Bunting Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
RASHETA BUNTING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IVY CITY CO, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-05306 (E.D.N.Y., July 30, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, http//:www.Ivycityco.com, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Ivy City Co. is a women-founded dress brand with an emphasis on
quality "mommy and me" fashion and size inclusion. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
JACKY'S GALAXIE: Fails to Pay Chefs' Minimum, OT Wages, Gao Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JINGANG GAO a/k/a Jin Gang Gao, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. JACKY'S GALAXIE NORTH PROVIDENCE INC d/b/a
Jacky's Galaxie Restaurant & Banquet, JACKY'S GALAXIE PROVIDENCE
INC. d/b/a Jacky's Waterplace & Sushi Bar, JACKY'S GALAXIE BRISTOL
INC d/b/a Jacky's Galaxie Bristol, JACKY'S GALAXIE LINCOLN INC
d/b/a Jacky's Galaxie Sushi Bar d/b/a Jacky's Galaxie Express,
JACKY'S GALAXIE TIVERTON INC d/b/a Jacky's Galaxie Restaurant, and
KIN WAH KO a/k/a Kinwah Ko a/k/a Jacky Ko, Case No. 1:24-cv-00303
(D.R.I., Aug. 1, 2024) is an action brought by the Plaintiff, on
behalf of himself as well as other employees similarly situated,
against the Defendants for for alleged violations of the Rhode
Island Minimum Wage Law, the Rhode Island Payment of Wages Law, and
the Internal Revenue Code, arising from the Defendants' various
willful, malicious, and unlawful employment policies, patterns and
practices.
The Defendants have willfully, maliciously, and intentionally
committed widespread violations of the RIWPL by engaging in a
pattern and practice of paying employees, including the Plaintiff,
whose pay periods are weekly every four weeks, of the RIMWL by
engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including the Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour
worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek, and of the IRC by failing to report wages paid
under-the-table, in cash, on information returns filed with the
Internal Revenue Service, the suit contends.
The Plaintiff alleges pursuant to RIWPL and RIMWL, R.I. Gen. L.
sections 28-12-3, 28-12- 4.1, 28-12-19, 28-14-2, 28-14-19.2, that
he is entitled to recover from the Defendants: untimely-paid wages,
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
and/or attorney fees and costs.
The Plaintiff further alleges pursuant to the IRC, 29 U.S.C.
section 7434, that he is entitled to recover from the Defendants
the greater of $5,000.00, or his actual damages plus costs and
attorney fees, for Defendants' filing of fraudulent information
returns.
Mr. Gao was employed by the Defendants as a Sushi Chef at one of
Defendant's restaurants, Jacky's Galaxie Restaurant & Banquet
located at 1458 Mineral Spring Avenue North Providence, RI 0290.
Jacky's Galaxie offers classic and contemporary Asian Cuisines
including Chinese, Japanese, and Thai.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tiffany Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com
JANIE AND JACK: Hernandez Seeks Blind's Access to Online Store
--------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JANIE AND JACK, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-05354 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law and
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.janieandjack.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: missing alternative-text (alt-text), hidden elements on
web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups,
unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that
some events be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Janie and Jack, LLC 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
JEFF ZMUDA: Liles Bid for Class Certification Tossed
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KORA L. LILES, v. JEFF
ZMUDA, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-03070-JWL (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge
John Lungstrum entered an order
-- denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification;
-- granting the Plaintiff's motions for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.
-- granting the Plaintiff until Aug. 30, 2024, in which to show
good
cause, in writing to the undersigned, why Plaintiff's Complaint
should not be dismissed; and
-- granting the Plaintiff until Aug. 30, 2024, in which to file a
complete and proper amended complaint to cure all the discussed
deficiencies;
The Clerk is directed to send section 1983 forms and instructions
to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff defines the class as
"all presently incarcerated at Topeka Correctional Women's
Facility
in which the group characteristics of class a [sic] whole have
commonality and typicality and the class will demonstrate
individual characteristics of the 'Named Plaintiff' in relation
to
the class."
The Plaintiff Kora L. Liles is required to show good cause, in
writing to the undersigned, why this action should not be dismissed
due to the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Complaint that are
discussed herein. Plaintiff is also given the opportunity to file
an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies.
The Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Topeka Correctional Facility
in Topeka, Kansas. The Court grants Plaintiff's motions for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference in Count I of her
Complaint, due to "exposure to mold, fungus, toxins, etc. without
proper ventilation." The Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants Zmuda
and Hook are aware of the presence of mold and toxins, and are
aware of actual current and potential detrimental effects of the
mold, toxins, sewer gas and of inadequate ventilation."
The Plaintiff states that inmates are exposed to mold, toxins, and
fungus growth inside cells, showers, dayrooms, and the cafeteria
without having adequate ventilation.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dizpco at no extra
charge.[CC]
JOHN BALDWIN: Peters Loses Bid for New Trial
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT PETERS, v. JOHN
BALDWIN, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00852-MAB (S.D. Ill.), the Hon.
Judge Mark Beatty entered an order:
-- denying Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial; and
-- denying Defendant's Motion to Strike as moot.
The Court rejects the Plaintiff's claim that the jury was unfairly
biased against him. Accordingly, having analyzed and rejected all
of the Plaintiff's challenges, the Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial
is denied.
The Plaintiff Scott Peters is an inmate within the Illinois
Department of Corrections ("IDOC"), who has been incarcerated at
Menard Correctional Center.
The Plaintiff filed this action in August 2017 alleging the IDOC
violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and/or
Rehabilitation Act ("RA") by failing to provide reasonable
accommodations for inmates with mobility issues.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=elArNB at no extra
charge.[CC]
KANSAS CITY LIFE: Seeks to Supplement Opposition to Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY A. MCMILLAN, v.
KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01100-BAH (D.
Md.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting
motion for leave to supplement opposition to the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification with excerpts from the Plaintiff's
deposition.
The Plaintiff has through his Reply Brief put his deposition
directly at issue, the Defendant Kansas City Life Insurance
Company's seeks leave to supplement its Opposition to Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification with certain excerpts from the
deposition of Plaintiff Larry McMillan taken on June 20, 2024, and,
to the extent the Court deems it helpful, the entire transcript
which has been previously submitted.
Kansas City Life is a public insurance company established in
1895.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 31, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ru5Xjk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Amy Brown Doolittle, Esq.
J. Randolph Evans, Esq.
Adam R. Fox, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
2550 M Street NW
Washington, DC 20037
Telephone: (202) 457-6000
Facsimile: (202) 457-6315
E-mail: amy.doolittle@squirepb.com
Randy.Evans@squirepb.com
adam.fox@squirepb.com
KELLER WILLIAMS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 16
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wayan Garvey, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. Keller Williams
Realty, Inc. and Britney Gaitan, Case No. 2:23-cv-00920-APG-DJA (D.
Nev.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Albregts entered an order granting in
part and denying in part the following deadlines:
Amend pleadings/add parties: Sept. 18,
2024
Class certification expert disclosures: Nov. 4, 2024
Class certification rebuttal expert disclosures: Dec. 2, 2024
Class certification motion: Dec. 16, 2024
Liability expert disclosures: Apr. 14, 2025
Liability rebuttal expert disclosures: May 12, 2025
Discovery cutoff: June 16, 2025
Dispositive motions: July 14, 2025
Pretrial order: Aug. 11, 2025
The Court denies the parties' proposed schedule and instead limits
them to a 365-day discovery plan as outlined below.
The Court also denies the parties’ proposed briefing schedule for
Plaintiff’s class certification motion. This is because,
typically, the judge deciding any particular motion also decides
any related motions to extend briefing schedule.
Unless the assigned district judge decides to refer the motion for
class certification, the undersigned magistrate judge will not
decide that motion.
Additionally, motions to extend briefing schedule deadlines require
particular showings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and
Local Rule IA 6-1, which showings the parties do not make here.
Keller Williams is an American technology and international real
estate franchise.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qnyYdU at no extra
charge.[CC]
KENVUE INC: Acne Drug Products Contain Benzene, Jones Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLY JONES and BASIM JOHNSON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KENVUE, INC. and JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00499-BCW (W.D.
Mo., July 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust
enrichment, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and omission, and
violation of Missouri Merchandising Practice Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of acne treatment
drug products containing benzoyl peroxide (BPO). The Defendants
fail to warn consumers that (1) the BPO in the products is at high
risk of degrading, and in fact degrades, into benzene under normal
and expected use, handling, and storage conditions, and (2) said
products contain benzene, which is a well-known human carcinogen.
Had the Plaintiffs and the Class known about the presence of
benzene or that the products could degrade into benzene, they would
not have purchased the products, the suit says.
Kenvue, Inc. is a global consumer health corporation, headquartered
in Skillman, New Jersey.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Kenvue, Inc., headquartered in Skillman, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
Ashlea Schwarz, Esq.
PAUL LLP
601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64106
Telephone: (816) 984-8100
Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
Email: rick@paulllp.com
ashlea@paulllp.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Settles Respironics Class Action for $479M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Calista Embry, writing for Baltimore Outloud, reports that the
CPAP, BiPAP, and ventilator equipment manufactured by Phillips
Respironics were the subject of significant complaints, which were
addressed for a total of $479 million in the settlement.
Significant problems with the safety of medical devices and
manufacturing standards are brought to light by this historic class
action complaint.
These problems might affect millions of users who depend on these
devices for the treatment of sleep apnea and respiratory
conditions. Aside from compensating consumers who were harmed, the
settlement also requires adjustments to be made to avoid such
events in the future.
$479M Phillips Respironics Class Action Settlement 2024
Phillips Respironics, a medical supply firm owned by Phillips, has
agreed to pay a minimum amount of $475 million to reimburse
eligible customers who paid for certain ventilator devices,
continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and bilateral positive
airway pressure (BiPAP) devices that are used for sleep apnea and
breathing assistance. In addition, Phillips will provide qualifying
claims with up to $15 million in "Device Replacement Awards" and up
to $34 million in "Payer Awards."
There are several different sorts of claims and monetary awards
that are available to claimants who meet the requirements. Please
continue reading to get further information on the various payment
kinds.
To date, Philips Respironics has sold or supplied over 10.8 million
CPAP, BiPAP, and other devices in the US market. These devices are
subject to recall due to defects, and they are included in the $475
Million Class Action Settlement. According to reports from the Food
and Drug Administration, medical devices manufactured by Phillips
that are used to treat obstructive sleep apnea and other breathing
disorders have been responsible for 567 fatalities since April
2021.
The proposed settlement does not cover any claims for personal
damage or medical monitoring that that device may cause. This is
something that should be taken into consideration. This class
action lawsuit is an attempt to address economic damage claims that
have arisen as a result of the purchase of Phillips medical
equipment that has been impacted.
There is ongoing litigation concerning claims that are associated
with medical monitoring or medical injuries. In addition, it is
essential to emphasize that you should not discontinue your therapy
and should immediately visit your physician if you are using one of
the devices that are covered in the Ventilator Class Action
Lawsuit.
Eligibility details
Everyone who lives in the US (including its territories and DC) and
has bought, rented, or leased a qualifying medical device, or who
has gotten a prescription for one, or who has had money taken out
of their pay check to buy, rent, or pay for a Recalled Device --
everyone falls into the Settlement Class. Insurance companies,
self-funded employers, and third-party payers all fall under this
group. A user may earn one of four distinct sorts of Awards:
To be eligible for the Device Payment Award, consumers must have
not yet returning their Returned Equipment to Philips Respironics
and must either not intend to return it or cannot return it.
The Device Return Award is available to registered consumers who
want to send back their Recalled Device to Philips Respironics.
The Device Replacement Awards are a way for consumers to get their
money back if they've already bought, leased, or rented a
comparable replacement for a Recalled Device.
Please be aware that if you have received replacement equipment at
any point in time following the 2021 CPAP, BiPAP, Ventilator
Phillips recall, then that device is NOT eligible, even if the
serial number of the device shows it as possibly eligible.
You are welcome to get in touch with the Class Action Settlement
Administrator if you are unsure as to whether or not you are a
representative of this Settlement:
Please call at this number: 1-855-912-3432.
Messages may be sent to Info@RespironicsCPAP-ELSettlement.com.
If you are a participant in a class action lawsuit that meets the
requirements, you could be entitled to a Device Payment Award for
each Recalled Device that you have bought, leased, or rented. It is
dependent on the particular model of your Recalled Device as to how
much of a prize you will receive.
For every recall device that you can return or have already
returned, you can be eligible for a Device Return Award of one
hundred dollars. The deadline to submit the claim form is August
9th, 2024. It is possible that the particular model of the Recalled
Device will not have any impact on the amount of the Device Return
Award you get.
If you spend money to replace a Recalled Device on or after June
14, 2021, and before September 7, 2023, you may be entitled to a
Device Replacement Award. This award is for the expenses that you
incurred. In addition to the Device Payment Award of one hundred
dollars for your Recalled Device, this payment will also be made.
You needed to buy the Replacement Device either before you got a
Remanufactured Device from Philips Respironics or without getting
one to be eligible for the program.
The $34 million fund may provide you with the opportunity to
receive a Payer Award. Payer Awards are going to be determined at a
later time by the administrator of the Phillips Class Action
Settlement. Please save this website to your bookmarks or come back
to it for updates.
How Do I File a Claim?
You need to submit a proper claim form to be eligible to receive a
payout from the Phillips Devices Recall Class Action. Links to the
claim forms may be found below. The date of August 9, 2024, is the
cutoff for submitting a claim.
According to the timetable, the final hearing before the court to
obtain approval of the settlement will take place on April 11,
2024. Please be sure you check this page frequently for any
prospective revisions since the dates and deadlines for court
proceedings are subject to change.
The Upcoming Updates
It is anticipated that Phillips Respironics will release new
designs for its continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP),
biphasic pulmonary artery (BiPAP), and ventilator devices. These
designs will include more sophisticated safety measures and
materials that are more dependable.
Audits and Compliance Checks Conducted regularly: To guarantee that
the new safety requirements are adhered to continually and to
address any new problems as soon as they arise, regular audits and
compliance checks will be implemented.
Integration of User Feedback It is anticipated that future upgrades
to the devices will place a greater focus on user feedback to
effectively detect and promptly address any possible issues that
may arise.
Investments in research and development may result in the creation
of innovative technologies that improve the efficiency and safety
of respiratory care equipment. These technologies might be
introduced as a result of innovative technologies.
Final Thoughts
A huge step forward in the medical device business, the $479
million Phillips Respironics class action settlement addresses
important safety issues for millions of users. This is a big
accomplishment. It ensures that injured persons get the required
compensation while also enforcing more stringent safety practices
and quality requirements.
In addition to serving as a reminder of the critical function that
regulatory authorities play in the process of safeguarding the
general public's health, this case highlights the significance of
stringent testing and supervision in the production of medical
devices. It is anticipated that future upgrades to the products and
processes of Phillips Respironics will improve the safety and
effectiveness of the device, which will be to the advantage of
users as well as the larger healthcare community. [GN]
KONSCIOUS LLC: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Fernandez Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KONSCIOUS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-05826 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law and
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.emmarelief.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: missing alternative-text (alt-text), hidden elements on
web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups,
unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that
some events be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Konscious, 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
L & R DISTRIBUTORS: Evans Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled YVETTE EVANS, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L. & R. DISTRIBUTORS, INC.,
a New York corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 24STCV06416, was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Santa Clara to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on July 29, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:24-cv-04570 to the proceeding.
The complaint seeks damages, penalties, and injunctive relief on
behalf of the Plaintiff and a putative class for Defendants': (1)
failure to pay wages; (2) violation of California Labor Code
Section 2802; (3) violation of Labor Code Section 226(a); and
violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et. seq.
L & R Distributors, Inc. provides wholesale distribution of
cosmetics, accessories, hair care products, stationery, office
supplies and toys as well as offers retail merchandising
services.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert L. Rosenthal, Esq.
John J. Savage, Esq.
HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC
Beverly Hills Triangle 1
9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (424) 303-7700
E-mail: rrosenthal@howardandhoward.com
jsavage@howardandhoward.com
LAND ROVER: Seeks OK of Summary Judgment Bid vs Dibartolomeo
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN DIBARTOLOMEO,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. LAND
ROVER SOUTH DADE, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-20842-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting Defendant's
motion for summary judgment in its favor or, in the alternative,
denying class certification now.
The Court should grant summary judgment for LRSD on both of
DiBartolomeo's claims. The indisputable evidence shows LRSD is not
liable for either Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) cause of
action. LRSD called DiBartolomeo because of a nonparty's honest
mistake, and it otherwise has robust TCPA compliance procedures in
place. Under these circumstances, both of DiBartolomeo's claims
collapse.
But even if they didn't, there is still no way she can meet her
burden to succeed in certifying either of her proposed classes.
Because of the one-off handful of events leading to the calls,
common questions of law and fact could never predominate here. Only
individualized questions will.
Nor is DiBartolomeo similarly situated to anyone else she seeks to
represent, which means her claims are not typical of her proposed
classes, and she could never satisfy the numerosity requirement,
either.
DiBartolomeo filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit alleging two
violations of the TCPA and its implementing regulations. She seeks
to represent two nationwide classes that she incorrectly claims are
similarly situated to her:
Do Not Call Registry Class:
"All persons in the United States who from four years prior to
the
filing of this action through class certification (1) Defendant
Land Rover South Dade called more than one time, (2) within any
12-month period, (3) where the person’s residential telephone
number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for
at
least thirty days, (4) for substantially the same reason
Defendant
called DiBartolomeo."
Internal Do Not Call Class:
"All persons in the United States who from four years prior to
the
filing of this action through class certification (1) Defendant
Land Rover South Dade called more than one time on their
residential telephone number, (2) within any 12-month period
(3)
for substantially the same reason Defendant called
DiBartolomeo,
(4) including at least once after the person requested that
they
stop calling."
Land Rover South Dade, LLC (LRSD) called Plaintiff Lauren
DiBartolomeo because a prospective customer, whose sworn
declaration is attached, mistyped his phone number in a
contact-request form while searching online for a Land Rover. By
mistyping one digit—a “5” instead of a “6”—he
unintentionally typed DiBartolomeo’s number instead of his own.
DiBartolomeo uses that nonparty’s one-off mistake to try to
conjure a nationwide class action against LRSD for two Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violations, seeking to transform an
innocent typo into a multimillion-dollar cash grab. The Court
should not allow that
LRSD is an automobile dealership in Miami and an authorized
retailer of Land Rover luxury car.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fJaK99 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Ryan D. Watstein, Esq.
WATSTEIN TEREPKA, LLP
1055 Howell Mill Road, 8th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30318
Telephone: (404) 782-0695
E-mail: ryan@wtlaw.com
- and -
Todd Alan Fodiman, Esq.
Jeffrey Allan Sudduth
LEGON PONCE & FODIMAN PA
1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2150
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 444-9991
Facsimile: 444-9937
E-mail: tfodiman@lpflaw.com
jsudduth@lpflaw.com
LENOVO INC: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Oct. 4
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW AXELROD and ELIOT
BURK, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, v.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
4:21-cv-06770-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order that:
A. Defendant's deadline to file its opposition to Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and to serve expert
disclosures
and reports shall be Oct. 4, 2024.
B. Defendant's deadline to produce experts for deposition shall
be
Nov. 15, 2024.
C. Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply re motion for class
certification shall be Dec. 20, 2024.
D. The hearing on the motion for class certification shall be on
Friday, Feb. 7, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. (if rescheduling is
necessary, or as soon thereafter as the Court's calendar
permits).
Accordingly, as Defendant acted with diligence in trying to obtain
June 2024 deposition dates since May 2024 but the originally
scheduled dates have become unworkable due to Mr. Dimofte's sudden
medical issue, good cause exists for the requested extension.
Apart from automatic extensions pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(a),
Defendant has only requested one extension of the briefing schedule
for Defendant's Motion to Dismiss that had no effect on the class
certification schedule.
The remaining extensions, much like the current
request/stipulation, were via joint stipulations, i.e. the joint
stipulated extension to complete private mediation, and the
previous stipulated extensions to permit the Parties to engage in
fruitful discussions regarding resolution of claims in the action
and to account for the unavailability of the Parties' mediator,
Judge Kramer, and the birth of multiple of defense counsels'
children in the interim.
On Jan. 25, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Class
Action Complaint ("FAC") against the Defendant.
On Jan. 12, 2024, the Court granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion
for extension of time to file the Motion to account for the
Plaintiffs' request for additional time to complete discovery.
On May 30, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiffs' ex parte application
to extend class certification deadlines by 75 days.
Lenovo operates as a software and hardware reseller.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LSEH6n at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel A. Rozenblatt, Esq.
Natasha Dandavati, Esq.
Seth W. Wiener, Esq.
EDGE, A PROFESSIONAL LAW
CORPORATION
1341 La Playa Street 20
San Francisco, CA 94122
Telephone: (415) 515-4809
E-mail: daniel.rozenblatt@edge.law
natasha.dandavati@edge.law
seth.wiener@edge.law
- and -
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Laura E. Goolsby, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
cody.padgett@capstonelawyers.com
laura.goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
P. Craig Cardon, Esq.
Abby Meyer, Esq.
Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Esq.
Alyssa Sones, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER &
HAMPTON LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055
Telephone: (310) 228-3700
Facsimile: (310) 228-3701
E-mail: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com
ameyer@sheppardmullin.com
baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com
asones@sheppardmullin.com
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Response
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA CORTINAS, ADELINE
CLARKE FOSS, TERESA MCINTYRE, KASANDRA VITACCA-MITCHELL,
CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, MARCUS ODUM, CASSANDRA ODUM, DONALD VILLA,
JOAN VILLA, TANYA RAWLINS, SARAH BAIOTTO, BRENT BAIOTTO, and DARREN
PETTIS individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY INSURANCE
CORPORATION, and SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIANA, Case No.
5:22-cv-00544-OLG-HJB (W.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order extending Defendants' current Sept. 9, 2024 deadline
to respond to Plaintiffs' motion for Class Certification by 60
days, or to Nov. 8, 2024.
Under the existing response deadline, both parties have
approximately one month to: (1) complete the appraisal process for
the Original Plaintiffs and the New Plaintiffs; (2) complete
written discovery; (3) take depositions of the New Plaintiffs; and
(4) take depositions of experts. Defendants must then synthesize a
vast amount of new data in a matter of days or weeks to respond to
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify by September 9, 2024. Accomplishing
all these tasks and adhering to this deadline will be difficult and
will require significant resources.
Both Plaintiffs and Defendants acknowledge, however, that if the
current September 9 response deadline remains, the parties will be
required to expend a significant amount of time and resources prior
to resolution of these questions. A short extension of the current
September 9 deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify
would alleviate the foregoing concerns.
On May 7, 2024, the Court held a hearing concerning: (1)
Defendants' Opposed Motion to Compel Appraisal and Motion to Stay
Until Completion of Appraisal, and (2) Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion
for Leave to File a Third Amended and Supplemental Class Action
Complaint.
In May 8 Order, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for
Leave to File a Third Amended and Supplemental Class Action
Complaint.
Liberty operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7c8jLn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Brandon McWherter, Esq.
McWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230
Franklin, TN 37067
Telephone: (615) 354-1144
E-mail: brandon@msb.law
- and -
Shaun W. Hodge, Esq.
THE HODGE LAW FIRM, PLLC
The Historic Runge House
1301 Market St.
Galveston, TX 77550
Telephone: (409) 762-5000
E-mail: shodge@hodgefirm.com
- and -
Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES, PSC
110 W. Vine Street, Suite 300
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (800) 614-1957
E-mail: erik@eplo.law
- and -
T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
SNODGRASS LAW, LLC
100 S. Fifth St., Suite 800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 448-2600
E-mail: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David T. Moran, Esq.
Christopher A. Thompson, Esq.
Maggie Burreson, Esq.
Michael J. Murtha, Esq.
Marilyn Brown, Esq.
Michael Roberts, Esq.
Stephen A. Calhoun, Esq.
JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.
2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 600
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 953-6000
Facsimile: (214) 953-5822
E-mail: dmoran@jw.com
cthompson@jw.com
mburreson@jw.com
mmurtha@jw.com
mbrown@jw.com
mroberts@jw.com
scalhoun@jw.com
LOVE'S TRAVEL: Jackson Sues Over Sexual Harassment & Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAULA JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LOVE'S TRAVEL STOPS & COUNTRY STORES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01812 (S.D. Ill., July 31, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for sexual harassment under the
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a fresh foods manager
from on or about April 11, 2022, through on or about May 9, 2024.
Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc. is a convenience store
company located in Ina, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan C. Volheim, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 568-3056
Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
Email: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com
- and -
Sophia K. Steere, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (331) 307-7634
Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
Email: ssteere@sulaimanlaw.com
LOWE'S HOME: Lipari Sues Over Workplace Discrimination, Harassment
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER LIPARI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC And Does 1 Through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV19561 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
Aug. 5, 2024) is a class action complaint of discrimination,
harassment, retaliation, and failure to accommodate, failure to
engage in interactive process, prevent discrimination, harassment,
and retaliation under Government Code section 12940 et seq., the
California Fair Employment Housing Act ("FEHA"), with the
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
The Plaintiff was a member of a protected class within the meaning
of California Government Code sections 12940(a), 12926(m), because
of his medical condition (cancer or genetic characteristic), age
(40 and over), disability (physical, intellectual/developmental,
mental health/psychiatric), family care and medical leave related
to serious health condition of employee or family member, child
bonding, or military exigencies.
Lowe's Home retails home improvement, building materials, and home
appliances.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jores Kharatian, Esq.
KHARATIAN LAW, APC
595 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 210
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 759-9900
Facsimile: (888) 636-5090
E-mail: jores@kharatianlaw.com
LUBBOCK HEART: Class Settlement in Lara Suit Wins Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOE LARA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. LUBBOCK HEART
HOSPITAL, LLC d/b/a LUBBOCK HEART & SURGICAL HOSPITAL, Case No.
5:23-cv-00036-H (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix
entered an order granting approval of class action settlement.
-- The Court grants the motions for final approval of the
settlement
and for attorneys' fees, costs, and the service award.
-- The Court finally certifies the following Settlement Class:
"All persons who were sent written notification by the
Defendant
that their Private Information was potentially compromised as a
result of the Data Incident Defendant determined took place in
July 2022."
Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i)
Defendant, the Related Entities, and their officers and
directors;
(ii) all Settlement Class Members who timely and validly
requested
exclusion from the Settlement Class; (iii) any judges assigned
to
this case and their staff and family; and (iv) any other Person
found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under
criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the
criminal activity occurrence of the Data Incident or who pleads
nolo contendere to any such charge"
The Court awards class counsel $262,500 in attorneys' fees and a
service award of $2,500 to Joe Lara.
As alleged in the plaintiff's complaint, on July 11, 2022, the
defendant, Lubbock Heart Hospital, was hacked, exposing personal
identifying and health information of thousands of Lubbock Heart
Hospital's patients.
The plaintiff, Joe Lara, is a former patient of Lubbock Heart
Hospital who received such a notice.
He claims that this data breach has injured him due to an increased
risk of identity theft, time spent monitoring his credit, anxiety,
a breach of an implied contract with the defendant, and an invasion
of his privacy rights.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2hiYm0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MACKRES FAMILY: Maurer Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers
------------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS MAURER, an Individual v. MACKRES FAMILY LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No.
3:24-cv-08278 (D.N.J., Aug. 5, 2024) is a class action suit brought
by the Plaintiff on his own behalf and on the behalf of all other
similarly situated mobility impaired persons, seeking injunctive
relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey
Law Against Discrimination.
Mr. Maurer is a staunch advocate of the ADA. Since becoming
mobility impaired (and having to fully rely on the use of his
wheelchair to ambulate) he has dedicated his life to the
elimination of accessibility discrimination so that he, and others
like him, may have full and equal enjoyment of all public
accommodations without fear of discrimination and repeated exposure
to architectural barriers.
Generally speaking, Mr. Maurer continues to encounter architectural
barriers at many of the places that he visits. Seemingly trivial
architectural features such as parking spaces, curb ramps, and door
handles are taken for granted by the non-disabled but, when
implemented improperly, become arduous and even dangerous -- the
same holds true at the Property in instant matter, says the suit.
The Defendant owns or operates a place of public accommodation, in
this instance a shopping center/plaza, alleged by the Plaintiff to
be operating in violation of Title III of the ADA and the LAD.
The Defendant's property is known as Waretown Plaza and is located
at 529 Route 9 South, Waretown, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq.
SHADINGER LAW, LLC
717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7
Vineland, NJ 08360
Telephone: (609) 319-5399
E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com
MARY MAHONEY: Faces Class Suit Over Misbranding Seafoods
--------------------------------------------------------
Christine Blank, writing for Seafood Source, reports that a
restaurant in the U.S. state of Mississippi is facing a
class-action lawsuit over selling imported seafood and promoting it
as locally caught catch coming from the Gulf of Mexico.
The historic Biloxi, Mississippi, U.S.A.-based Mary Mahoney's Old
French House restaurant previously faced federal felony charges
over the same issue.
Mary Mahoney's owner, Bobby Mahoney, as well as co-owner Anthony
Cvitanovich, pled guilty to federal charges of conspiracy,
misbranding seafood, and wire fraud felony charges on 30 May,
resulting in fines totaling USD 1.35 million (EUR 1.2 million).
Mahoney's, founded in 1962, admitted to selling frozen imported
fish from Africa, India, and South America and advertising them as
locally sourced premium species between December 2013 and November
2019, according to information provided by the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of Mississippi. Cvitanovich
admitted that between 2018 and 2019, he was involved in mislabeling
approximately 17,190 pounds of fish sold at the restaurant.
"The scheme involved the fraudulent sale of fish by Mahoney's and
its wholesale supplier that was described on Mahoney's menu as
premium higher-priced local species, such as snapper and grouper
from the Gulf of Mexico, when the fish was actually other species
from abroad, including Lake Victoria perch from Africa, tripletail
from Suriname, and unicorn filefish from India," the U.S.
Attorney's Office said.
Genetic testing of fish by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) confirmed the fraudulent scheme, the government said.
The mislabeled seafood was a mistake with a certain dish that has
since been fixed, lawyers for Mahoney and Cvitanovich said at the
time, according to The SunHerald.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiff, Todd McCain from Alabama, alleges he
purchased what the restaurant claimed was snapper three times
between 2013 and 2018. The complaint alleges the restaurant and
Cvitanovich engaged in racketeering in violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The suit is asking for
damages to be paid to customers who purchased foreign fish at Mary
Mahoney's between January 2012 and November 2019, up to USD 10,000
(EUR 9,114) each.
An unnamed seafood wholesaler, along with its business manager and
other executives, are named as co-conspirators in the suit. The
complaint also lists several "doe defendants."
The complaint alleges that the unnamed seafood wholesaler and its
business manager and sales manager participated in the scheme by
"importing, pricing, and selling the inexpensive foreign fish,
knowing full well that they were going to be fraudulently
substituted as high-priced premium fresh fish, when co-conspirators
Mary Mahoney's and Cvitanovich participated by mislabeling,
marketing, and selling the foreign fish to plaintiff and the
class."
The complaint includes detailed text messages between the
wholesaler's business manager and sales manager and Cvitanovich.
"Still have no triple tail. I'm sending you . . . [GN]
MDL 3078: Class Cert Filing in Dillon v. GPSI Due Nov. 3, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dillon v. Generac Power
Systems Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00034 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge
Lynn Adelman entered a scheduling order as follows:
1. The parties shall complete inspections by March 24, 2025.
2. The close of fact discovery is July 22, 2025.
3. Plaintiffs shall disclose any expert witnesses consistent
with
Rule 26(a)(2), and with options for deposition dates, on or
before June 17, 2025. The Defendants shall disclose any
expert
witnesses consistent with Rule 26(a)(2), and with options for
deposition dates, on or before Aug. 18, 2025. The deadline
for
any rebuttal expert disclosures with options for deposition
dates is Sept. 17, 2025.
4. The close of expert discovery is Oct. 17, 2025.
5. The deadline for filing motions for class certification and
any
Daubert motions relating to class experts is Nov. 3, 2025.
Response briefs must be filed on or before Dec. 15, 2025.
Reply
briefs must be filed on or before Jan. 26, 2026.
6. The court expects counsel to confer and make a good faith
effort
to settle the case.
On July 30, 2024, the court held a scheduling conference in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and Civil L. R. 16(a) (E.D.
Wis.).
The Dillon Suit is consolidated in GENERAC SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL
No. 23-MD-3078).
These actions share common questions of fact arising from
allegations that the SnapRS rapid shutdown components in solar
power storage systems manufactured and marketed by Generac have a
tendency to overheat and melt or catch fire, causing loss of power
and the risk
of fire or other damage to users' homes.
All involved actions are putative nationwide or statewide class
actions. Plaintiffs assert substantially similar claims for
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or breach of implied
and express warranties, along with various claims for breach of
contract, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, or violation of state consumer protection statutes.
Generac designs and manufactures power generation equipment serving
residential, commercial, and industrial markets.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JlZAA5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 3078: Class Cert Filing in Kates v. GPSI Due Nov. 3, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kates v. Generac Power
Systems Inc et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00892 (E.D. Wis.), the Hon.
Judge Lynn Adelman entered a scheduling order as follows:
1. The parties shall complete inspections by March 24, 2025.
2. The close of fact discovery is July 22, 2025.
3. Plaintiffs shall disclose any expert witnesses consistent
with
Rule 26(a)(2), and with options for deposition dates, on or
before June 17, 2025. The Defendants shall disclose any
expert
witnesses consistent with Rule 26(a)(2), and with options for
deposition dates, on or before Aug. 18, 2025. The deadline
for
any rebuttal expert disclosures with options for deposition
dates is Sept. 17, 2025.
4. The close of expert discovery is Oct. 17, 2025.
5. The deadline for filing motions for class certification and
any
Daubert motions relating to class experts is Nov. 3, 2025.
Response briefs must be filed on or before Dec. 15, 2025.
Reply
briefs must be filed on or before Jan. 26, 2026.
6. The court expects counsel to confer and make a good faith
effort
to settle the case.
On July 30, 2024, the court held a scheduling conference in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and Civil L. R. 16(a) (E.D.
Wis.).
The Kates Suit is consolidated in GENERAC SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL
No. 23-MD-3078).
These actions share common questions of fact arising from
allegations that the SnapRS rapid shutdown components in solar
power storage systems manufactured and marketed by Generac have a
tendency to overheat and melt or catch fire, causing loss of power
and the risk
of fire or other damage to users' homes.
All involved actions are putative nationwide or statewide class
actions. Plaintiffs assert substantially similar claims for
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or breach of implied
and express warranties, along with various claims for breach of
contract, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, or violation of state consumer protection statutes.
Generac designs and manufactures power generation equipment serving
residential, commercial, and industrial markets.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NEtZxH at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 3078: Class Cert Filing in Moon v. GPSI Due Nov. 3, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Moon v. Generac Power
Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00684 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon.
Judge Lynn Adelman entered a scheduling order as follows:
1. The parties shall complete inspections by March 24, 2025.
2. The close of fact discovery is July 22, 2025.
3. Plaintiffs shall disclose any expert witnesses consistent
with
Rule 26(a)(2), and with options for deposition dates, on or
before June 17, 2025. The Defendants shall disclose any
expert
witnesses consistent with Rule 26(a)(2), and with options for
deposition dates, on or before Aug. 18, 2025. The deadline
for
any rebuttal expert disclosures with options for deposition
dates is Sept. 17, 2025.
4. The close of expert discovery is Oct. 17, 2025.
5. The deadline for filing motions for class certification and
any
Daubert motions relating to class experts is Nov. 3, 2025.
Response briefs must be filed on or before Dec. 15, 2025.
Reply
briefs must be filed on or before Jan. 26, 2026.
6. The court expects counsel to confer and make a good faith
effort
to settle the case.
On July 30, 2024, the court held a scheduling conference in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and Civil L. R. 16(a) (E.D.
Wis.).
The Moon Suit is consolidated in GENERAC SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL
No. 23-MD-3078).
These actions share common questions of fact arising from
allegations that the SnapRS rapid shutdown components in solar
power storage systems manufactured and marketed by Generac have a
tendency to overheat and melt or catch fire, causing loss of power
and the risk
of fire or other damage to users' homes.
All involved actions are putative nationwide or statewide class
actions. Plaintiffs assert substantially similar claims for
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or breach of implied
and express warranties, along with various claims for breach of
contract, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, or violation of state consumer protection statutes.
Generac designs and manufactures power generation equipment serving
residential, commercial, and industrial markets.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Tj0hH8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 3078: Class Cert Filing in Zukas v. GPSI Due Nov. 3, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zukas et al v. Generac
Power Systems Inc et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00874 (E.D. Wisc.), the
Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman entered a scheduling order as follows:
1. The parties shall complete inspections by March 24, 2025.
2. The close of fact discovery is July 22, 2025.
3. Plaintiffs shall disclose any expert witnesses consistent
with
Rule 26(a)(2), and with options for deposition dates, on or
before June 17, 2025. The Defendants shall disclose any
expert
witnesses consistent with Rule 26(a)(2), and with options for
deposition dates, on or before Aug. 18, 2025. The deadline
for
any rebuttal expert disclosures with options for deposition
dates is Sept. 17, 2025.
4. The close of expert discovery is Oct. 17, 2025.
5. The deadline for filing motions for class certification and
any
Daubert motions relating to class experts is Nov. 3, 2025.
Response briefs must be filed on or before Dec. 15, 2025.
Reply
briefs must be filed on or before Jan. 26, 2026.
6. The court expects counsel to confer and make a good faith
effort
to settle the case.
On July 30, 2024, the court held a scheduling conference in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and Civil L. R. 16(a) (E.D.
Wis.).
The Zukas Suit is consolidated in GENERAC SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL
No. 23-MD-3078).
These actions share common questions of fact arising from
allegations that the SnapRS rapid shutdown components in solar
power storage systems manufactured and marketed by Generac have a
tendency to overheat and melt or catch fire, causing loss of power
and the risk
of fire or other damage to users' homes.
All involved actions are putative nationwide or statewide class
actions. Plaintiffs assert substantially similar claims for
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or breach of implied
and express warranties, along with various claims for breach of
contract, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, or violation of state consumer protection statutes.
Generac designs and manufactures power generation equipment serving
residential, commercial, and industrial markets.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2VfBZ4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 3083: Morris Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Private Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
BEN MORRIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION; ERNST & YOUNG
INVESTMENT ADVISERS, LLP; and BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-11807 (D. Mass., July 15, 2024) seeks
redress for the Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for
negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party
beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, declaratory and
injunctive relief, invasion of privacy, breach of confidence, and
for violations of the Massachusetts General Laws' Chapter 93A.
The case arises from Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated customers'
personally identifiable information.
The Morris case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3083, IN RE:
MOVEIT CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION.
Progress Software Corporation is a Massachusetts-based software
company that offers a wide range of software products and services
to corporate and governmental entities throughout the United States
and the world, including cloud hosting and secure file transfer
services such as MOVEit. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Fl.
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
E-mail: kristenj@hbsslaw.com
- and -
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
1229 Tyler St., NE, Ste. 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5933
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Ave., 5th Fl.
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: Gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, 5th Fl.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Ave. S., Ste. 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 612-339-0981
E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: cshaffer@lfsblaw.com
MISSFRESH LIMITED: $4.9MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. issued the
following statement regarding notice of a proposed class action
settlement:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JUAN CHEN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff,
MISSFRESH LIMITED, ZHENG XU, JUN WANG, YUAN SUN, ZHAOHUI LI,
COLLEEN A. DE VRIES, HANSONG ZHU, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC,
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL
CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LIMITED, CHINA RENAISSANCE
SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LIMITED, HAITONG INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES
COMPANY LIMITED, CMB INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL LIMITED, AMTD GLOBAL
MARKETS LIMITED, ICBC INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES LIMITED, NEEDHAM &
COMPANY, LLC, CHINA MERCHANTS SECURITIES (HK) CO., LIMITED, ABCI
SECURITIES COMPANY LIMITED, GF SECURITIES (HONG KONG) BROKERAGE
LIMITED, FUTU INC., TIGER BROKERS (NZ) LIMITED, AND COGENCY
GLOBAL, INC., Defendants
Case No. 1:22-cv-09836-SR
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
To: All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise
acquired Missfresh Limited ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the
Offering Documents issued in connection with the ADSs initial
public offering in June 2021, and were damaged thereby (the
"Settlement Class")
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that Plaintiffs, Chelsea
Fan, Maso Capital Investments Limited, Blackwell Partners LLC –
Series A, and Star V Partners LLC, and James Sannito
("Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and all other members of
the Settlement Class; and Missfresh Limited ("Missfresh");
defendant Zheng Xu; Cogency Global Inc. ("Cogency") and Colleen A.
De Vries (together with Cogency, the "Cogency Defendants"); and
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., China
International Capital Corporation Hong Kong Securities Limited,
China Renaissance Securities (Hong Kong) Limited, Haitong
International Securities Company Limited, CMB International Capital
Limited, AMTD Global Markets Limited, ICBC International Securities
Limited, Needham & Company, LLC, China Merchants Securities (HK)
Co., Limited, ABCI Securities Company Limited, GF Securities (Hong
Kong) Brokerage Limited, Futu Inc., and Tiger Brokers (NZ) Limited
(collectively, the "Underwriter Defendants" and, together with
Missfresh, Zheng Xu, and the Cogency Defendants, the "Settling
Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in
the above-captioned class action (the "Action") and related claims
in the amount of $4,903,900 (the "Settlement").
A hearing will be held before the Honorable Jed S. Rakoff on
October 10, 2024, at 4:30 p.m. in Courtroom 14B at the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel
Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY 10007 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the
Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as
provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated June
12, 2024; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for
distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement
Fund") to Settlement Class Members; and (iv) approve Co-Lead
Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the
date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without
providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement
Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a long-form Notice
and Claim Form, you may obtain copies by visiting the website for
the Settlement, www.MissfreshSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by
contacting the Claims Administrator at:
Missfresh Securities Settlement
c/o Verita Global, LLC
P.O. Box 301135
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1135
www.MissfreshSecuritiesSettlement.com
1-888-726-1691
Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Co-Lead Counsel:
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
Alfred Fatale III, Esq.
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
settlementquestions@labaton.com
1-888-219-6877
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
www.rosenlegal.com
212-686-1060
If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than October 5,
2024. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit
a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless
be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court, whether
favorable or unfavorable.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions in the long-form
Notice so that it is received no later than September 19, 2024. If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court,
whether favorable or unfavorable, but you will not be eligible to
share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Co-Lead Counsel's Fee
and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation
must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be
mailed to counsel for the parties in accordance with the
instructions in the long-form Notice, so that they are received no
later than September 19, 2024.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE
DATED: July 29, 2024
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MISSISSIPPI: Sterling Appeals Case Dismissal to 5th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------
PRISCILLA STERLING, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Priscilla Sterling, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-CV-531, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi.
The case arises from the City of Jackson's water crisis.
On June 15, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint for (1)
bodily integrity against the City and Individual Defendants, (2)
state-created danger against the City and Individual Defendants,
(3) state-law negligence against the City and Individual
Defendants, (4) state-law professional negligence against Trilogy
Engineering Services LLC and (5) state-law negligence against
Trilogy.
On Feb. 20, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Mar. 14, 2024.
On June 11, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Kristi H. Johnson. The
Court entered a final judgment on June 20, 2024, which dismisses
all claims against Individual Defendants with prejudice. The Court
dismissed the bodily-integrity and state-created-danger claims
against Defendant the City of Jackson, Mississippi (the City) with
prejudice; and dismisses the negligence claim against the City
without prejudice. The Court also dismissed the negligence and
professional negligence claims against Defendant Trilogy
Engineering Services LLC without prejudice. The case was closed.
The appellate case is captioned Sterling v. City of Jackson, Case
No. 24-60370, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, filed on July 22, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants PRISCILLA STERLING, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, et al. are represented
by:
Robert Lewis Gibbs, Esq.
GIBBS TRAVIS, P.L.L.C.
210 E. Capitol Street
Jackson, MS 39201
Telephone: (601) 487-2631
- and –
Larry D. Moffett, Esq.
P.O. Box 1418
Oxford, MS 38655
Telephone: (662) 298-4435
Defendants-Appellees CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, et al., are
represented by:
Sheridan A. Carr, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
455 E. Capitol Street
P.O. Box 2779
Jackson, MS 39201
Telephone: (601) 960-1799
- and –
Terris Caton Harris, Esq.
MAPLES HARRIS
120 N. Congress Street
Jackson, MS 39201
Telephone: (866) 548-7765
- and –
Drew McLemore Martin, Esq.
5217 Suffolk Circle
Jackson, MS 39211
Telephone: (601) 272-8410
- and –
Abbey Adcock Reeves, Esq.
JONES WALKER, L.L.P.
3100 N. State Street
Jackson, MS 39216
Telephone: (601) 949-4696
- and –
John Frederick Hawkins, Esq.
HAWKINS LAW, P.C.
P.O. Box 24627
Jackson, MS 39225
Telephone: (601) 969-9692
- and –
Dennis Jason Childress, Esq.
FLETCHER & SIPPEL, L.L.C.
4400 Old Canton Road
Jackson, MS 39211
Telephone: (601) 414-6009
MULTIPLAN INC: ECMC Sues Over Reimbursement Anticompetitive Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------------
Erie County Medical Center Corporation, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. MultiPlan, Inc., Health Care
Service Corporation, Aetna, Inc., Elevance Health, Inc., Centene
Corporation, The Cigna Group, UnitedHealth Group, Inc., Humana,
Inc., and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-06776 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 1, 2024) alleges that MultiPlan
conspired with the nation's leading commercial healthcare insurance
providers to fix, suppress, and stabilize the reimbursement rates
that the insurers pay to healthcare providers for out-of-network
healthcare services in the United States.
According to the complaint, MultiPlan's commercial insurance
provider co-conspirators knowingly and purposefully used shared
"repricing" tools sold and promoted by MultiPlan, enabling and
facilitating an anticompetitive scheme that caused Plaintiff ECMC
to receive artificially suppressed reimbursements for
out-of-network healthcare services they provided from July 1, 2017
to the present (the "Class Period"). Beginning no later than July
1, 2017, the Defendants formed and engaged in a continuing
contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain
interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of
itself and all other Class members under Section 4 of the Clayton
Antitrust Act for Defendants' conduct in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' past and continuing
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Plaintiff
has been injured in its business or property and will continue to
be injured in its business and property by receiving lower
reimbursements for out-of-network healthcare services claims than
what it would have received absent the conspiracy, the suit further
asserts.
ECMC is a public benefit corporation that manages a healthcare
system providing many levels of health services to patients in
Western New York.
MultiPlan provides healthcare cost management solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
Justin N. Boley, Esq.
Melinda J. Morales, Esq.
WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP
311 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 5450
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
E-mail: kaw@wbe-llp.com
jnb@wbe-llp.com
mjm@wbe-llp.com
- and -
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
Kaitlyn L. Dennis, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
kdennis@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
Daniel N. Gallucci, Esq.
Michael S. Tarringer, Esq.
Michele S. Burkholder, Esq.
NASTLAW LLC
1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 923-9300
E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
dgallucci@nastlaw.com
mtarringer@nastlaw.com
mburkholder@nastlaw.com
- and -
Kevin Landau, Esq.
Miles Greaves, Esq.
Evan Rosin, Esq.
TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
123 Williams St., Suite 1900A
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (646) 873-7654
E-mail: klandau@tcllaw.com
atamoshunas@tcllaw.com
mgreaves@tcllaw.com
- and -
Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ, MONGELUZZI,
& BENDESKY, P.C.
One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
1650 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone:(215) 575-3986
E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
phoward@smbb.com
- and -
David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 S. 8th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
- and -
Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
Marco Cercone, Esq.
RUPP PFALZGRAF, LLC
1600 Liberty Building
424 Main Street
Buffalo, NY 14202
Telephone: (716) 854-3400
E-mail: bailey@RuppPfalzgraf.com
cercone@RuppPfalzgraf.com
NIKE INC: Mehta Alleges Securities Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------
YAGNESH MEHTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NIKE, INC., JOHN J. DONAHOE II, and MATTHEW
FRIEND, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01150-AN (D. Or., July 15,
2024) seeks to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5, Securities
and Exchange Commission's 10-5.
Plaintiff Mehta brings this federal securities class action on
behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired NIKE Class B common stock between March 19,
2021, and June 27, 2024, inclusive. Throughout the said period, the
Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
NIKE's direct-to-consumer strategy was unable to generate
sustainable revenue growth; (2) NIKE's purported competitive
advantages were unable to protect NIKE from intense competitive
pressures after NIKE largely disengaged from many of its wholesale
and retail partners to focus on the NIKE's direct-to-consumer
strategy; and (3) as a result, Defendants' representations about
the NIKE's business, operations, and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result
of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the decline in
the market value of the NIKE's Class B common stock pursuant to the
revelation of the fraud, Plaintiff and other members of the Class
have suffered significant damages, says the suit.
NIKE is a global athletic footwear and apparel company which
designs, markets, and sells products for its NIKE, Jordan, and
Converse brands. Its Class B common stock trades on the New York
Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "NKE." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith A. Ketterling, Esq.
Timothy S. DeJong, Esq.
STOLL BERNE
209 Southwest Oak Street, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 227-1600
Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
E-mail: kketterling@stollberne.com
- and -
Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq.
Joshua S. Keszczyk, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com
gjarvis@ktmc.com
jkezczyk@ktmc.com
NRA GROUP: Mercado Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN MERCADO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. NRA GROUP LLC D/BA NATIONAL RECOVERY AGENCY, Case No.
2:24-cv-00700 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 5, 2024) is a class action lawsuit
alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA").
According to the complaint, the Defendant began attempting to
collect a debt (the "Consumer Debt") from the Plaintiff. The
Consumer Debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to pay
money arising from a transaction between the creditor of the
Consumer Debt, Defendant, and Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the Consumer Debt. The
Subject Service was primarily for personal, family, or household
purposes.
The Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly
or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due
another.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Dushok Suit Over Compromised Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARK DUSHOK, GUARDIANS/ PARENTS A.F. AND G.G-F. ON BEHALF OF MINOR
PLAINTIFFS A.G-F AND K.G-F., GUARDIAN/ PARENT CHRISTINA IZQUIERDO
ON BEHALF OF MINOR PLAINTIFF X.T., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS,
INC. and GEISINGER HEALTH d/b/a GEISINGER HEALTH FOUNDATION,
Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-01282-MWB (M.D. Pa., July 31, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence
per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and
protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated Geisinger Health's clients stored on Nuance's network
systems following a data breach discovered on or around November
29, 2023. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data
breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and
Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.
Nuance Communications, Inc. is a computer software technology
corporation in Burlington, Massachusetts.
Geisinger Health d/b/a Geisinger Health Foundation is a regional
health care provider headquartered in Danville, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Kelly Iverson, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Fl.
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Email: gary@lcllp.com
kelly@lcllp.com
- and -
Ariana J. Tadler, Esq.
TADLER LAW LLP
22 Bayview Avenue, Suite 200
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (212) 946-9300
Email: atadler@tadlerlaw.com
- and -
A.J. de Bartolomeo, Esq.
TADLER LAW LLP
P.O. Box 475847
3749 Buchanan Street
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 226-0260
Email: ajd@tadlerlaw.com
- and -
Marion Munley, Esq.
MUNLEY LAW PC
227 Penn Avenue
Scranton, PA 18503
Telephone: (570) 346-7401
Email: mmunley@munley.com
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Everett Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA EVERETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and GEISINGER
HEALTH, d/b/a GEISINGER HEALTH FOUNDATION, Defendants, Case No.
4:24-cv-01270-MWB (M.D. Pa., July 29, 2024) is a class action
against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiff's and similarly situated individuals'
personally identifiable information and protected health
information -- as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act -- including but not limited to dates of birth,
mailing addresses, admission and discharge transfer codes, race,
gender, phone numbers and facility name abbreviations.
On November 29, 2023, Geisinger purportedly discovered that a
former Nuance employee had accessed certain Geisinger patient
information two days after the employee had been terminated.
Geisinger purportedly informed Nuance of this breach the same day.
Following an investigation, Nuance determined that over 1.2 million
Geisinger patients were impacted by the breach. Nuance began
sending notice letters to individuals impacted on June 21, 2024.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated to address Defendants' inadequate
safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information,
for failing to provide adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class
Members of the unauthorized access to their private information by
a cyber attacker, and for failing to provide adequate notice of
precisely what information was accessed and stolen.
As a direct result of the data breach, Plaintiff and Class Members
have suffered fraud and will continue to be exposed to a heightened
and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft, potentially for the
rest of their lives. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and
in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard
against identity theft, says the suit.
Nuance Communications, Inc. is a global provider of conversational
artificial intelligence and cloud-based ambient clinical
intelligence for healthcare providers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zac Arbitman, Esq.
FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER
WEINSTOCK & DODIG LLP
1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 567-8300
E-mail: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com
- and -
Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
Steven J. Buttacavoli, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
One Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 542-8300
E-mail: pegan@bermantabacco.com
sbuttacavoli@bermantabacco.com
- and -
Pierce H. Stanley, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
425 California Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-3200
E-mail: pstanley@bermantabacco.com
PARAGON 28: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Paragon 28, Inc. (NYSE: FNA) resulting from
allegations that Paragon 28 may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
So what: If you purchased Paragon 28 securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=27557 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
What is this about: On July 30, 2024, after the market closed,
Paragon 28 filed a current report on Form 8-K with the SEC. It
stated that "On July 30, 2024, the Audit Committee of the Board of
Directors (the "Audit Committee") of Paragon 28, Inc. (the
"Company"), in consultation with management, concluded that the
Company's previously issued audited consolidated financial
statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, contained
within the Annual Report on Form 10-K for that year (and the
associated audit report of the Company's independent registered
accounting firm) and the unaudited condensed consolidated financial
statements contained within the Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2023, June 30, 2023,
September 30, 2023, and March 31, 2024 should no longer be relied
upon due to errors in such financial statements, and therefore a
restatement of these prior financial statements is required.
Accordingly, the Company intends to restate the aforementioned
financial statements by amending its Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2023 and its quarterly report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 (the "Restated Filings")
as soon as reasonably practicable."
On this news, Paragon 28's stock fell $1.24 per share, or 13.7%, to
close at $7.79 per share on July 31, 2024.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
PNC FINANCIAL: McCauley Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 3rd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MCCAULEY is taking an appeal from a court judgment in the
lawsuit entitled John McCauley, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The PNC Financial Services
Group Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2-20-cv-01493, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
The Plaintiff claims that Defendants PNC Financial Services Group,
Inc. and PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Incentive Savings Plan
Administrative Committee violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) when they paid excessive recordkeeping fees
for their employees' Incentive Savings Plan.
On Oct. 6, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to exclude proposed
expert testimony of Ty Minnich.
On Oct. 20, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment.
On June 21, 2024, Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand granted the
Defendants' motion to exclude proposed expert testimony of Ty
Minnich and the motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's claims
for breach of fiduciary duty (Count I), failure to monitor
fiduciaries (Count II), and liability for participation in breach
of fiduciary duty (Count III) were dismissed with prejudice.
According to the Court, the Plaintiff relies solely on Mr.
Minnich's Expert Report to establish a prima facie case of loss.
And because the Court ruled Mr. Minnich's expert opinion
inadmissible, the Plaintiff cannot establish loss.
The appellate case is captioned John McCauley v. PNC Financial
Services Group Inc, et al., Case No. 24-2348, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on July 24, 2024.
[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN MCCAULEY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Alec Berin, Esq.
James C. Shah, Esq.
MILLER SHAH
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (610) 891-9880
- and –
Anna K. D'Agostino, Esq.
MILLER SHAH
225 Broadway, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
- and –
Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
- and –
James E. Miller, Esq.
Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
MILLER SHAH
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412
Telephone: (860) 526-1100
Defendants-Appellees THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP INC., et al.
are represented by:
Christopher J. Boran, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 324-1000
- and –
Brian T. Ortelere, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
2222 Market Street, 12th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-5150
- and –
Stephanie R. Reiss, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
301 Grant Street
One Oxford Centre, Suite 3200
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 560-3378
- and –
Matthew J. Sharbaugh, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 800 North
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 739-5623
PRIMECARE MEDICAL: Bid for Summary Judgment vs Fleenor Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS FLEENOR, JR., JOHN
CRABTREE, STEVEN MARTIN, GARY TOLER, ELGIE ADKINS, and SABRINA
EAGLE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC., THOMAS WEBER, BRETT BAVINGTON, TODD
HESKINS, KRISTA VALLANDINGHAM, MELISSA JEFFERY, BRANDY EASTRIDGE,
HELEN PERKINS, JESSICA MILLER, BRANDY EASTRIDGE, WEXFORD HEALTH
SOURCES, INC., MARY STONE, DANIEL CONN, ELAINE GEDMAN, JOHN
FROELICH, HUMAYAN RASHID, M.D., ANGELA NICHOLSON, MSN, APRN, FNP-C,
AMBER DUNCAN, LISA MULLENS, LPN, CASSEY BOLEN, JOHN PENNINGTON, MA,
LPC, NCC, NCSC, KENNADI SMITH, LPN, RACHEL LEEDY, LPN, ASHLEY
VALLANDINGHAM, LPN, BRITTANI MARSHALL, RN, AUTMN BLAIR, RN, JOYE
MARTIN, MD, HANNAH WHITE, LPN, ASHLEY STROUP, LPN, DONNA
DEAN-CHRIVIA, AND JOHN AND JANE DOE PRIMECARE AND WEXFORD
EMPLOYEES, Case No. 5:22-cv-00405 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge
Frank Volk entered an order:
-- denying as moot the County Defendants' motion for summary
judgment, and
-- denying the Joint Motion by the County Commission Defendants,
Wexford Health Sources, Inc. and PrimeCare Medical, Inc. for
Leave
to File a Sur-Reply to Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion
for
Leave to File Third Amended Complaint and Defendant PrimeCare
Medical of West Virginia’s Motion for Relief from the Court's
Memorandum Opinion and Order.
The case is stayed and retired to the inactive docket pending the
entry of a new scheduling order.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to
counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
Primecare provides correctional healthcare to county jails,
prisons, and juvenile detention centers.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LCc5mI at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Appeals Ruling in Freeman Suit to 4th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY is taking an appeal from a
court order in the lawsuit entitled Lynn Freeman, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-03798-DCC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina.
The suit, which was removed from the Court of Common Pleas for the
Second Judicial Circuit in Aiken County, South Carolina, to the
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina,
alleges that Progressive Direct issued the Plaintiff's automobile
insurance policy; that she was in an automobile accident on May 19,
2021; and that Progressive Direct determined that her vehicle was a
total loss. The Plaintiff alleges that Progressive Direct
improperly valued her total loss claim because it used a valuation
system provided by Mitchell International, Inc. that applies a
Projected Sold Adjustment (PSA) to determine the value of her total
loss vehicle. The PSA adjusts an unsold vehicle's sticker price to
account for typical negotiation differences between list and sale
prices, a practice Plaintiff contends does not reflect market
realities and results in underpayment of claims.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Donald Coggins, Jr. entered an order on May 8, 2024 on the
Defendant's motions to exclude declarations and reports and
testimonies of expert witnesses.
The Defendant's motion to exclude the reports and testimony of Todd
Caputo and Kirk Felix was granted in part and denied in part as set
out.
The Plaintiff's motion for class certification was granted, and the
Court certified a class of plaintiffs consisting of: "All persons
who made a first-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by
Progressive Direct Insurance Company to a South Carolina resident
who, from Oct. 15, 2018 through the date an order granting class
certification is entered, received compensation for the total loss
of a covered vehicle, where that compensation was based on an
Instant Report prepared by Mitchell (i.e. Report Code="COMP") and
the actual cash value was decreased based upon Projected Sold
Adjustments to the comparable vehicles used to determine actual
cash value."
The appellate case is captioned Lynn Freeman v. Progressive Direct
Insurance Company, Case No. 24-1684, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on July 24, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee LYNN FREEMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq.
Edwin Lee Lowther, III, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM PLLC
1 Allied Drive
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
- and –
Jacob Lawrence Phillips, Esq.
JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC
478 East Altamonte Drive
Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
Telephone: (407) 720-4057
Defendant-Appellant PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:
Jeffrey Cashdan, Esq.
Zachary Andrew McEntyre, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 572-5600
- and –
Paul Alessio Mezzina, Esq.
Amy R. Upshaw, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 626-8988
(202) 626-2915
QUALCOMM INC: $75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 27
------------------------------------------------------------
In re Qualcomm Inc. Securities Litigation
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of
California
Case Number: 3:17-cv-00121-JO-MSB
Class Period: 02/01/2012 - 01/20/2017
Case Leaders: Salvatore J. Graziano, Jeroen van Kwawegen,
Jonathan D. Uslaner, Rebecca E. Boon
Case Team: Lauren M. Cruz, Jasmine Cooper-Little,
Robert Kravetz, Aasiya Glover
This is a securities lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California. The operative
complaint in the Action names as defendants Qualcomm Incorporated
("Qualcomm") and certain of its former executives, Derek K. Aberle,
Steven R. Altman, Donald J. Rosenberg, William F. Davidson, Jr.,
Paul E. Jacobs, and Steven Mollenkopf (the "Individual Defendants"
and, together with Qualcomm, "Defendants").
Lead Plaintiffs Have Reached a Proposed Settlement of the Action
for $75 Million
Lead Plaintiffs Sjunde AP-Fonden and Metzler Asset Management GmbH
(together, "Lead Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the
Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for
$75,000,000 in cash that, if approved, will resolve the Action (the
"Settlement").
If you are a member of the Class, you may be eligible for a payment
from the Settlement. The Class consists of:
all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Qualcomm common stock from February 1, 2012 through January 20,
2017, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby
Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by
definition or if they requested exclusion from the Class in
connection with the earlier Class Notice.
Please read the Settlement Notice to fully understand your rights
and options. Copies of the Settlement Notice and Claim Form can be
found in the Case Documents list on the right of this page. You may
also visit the case website, www.QualcommSecuritiesLitigation.com,
for more information about the Settlement.
To be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement,
you must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed) or submitted
on-line by no later than November 8, 2024.
Payments to eligible claimants will be made only if the Court
approves the Settlement and a plan of allocation, and only after
any appeals are resolved, and after the completion of all claims
processing. Please be patient, as this process will take some time
to complete.
IMPORTANT DATES AND DEADLINES
November 8, 2024
Claim Filing Deadline. Claim Forms must be postmarked (if mailed)
or submitted on-line no later than November 8, 2024.
September 6, 2024
Objection Deadline. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the
proposed Plan of Allocation, or the motion for attorneys' fees and
expenses, must be submitted so they are received no later than
September 6, 2024, in accordance with the instructions in the
Settlement Notice.
September 27, 2024
at 9:00 a.m. Pacific time
Settlement Hearing. The Settlement Hearing will be held on
September 27, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. Pacific time, before the Honorable
Jinsook Ohta of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, either in person in Courtroom 4C of the
Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse, 221 West Broadway, San
Diego, CA 92101, or by telephone or videoconference (in the
discretion of the Court). The Settlement Hearing will be held by
the Court to consider, among other things, whether the proposed
Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
approved; whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair and
reasonable and should be approved; and whether Lead Counsel's
motion for attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved.
Background and History of the Litigation
The initial class action complaint in this matter was filed in
January 2017. In May 2017, the Court issued an Order appointing
Sjunde AP-Fonden and Metzler Asset Management GmbH as Lead
Plaintiffs for the Action and approving Lead Plaintiffs' selection
of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Motley Rice LLC as
Lead Counsel for the Class.
On July 3, 2017, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class
Action Complaint for Violation of the Securities Laws (the
"Complaint"). The Complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against all Defendants and
under Section 20(a) against the Individual Defendants. The
Complaint alleges that during the period from February 1, 2012
through January 20, 2017, Defendants made materially misleading or
false statements or material omissions regarding, among other
things, Qualcomm's alleged bundling of the negotiations and terms
of its patent licenses and chipset agreements.
On March 18, 2019, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Complaint. Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint on
May 31, 2019.
On May 23, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. On March 20, 2023, the Court issued an Order
granting in part and denying in part Lead Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. The Court certified a Class consisting of all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Qualcomm
common stock from February 1, 2012 through January 20, 2017,
inclusive, and who were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class
are Defendants, the officers and directors of Qualcomm at all
relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, agents, affiliates, successors or assigns,
Defendants' liability insurance carriers, and any affiliates or
subsidiaries thereof, and any entity in which Defendants or their
immediate families have or had a controlling interest. The Court
certified the Class as to Lead Plaintiffs' claims regarding
Defendants' alleged bundling practices. The Court appointed Lead
Plaintiffs as class representatives for the Class and Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Motley Rice LLC as Class
Counsel. On June 1, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit denied Defendants' petition for leave to appeal
the class certification Order.
Beginning in November 2023, a notice was mailed to potential Class
Members to notify them of, among other things: (i) the Court's
certification of the Action to proceed as a class action on behalf
of the Class; and (ii) Class Members' right to request to be
excluded from the Class, the effect of remaining in the Class or
requesting exclusion, and the procedure for requesting exclusion
(the "Class Notice"). The deadline for requesting exclusion from
the Class pursuant to the Class Notice was January 29, 2024.
From March 2019 through March 2024, the Parties engaged in
extensive fact and expert discovery, which included, among other
things, issuing and responding to hundreds of document requests,
interrogatories, and requests for admissions; serving multiple
subpoenas on third parties; the production of 60 million pages of
discovery from Defendants and third parties to Lead Plaintiffs and
the extensive review and analysis of those documents by Lead
Counsel; taking or defending over 37 fact and expert depositions;
and preparation of expert reports from 11 expert witnesses (five
for Lead Plaintiffs and six for Defendants). Discovery in the
Action was hard-fought. The Parties regularly met and conferred
regarding discovery issues and brought several disputed issues to
the Court for resolution.
In March 29, 2024, Defendants moved for summary judgment on certain
issues; to decertify the Class, and to exclude certain opinions and
testimony from Lead Plaintiffs' proposed expert witnesses. On the
same day, Lead Plaintiffs filed motions to exclude certain opinions
and testimony from Defendants' proposed expert witnesses. These
motions were fully briefed as of May 24, 2024, and were still
pending when the Parties reached their agreement to settle.
The Parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Action
for $75 million on May 31, 2024, and entered into the Stipulation
on June 17, 2024. By Order dated June 27, 2024, the Court
preliminarily approved the Settlement, authorized notice of the
Settlement to be provided to potential Class Members, and scheduled
the Settlement Hearing for September 27, 2024 to consider whether
to grant final approval to the Settlement.
RITE AID: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Edwards Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHRYN EDWARDS, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly
situated persons v. Rite Aid Corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-03691
(E.D. Pa., Aug. 1, 2024) alleges that Rite Aid failed to protect
and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' private
information.
On July 15, 2024, the Defendant admitted that it experienced a data
breach on June 6, 2024, in a Data Breach Notification Submission to
the Office of the Maine Attorney General.
Rite Aid admits hackers accessed data on its systems, including
"purchaser name, address, date of birth and driver's license number
or other form of government-issued ID presented at the time of
purchase between June 6, 2017, and July 30, 2018."
As a result of the Data Breach, through which their Personally
Identifiable Information ("PII") was compromised, disclosed, and
obtained by unauthorized third parties, Plaintiff and Class Members
have suffered concrete damages and are now exposed to a heightened
and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft for a period of
years, if not decades, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress from the release of
her PII, which she expected Rite Aid to protect from disclosure,
including anxiety, concern, and unease about unauthorized parties
viewing and potentially using her PII. Furthermore, the Plaintiff
and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their
financial accounts to guard against identity theft, at their own
expense. Consequently, the Plaintiff and the other Class Members
will incur ongoing out-of-pocket costs for, e.g., purchasing credit
monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or other
protective measures to deter and detect identity theft, alleges the
suit.
Ms. Edwards is/was a customer at Rite Aid and used its pharmacy
services from as early as 2016 through to the present. She
regularly visited the Rite Aid store in Mt. Vernon, Ohio, and did
so during the time from June 6, 2017 through July 30, 2018.
Rite Aid Corporation is an American drugstore chain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 234-6486
E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
Karin B. Swope, Esq.
Ellen J Wen, Esq.
COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
999 N. Northlake Way, Suite 215
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 802-1272
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com.com
kswope@cpmlegal.com
ewen@cpmlegal.com
SIMS MUSIC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Walkup Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICK WALKUP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIMS MUSIC, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-05799 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.simsmusic.com, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Sims Music, Inc. offers selections of musical instruments and
accessories on the East Coast, featuring top brands in every
category, both in-store and online. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr,
Brooklyn, New York 11234
Tel: (718) 501-3122
Email: Cohenhasher@gmail.com
STATE FARM: Declines Damaged Vehicle's Insurance Claim, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE EICHHOLZ LAW FIRM, PC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03403-MHC (N.D.
Ga., July 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
breach of contract and final declaratory/injunctive relief.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself and all others
who submitted a first-party insurance claim to the Defendant for
vehicle property damage, but who were not offered payment or paid
for the diminution in value resulting from that damage. On November
28, 2001, the Supreme Court of Georgia upheld a trial court's
decision, expressly holding that when a State Farm insured submits
a covered claim for vehicle property damage that is not a total
loss, State Farm not only has to pay for the repair of the damaged
vehicle, but it is also obligated to pay for diminution in value of
the damaged vehicle when it occurs.
The Eichholz Law Firm, PC is a law firm in Chatham County,
Georgia.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is an insurance
company with its principal place of business in Bloomington,
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Eichholz, Esq.
THE EICHHOLZ LAW FIRM, P. C.
319 Eisenhower Drive
Savannah, GA 31406
Telephone: (912) 232-2791
Facsimile: (912) 629-2560
Email: david@thejusticelawyer.com
- and -
Brent J. Savage, Esq.
Matthew R. Bradley, Esq.
SAVAGE TURNER PINCKNEY SAVAGE & SPROUSE
P.O. Box 10600
Savannah, GA 31412
Telephone: (912) 231-1140
Email: lwickline@savagelawfirm.net
mbradley@savagelawfirm.net
STELLANTIS NV: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Stellantis N.V. (NYSE: STLA) resulting from
allegations that Stellantis may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
So what: If you purchased Stellantis securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=27632 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
What is this about: On July 25, 2024, Stellantis issued a press
release in which it announced its results for the first half of
2024. In pertinent part, it announced a net profit which was down
48% “compared to H1 2023, primarily due to lower volume and mix,
headwinds from foreign exchange and restructuring costs.”
Further, the press release quoted the Stellantis' CEO as saying, in
pertinent part, that the “Company's performance in the first half
of 2024 fell short of our expectations, reflecting both a
challenging industry context as well as our own operational
issues.”
On this news, Stellantis stock fell by 7.7% on July 25, 2024.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
STUDENTUNIVERSE.COM INC: Installs Illegal Software, Haviland Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH HAVILAND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. STUDENTUNIVERSE.COM INC., a Massachusetts
corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
2:24-at-00994 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 5, 2024) alleges that Defendant has
installed on its Website software created by TikTok in order to
identify website visitors in violation of the California Trap and
Trace Law (Cal. Penal Code section 638.51).
In order to find targets in a specific social group such as young
people, the Defendant partners with TikTok to gather information
about potential young travelers. The TikTok Software acts via a
process known as "fingerprinting." Put simply, the TikTok Software
collects as much data as it can about an otherwise anonymous
visitor to the Website and matches it with existing data TikTok has
acquired and accumulated about hundreds of millions of Americans,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend the Complaint to
reflect the true names and capacities of the DOE Defendants when
such identities become known.
Studentuniverse.com Inc. is the proprietor of studentuniverse.com,
an online travel agency specializing in providing discounted travel
rates to students and young adults.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tauler, Esq.
Narain Kumar, Esq.
TAULER SMITH, LLP
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (310) 590-3927
E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com
nkumar@taulersmith.com
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Has Until August 21 to File Reply Brief
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ricardo Aquino, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Subaru of America, Inc. and Subaru Corporation, Case No.
1:22-cv-00990-JHR-AMD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Ann Marie Donio
entered an order extending deadlines for class certification,
summary judgment, daubert and limine motion briefing:
1. The deadline by which Plaintiffs shall serve their Reply
brief
in Support of Class Certification is extended from Aug. 15,
2024, to Aug. 22, 2024.
2. The deadline by which Defendants shall serve their Reply
brief
in Support of Summary Judgment is extended from Aug. 21,
2024 to Aug. 28, 2024.
3. Defendants' motions to exclude or limit the testimony of
Plaintiffs' experts D.C. Sharp and Glen Bowers were filed on
April 1, 2024.
4. Plaintiffs' Opposition to the pending Daubert Motions were
filed
on June 30, 2024.
5. Defendants' reply briefing for their Dabuert Motions is
extended
from Aug. 21, 2024, to Aug. 28, 2024.
6. Defendants filed their Motion in Limine to Preclude
Undisclosed
Expert Opinion Testimony by Seven Muhammad on July 15, 2024.
7. Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' pending Motion in
Limine
is extended from Aug. 5, 2024, to Aug. 22, 2024.
8. Defendants' reply briefing for its Limine Motion is extended
to
September 23.
Subaru is the United States-based distributor of Subaru's brand
vehicle.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZoypYb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
Daniel C. Edelman, Esq.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
135 Chestnut Ridge Road
Montvale, NJ 07645
Telephone: (201) 391-700
Facsimile: (201) 307-1086
E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
dedelman@kgglaw.com
- and -
Thomas P. Sobran, Esq.
THOMAS P. SOBRAN, P.C.
7 Evergreen Lane
Hingham, MA 0243
Telephone: (781) 741-6075
Facsimile: (781) 741-6074
E-mail: tsobran@sobranlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Neal Walters, Esq.
Casey Watkins, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
700 East Gate Drive, Suite 330
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
Telephone: (856) 761-3400
Facsimile: (856) 761-1020
E-mail: waltersn@ballardspahr.com
watkinsc@ballardspahr.com
T AND DS LUBE: Lyles Seeks to Recover Proper Wages for Pumpers
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN LYLES, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. T AND DS LUBE DOCTORS LLC., and LUCAS DOWDY,
Defendants, 2:24-cv-00728 (D.N.M., July 16, 2024) seeks all
available relief, including compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act,
and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.
Plaintiff Lyles worked for the Defendants as a pumper in New Mexico
from approximately June 2023 until March 2024. Allegedly, the
Defendants misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor. As
a result, Plaintiff was not paid overtime of at least one and
one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek.
Headquartered in Carlsbad, NM, T and Ds Lube Doctors LLC is an
oilfield services company operating throughout New Mexico and West
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Faces Kelley Suit Over Unlawful Profits' Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN KELLEY, ISRAEL BARAJAS, ERIN ENGLUND, and CHRISTINE LIGHTNER,
individually and each as representatives of a class of similarly
situated individuals, v. TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION
OF AMERICA, TIAA-CREF INDIVIDUAL & INSTITUTIONAL SERVICES, LLC,
TIAA TRUST, N.A., MORNINGSTAR INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC,
MORNINGSTAR INVESTMENT SERVICES, LLC, and MORNINGSTAR, INC., Case
No. 1:24-cv-05945 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2024) arises from an ongoing
unlawful scheme to enhance corporate profits committed by the
Defendants.
Beginning in 2013, upon realizing that its share of the market for
retirement plan services was eroding, that demographic trends would
soon lead to a steep drop in revenues, and that its flagship
product, the TIAA Traditional Annuity, was experiencing negative
net asset flows, TIAA, together with Morningstar, developed an
investment advice tool -- known as the Retirement Advisor Field
View ("RAFV") tool -- that would increase the flow of assets into
two of TIAA's most profitable proprietary investment vehicles: the
TIAA Traditional Annuity and the TIAA Real Estate Account, the
lawsuit says.
A critical component of the scheme was for TIAA to leverage its
position as a recordkeeper to employer-sponsored plans, in order to
gain access to participants and make investment recommendations
that favored its own products. For participants in TIAA record kept
plans, Defendants developed two services that utilize the RAFV
tool. The first was an investment advice service known as TIAA
Retirement Advisor ("RA"), which allowed participants to access the
RAFV tool online, over the phone, or in person through on-site TIAA
financial consultants. The second was a managed account service
known as TIAA Retirement Plan Portfolio Manager, which followed the
recommendations of the RAFV tool in managing participants'
accounts.
TIAA and Morningstar operate as fiduciaries when providing
investment advice to plan participants using the RAFV tool. As
fiduciaries, TIAA and Morningstar are duty bound under the law to
act prudently and loyally when making investment recommendations to
participants, alleges the lawsuit.
Karen Kelley lives in Billerica, Massachusetts. She worked in the
Cooperative Education Department of Northeastern University before
retiring in 2023. Kelley is currently a participant1 in the
Northeastern University Basic Retirement Plan, an ERISA-governed
403(b) defined contribution retirement plan that includes TIAA
investment products and utilizes TIAA as its recordkeeper.
TIAA is a legal reserve life insurance company established under
the insurance laws of the State of New York in 1918. Its
headquarters and principal place of business is in New York
City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq.
Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
Sean E. Soyars, Esq.
Nathan D. Stump, Esq.
Joel D. Rohlf, Esq.
Terrence W. Scudieri, Jr., Esq.
SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLP
100 South Fourth Street, Ste. 1200
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 621-6115
Facsimile: (314) 621-5934
E-mail: aschlichter@uselaws.com
jschlichter@uselaws.com
ssoyars@uselaws.com
nstump@uselaws.com
jrohlf@uselaws.com
tscudieri@uselaws.com
UNCOMMON GROUNDS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Wahab Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA WAHAB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNCOMMON GROUNDS COFFEE & TEA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05804 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.uncommongrounds.com, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Uncommon Grounds Coffee & Tea, Inc. specializes fresh-roasted
coffee, house-made bagels, and other delicious foods. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
UNITED AIRLINES: Sambrano Appeals Class Cert. Order to 5th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SAMBRANO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in
the lawsuit entitled David Sambrano et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. United
Airlines, Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:21-CV-1074,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
The suit is brought to remedy the Defendant's pattern of
discrimination against employees who requested religious or medical
accommodations from its mandate that its employees receive the
COVID-19 vaccine. The Plaintiffs say United Airlines violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") by refusing to provide reasonable
medical and religious accommodations.
On Jan. 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class.
On Jan. 16, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
of an Opinion and Order dated December 18, 2023.
On June 21, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. Additionally, the Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court held that the
proposed Rule 23(b)(2) Class and the Rule 23(b)(3)
Masking-and-Testing Subclass do not satisfy the commonality and
typicality requirements under Rule 23(a), nor do they meet the
criteria under Rule 23(b). The different injuries suffered and the
individual questions raised within these proposed classes preclude
class-wide resolution of their claims. However, the Court concluded
that the Rule 23(b)(3) Unpaid Leave Subclass's Title VII claims
meet the criteria for certification.
Accordingly, the Court appointed the Plaintiffs' counsel as class
counsel with Ms. Kincannon as the named plaintiff and modified the
Plaintiffs' proposed Unpaid Leave Subclass to encompass only the
Title VII claims. The Court certified a class consisting of all
employees United deemed customer-facing who received an
accommodation due to a sincerely held religious beliefs and who
were put on unpaid leave.
The appellate case is captioned David Sambrano v. United Airlines,
Case No. 24-10656, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit, filed on July 22, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants DAVID SAMBRANO, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Mark R. Paoletta, Esq.
SCHAERR JAFFE, L.L.P.
1717 K. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 494-6393
- and –
John Clay Sullivan, Esq.
SL LAW, P.L.L.C.
610 Uptown Boulevard
Cedar Hill, TX 75104
Telephone: (469) 523-1351
Defendant-Appellee UNITED AIRLINES, INCORPORATED is represented
by:
Alexander Virgil Maugeri, Esq.
JONES DAY
250 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 326-3880
- and –
Esteban Shardonofsky, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW, L.L.P.
700 Milam Street
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 225-2300
UNITED OF OMAHA: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Dobson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
KERRY DOBSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
8:24-cv-00306-BCB-MDN (D. Neb., Aug. 5, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard sensitive information of its clients' employees.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal
information—which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual
understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure --
was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data
Breach. The Defendant collected and maintained certain personally
identifiable information and protected health information of
Plaintiff and the putative Class Members (defined below), who are
(or were) employees at Defendant's clients.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included
Plaintiff’s and Class Members' full names, demographic
information (such as addresses and dates of birth), driver's
license numbers, employment information, and Social Security
numbers and health insurance information, which is protected health
Information by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach was
exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those
cyber-criminals who target Private Information for its value to
identity thieves.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and approximately 538,000
Class Members, suffered concrete injuries in fact including, but
not limited to:
(i) invasion of privacy;
(ii) theft of their Private Information;
(iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information;
(iv) lost time and opportunity costs associated with
attempting
to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach;
(v) loss of benefit of the bargain;
(vi) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to
mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach;
(vii) nominal damages; and
(viii) the continued and certainly increased risk to their
Private Information.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees at
Defendant's clients.
The Defendant is a financial services company that offers life
insurance and other services to its clients' employees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
UNITED STATES: Representatives Sued Over Columbia Encampment
------------------------------------------------------------
Kathianne Boniello, writing for New York Post, reports that Lefty
"Squad" Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jamaal Bowman and Ilhan
Omar have been slapped with a class-action lawsuit for "inciting
and encouraging" the anti-Israel encampment and protests at
Columbia University earlier this year.
The trio of radical Democrats were among the "outside champions"
who also slammed law enforcement for breaking up the hateful
demonstrations -- which included masked protesters taking over a
campus quad, chanting "Free Palestine!" and burning an Israeli flag
and throwing rocks -- resulting in the violent April 30 takeover of
the school’s Hamilton Hall, according to court papers.
"If any kid is hurt tonight, responsibility will fall on the mayor
and univ presidents," AOC wrote on X April 30, adding, "a nightmare
in the making."
Five anonymous students filed the legal action against at least a
dozen groups, including the virulent anti-Israel Within Our
Lifetime, as well as AOC, Bowman, Omar -- whose college-student
daughter Isra Hirsi attends Barnard University and was arrested at
the Columbia encampment.
"The Gaza Encampment was extreme and outrageous conduct. It was
illegal. It violated university rules. Its occupants harassed,
followed, physically blocked, intimidated, and bullied Jewish
students," the students said in the litigation.
The encampment and their cheerleaders "not only consciously
disregarded the rights of others, but the impact on the rights of
others was the point of the protest: the more disruption [they]
could cause for the University and the [students], the more
leverage they thought they would have for their agenda," according
to the lawsuit.
Two of the five student plaintiffs are Jewish. All said they were
too frightened by the violent protesters’ words and actions to
reveal their names.
One, a senior identified as "Eric Doe," said he "felt like he was
living under an ominous cloud of doubt and uncertainty as he waited
for the protestors or administration’s next move that would
further impact his studies and life on campus."
"William Doe," another senior who joined the suit, said his senior
design expo was cancelled due to the encampment.
"Michael Doe," a sophomore, claimed he was told, "Keep walking
Zionist" and was followed and screamed by protesters.
"Tim Doe," also a Jewish sophomore, left campus early "because he
did not feel safe."
"During the protests, I witnessed numerous offensive and
antisemitic signs and messages, including antisemitic skunk posters
with the Star of David," he told The Post.
"In one instance, I was walking with my non-Jewish friends when I
was singled out because I was wearing my yarmulke. A leader of the
pro-Palestinian protest approached our group and confronted me. He
singled me out, yelling that I needed to move, and when I refused,
he began to shove me out of the way."
The students said in court papers, "In a civilized community, one
does not call for the obliteration of a major metropolitan area,
praise terrorists, or threaten death and destruction upon our
classmates and their families, friends, and coreligionists."
The encampment, which lasted at least two weeks, forced classes
online, restricted access to the campus, disrupted final exams and
ultimately cancelled Columbia’s May 15 commencement ceremony.
"Those were real damages sustained by the 36,000 students at
Columbia who chose to obey university rules, go to class, and
pursue their education, only to be frustrated at the finish line by
the . . . acts of their classmates and professors, with the
assistance and encouragement of outside activists," the students
argued.
All three lawmakers trespassed on the campus in April -- showing up
"and participated in the encampment" when access to campus was
supposed to be limited to those with student IDs, according to the
lawsuit.
None of the congress members or other groups being sued responded
to messages seeking comment. [GN]
VENTURA FOODS: Underpays Non-Exempt Workers, Kingsley Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER KINGSLEY, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. VENTURA FOODS, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-01699
(C.D. Cal., Aug. 5, 2024) is a collective action brought by the
Plaintiff as a result of the Defendant's practices and policies of
not paying its non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees, for all hours worked, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Ventura is for-profit company that manufactures culinary and food
products and provides consulting services to the food
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Wilens, Esq.
Macy Wilens, Esq.
LAKESHORE LAW CENTER
18340 Yorba Linda Blvd., Suite 107-610
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
Telephone: 714-854-7205
Facsimile: 714-854-7206
E-mail: jeff@lakeshorelaw.org
macy@lakeshorelaw.org
- and -
Robert B. Kapitan, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
34555 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 250
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: robert@lazzarolawfirm.com
VERA BRADLEY: Discloses Consumers' Info to Signifyd, Filio Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARISHKA FILIO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VERA BRADLEY SALES, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-04736 (N.D.
Cal., Aug. 5, 2024) is a class action suit brought against the
Defendant for violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
Plaintiff Marishka Filio is a resident of Alameda County,
California who purchased a product from the Vera Bradley Website.
Specifically, Plaintiff purchased an item from the Vera Bradley
website on August 4, 2023. When purchasing the product on the Vera
Bradley Website, the Plaintiff entered her personally identifiable
information and credit card information to complete the
transaction. When entering her PII and credit card information on
the Vera Bradley Website, the Plaintiff reasonably expected that
Defendant would keep this information private and not disclose it
to third parties. However, Defendant disclosed such information to
a third party, Signifyd, without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent,
says the Plaintiff.
The Defendant owns and operates the Vera Bradley website,
www.verabradley.com, which sells apparel and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com
WELLS FARGO: Bujold Alleges Deceptive Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
KEITH BUJOLD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; and WELLS FARGO
CLEARING SERVICES, LLC, dba WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, Defendants, Case
No. 3:24-cv-04616 (N.D. Cal., July 30, 2024) alleges violation of
the New York General Business Law regarding deceptive acts and
unlawful practices.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants' cash
sweep program whereby uninvested cash balances in a customer's
account are automatically "swept" and transferred by the Defendants
into interest-bearing bank accounts discretionarily selected by the
Defendants (the "Bank Deposit Sweep Programs," or "Programs,"
consisting primarily of the "Standard Bank Deposit Sweep" and
"Expanded Bank Deposit Sweep") or, in some instances, other sweep
arrangements made available to the Defendants' customers.
Wells Fargo & Company operates as a diversified financial services.
The Company provides banking, insurance, investments, mortgage,
leasing, credit cards, and consumer finance. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua P. Davis, Esq.
Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq.
Julie A. Pollock, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (800) 424-6690
Email: jdavis@bm.net
kgibboney@bm.net
jpollock@bm.net
WHITEFISH, MT: Settles Overcharged Impact Fees Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Desch of Daily Inter Lake reports that Whitefish is signaling
its intention to settle a class action lawsuit filed against the
city involving impact fees.
City Council on Monday, August 5, 2024 will decide whether to
approve a settlement agreement resulting in a $400,000 contribution
from the city toward payments to members of the lawsuit and issuing
refunds for those who paid the related impact fees.
Council meets at 7:10 p.m. at City Hall, 418 E. Second St.
The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District of Montana in 2022 alleged
that the city overcharged for impact fees for new development. The
dispute involved fixture counts for single-head, standalone
showers.
Whitefish officials in September 2021 admitted they made an error
in calculating impact fees that likely resulted in overcharges for
new developments and planned to issue refunds accordingly. The city
began an audit to remedy the error, but the class action lawsuit
was filed in the meantime by five individuals and two developers.
In the court documents, the city contested the allegations and
filed a third-party complaint against the consultant hired to
calculate impact fees FCS Group. The city noted that if the
allegations were true then FCS breached its contract with the city
by recommending impact fees that failed to comply with federal,
state and local laws.
As part of the settlement agreement, FCS Group will contribute $1
million to the same settlement fund as the city that will provide
payments approved by the court.
Whitefish City Attorney Angela Jacobs said refunds due to
individuals or entities as a result of the city's error will be
issued based on calculations made by attorneys overseeing the
settlement fund in an amount of about $210,700.
"The refund amounts have not been reduced by attorney fees or
costs," Jacobs said in a memo to Council. "If an individual or
entity was due a refund, they will receive its full value."
The case had been scheduled to go to trial in July.
Jacobs said the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing by the
city which still stands by the impact fees that were calculated by
FSC Group and has consistently acknowledged its error.
"However, there would be significant cost associated with moving
forward to trial, which may result in burdening city ratepayers
with increased water and wastewater rates," she said.
"Additionally, the settlement reaffirms the city's commitment,
first announced four years ago, to issuing impact fee refunds due
as a result of the city's fixture count error."
ALSO ON the agenda for Monday, August 5, Council will hold three
public hearings.
Council will consider a request from the Whitefish Community School
to expand into a day care center located at 805 Park Ave. The
school seeks a conditional use permit to expand the existing day
care use of 15 or fewer children into a day care center for more
than 15 children. The school facility is expected to expand by less
than 2,000 square feet.
Council will look at a request for a conditional use permit from
Barbara McCartney to construct a guest house at 3 Tides Way.
Council will consider a resolution removing engraving fees for its
columbarium at the city cemetery. Those fees will be billed
directly from Glacier Memorials Gardens rather than collected by
the city.
Finally, Council will consider awarding engineering contracts for
the Armory Road and East Sixth Street reconstruction projects. The
Armory Road contract is recommended to go to Morrison Maierle and
the Sixth Street contract to HDR. [GN]
WHITESTONE HOME: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Cantwell Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LISA CANTWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WHITESTONE HOME FURNISHINGS, LLC, D/B/A
SAATVA, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05359 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024)
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.saatva.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Saatva, Inc. operates as an e-commerce company. The Company
specializes in luxury mattresses with adjustable base, furniture,
bedding, chairs, sofas, pillows, and other related products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
ZHU ENTERPRISES: Faces Danso Suit Over Website's Access Barriers
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARITY DANSO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZHU ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-05802 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law and
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.mygiftstop.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: missing alternative-text (alt-text), hidden elements on
web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups,
unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that
some events be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Zhu Enterprises, 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
[*] Pierce Atwood Presents 2024 2nd Quarter Class Action Update
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie A. Conroy, Gavin G. McCarthy of Pierce Atwood LLP are
pleased to present our second quarter 2024 update to the New
England and First Circuit Class Action Tracker, which focuses on
class action filings in state and federal courts within the
boundaries of the First Circuit in New England.
Record High Filings Focused in Federal District Courts
In the first half of 2024, plaintiffs filed 220 class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the First Circuit. The second
quarter experienced 136 new class action filings, making it the
busiest quarter in recent history. If that pace continues,
plaintiffs in the First Circuit may end up filing more class
actions in 2024 than in 2019's record high 419 filings.
Massachusetts saw the vast majority of filings, but federal
district courts in Maine and Rhode Island both sustained increased
filing activity in the second quarter. On the other hand, New
Hampshire's 2024 filings have predominantly been in state court. In
total, the first half of 2024 was consistent with prior years, in
which more class actions were filed in federal court than state
court.
Growing Wave of Data Breach and Privacy Claims Continues in 2024
In the first half of 2024, 49% of cases filed in federal courts in
the First Circuit were data security and privacy class actions. In
our Q2 2023 Update, we noted a class action boom driven by these
types of cases, and we predicted historic filing levels if the
trend continued. We can see that this trend has continued, and the
First Circuit is on pace to see historic filing levels overall.
About 75% of the data security and privacy class action filings
have been cases arising from alleged data breach incidents. These
are cases in which plaintiffs allege that a defendant negligently
failed to protect personally identifiable information (PII),
allowing that information to be stolen during a data breach.
In 2023, plaintiffs filed data breach class actions primarily
against health care and technology industry defendants. In 2024,
that trend has shifted. Plaintiffs are now expanding their focus
from those industry defendants to also target financial, legal, and
educational institution defendants.
In addition to data breach cases, federal courts in the First
Circuit saw cases filed relating to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) and the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA).
These class action claims were based on alleged unsolicited
marketing messages and the disclosure to third parties of
consumers' online video watch histories.
2024 Likely to Continue as Record Year for Class Action Filings
The class action boom in the First Circuit is on a pace to be the
busiest year of filing in recent history. The trend of focusing
class actions against health care and technology industry
defendants has evolved with the addition of financial, legal, and
educational institution defendants. We will continue to monitor
these developments throughout 2024.
Thank you to firm summer associate Drew Mondi for his contribution
to this alert. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***