/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240823.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, August 23, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 170
Headlines
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Lange Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Lee Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Manente Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Phillips Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Santos Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: Dubicki Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Free Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Guidry Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Marcroft-Clark Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Sandoval Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
808 LEX RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Tipped Employees
A-LINE STAFFING: Diaz Alleges Unsecured Employees, Applicants' Info
ACADIAN AMBULANCE: Brooks Files Suit in W.D. Louisiana
ACEROS DE AMERICA: Controls Steel Products' Prices, Tiger Claims
ACHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Sahagun Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AERA ENERGY: Radford Suit Removed to E.D. California
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE: Hendricks Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
ALBERTSON'S LLC: Court Tosses Sherman Class Certification Bid
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Lucas Sues Over Mislabeled Juice Products
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Cert. Due Oct. 4
ALISO RIDGE: Baldwin Suit Removed to C.D. California
ALLIANCE ENTERTAINMENT: Feller Files Suit in S.D. Florida
AMARIN PHARMA: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Nixed in KPH Suit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Suit Remains Pending
AMERICAN CRUISE: Class Cert Bid Filling Modified to Oct. 29
AMERICAN HONDA: Clark Can File Certain Documents Under Seal
AMES RUBBER: Wilkins Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
AMICK FARMS: Diaz Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Collective
AMICK FARMS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in Diaz
AMPLITUDE INC: Collects In-App Consumer Activities, Atkins Alleges
ANVIL 14654: Pardo Sues Over Inaccessible Commercial Property
ANYWHERE REAL: Continues to Defend Batton Nationwide Class Suit
ANYWHERE REAL: Continues to Defend Bumpus Class Suit
ANYWHERE REAL: McFall Class Suit Stayed Pending Court Order
APELLIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Soderberg Class Suit
AQUA GUNITE: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ARAMARK CAMPUS: Dale Suit Removed to N.D. California
ARDELYX INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
AVANT GARDNER: Avchukov Seeks August 29 Opening Brief
AVANT GARDNER: Ting Plaintiffs Seek August 29 Opening Brief
BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Pay Officers' OT Wages, Coluzzi Claims
BANK OF AMERICA: Tristan Can File Exhibits Under Seal
BF PRIME: Misclassifies Drivers as Contractors, Brown Suit Alleges
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Bid for Class Certification Reinstated
BOAR'S HEAD: Faces Torres Suit Over Contaminated Meat Products
BONIFACE CHRYSLER: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines
BREAD FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Newtyn Partners Class Suit
BRINKER INT'L: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Modified to August 30
BUCKLEY CABLE: Laney Class Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA, PMWA
CAREMARK PHC: Oct. 15 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
CCFI COMPANIES: Yancey Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
CDK GLOBAL: Faces East McComb Class Suit Over Ransomware Attacks
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Berg Hospitality Sues to Seek Damages
COLOURS COUTURE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Herrera Suit Claims
CORNELL COMMUNITY: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Conroy
CRAFTED BRAND: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Bullock Suit Says
CULTURE HOUSE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Saunders Suit Claims
DELOITTE CONSULTING: Fails to Properly Pay CSRs, Ugbesia Suit Says
DELTA AIR: Faces Khaku Class Suit Over Flight Cancellation
DENNY'S INC: Court OK's Wintjen Class Cert Bid
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Allowed to File Sur-Reply Brief
DIADORA US: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Herrera Suit Alleges
DOLLAR TREE: Greene Suit Removed to C.D. California
DRY GOODS: Underpays Retail Store Staff, Torres Suit Alleges
EDUCATIONAL COMPUTER: Class Settlement in Nguyen Gets Final Nod
EPIC LANDSCAPE: Bid for Leave to File Surreply Moot
EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG: Lewis Seeks to Certify 3 Classes of Homeowners
EVEREVE INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Alleges
EZ FESTIVALS: Brockmole Seeks August 29 Opening Brief
FERADYNE OUTDOORS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Calcano Says
GANNETT CO: Ryan Wu CDAFA Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Lambert Suit Over Vehicles' Defective Paint
GFP ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Laborers' OT Wages, Albers Says
GIANT COMPANY: Soda Contains Brominated Vegetable Oil, Daniels Says
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Thukral Files Suit in D. Utah
HOME DEPOT: Kirkpatrick Sues Over Unlawful and Deceptive Practices
HP INC: Wright Employment Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
HUMAN TECHNOLOGY: Montgomery Balks at Unprotected Personal Info
IEM INTERNATIONAL: Faces Turner Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.D.C.
IMAGINE LEARNING: Faces Haviland Suit Over "Tiktok" Trace Device
IMAGINE LEARNING: Software Collects Personal Info, Haviland Says
INGERSOLL-RAND: Court Partly Adopts Proposed Scheduling Order
IZAKOV DIAMONDS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Herrera Alleges
J&C AMBULANCE: Parties Seek More Time to File Opposition Briefs
J&T RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum Wages, Giblaint Says
JAMES DAVIS: Soliz Plaintiffs Seek Conditional Status of Collective
JANUARY TECHNOLOGIES: Gregory Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
JOHN PAUL: Heagney Seeks OK of Proposed Class Cert Briefing Sched
KARP SCARSDALE: Foreste Seeks Conditional Status of Collective
KASEYA US LLC: Machado Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
KELLY SERVICES: Lewis Suit Removed to C.D. California
KELLY-MOORE PAINT: Morris Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
KEN'S FOODS: Class Cert Response in Austin Due August 26
KEN'S FOODS: Seeks August 26 Extension to File Class Cert Response
KOOMA III: Class Settlement in Lunemann Suit Gets Approval
KOPPERS INC: Petrus Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
KROGER CO: Kirkbride Seeks Permanent Sealing of Reply Memo
LABORATORY CORP: Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply Denied in McDonald
LARSEN LOGISTICS: Combs Sues Over Denied Payment of Overtime
LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Ramseur Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
LTF CLUB: Seeks Partial Denial of Turner Class Cert Bid
MANSARI LLC: Abrams Seeks to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective
MASONITE CORP: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Shugars Due Dec. 20
MASTERCARD INC: Court Nixes Approval of Settlement in Class Suit
MDL 2873: Mount Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Sharp Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Speciale Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
MDL 2903: Settlement in Barton v Mattel Gets Initial Nod
MDL 2903: Settlement in Black v. Mattel Gets Initial Nod
MDL 2903: Settlement in Cuddy v Fisher-Price Gets Initial Nod
MDL 2903: Settlement in Drover-Mundy Suit Gets Initial Nod
MDL 2903: Settlement in Nabong v Mattel Gets Initial Nod
NESTLE HEALTH: Bowler Sues Over Mislabeled Fish Oil Capsules
ONNIT INC: Discloses Customers' Identities to Meta, Macalpine Says
ORTHOCONNECTICUT PLLC: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Suit Alleges
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Conspires to Fix Crude Oil Prices, TBC Claims
RBS CITIZENS: Responses in Opposition Due August 28
ROSESKINCO INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Bishop Suit Says
ROYAL LEAF: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Saunders Says
SEATIDE FISH: Fails to Pay Delivery Workers' OT Wages, Diaz Says
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Faces Jurdi Suit Over "Tiktok" Trace Device
SHEPHERD HEALTH: Brisson Seeks Site Supervisors' OT Wages
SIRH LLC: Fails to Pay Hourly Employees' OT Wages Under FLSA
SNOWFLAKE INC: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Nader Suit Alleges
SOUTHWEST ANSWERING: Vleet Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
SPECTRUM BUILDING: Lopez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
STABILITY AI: Court Narrows Claims in Andersen, et al. Lawsuit
STELLANTIS NV: Faces Long Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
SUMMERSALT INC: Calcano Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply Granted
TULARE CTY, CA: Fails to Pay Battalion Chiefs' OT Wages Under FLSA
TWILIO INC: Collects In-App Consumer Activities, Bender Alleges
VALHALLA TEA: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
WALMART INC: Misclassifies Drivers as Contractors, Medeiros Claims
WATSON REALTY: Land Trust Hits Inflated Buyer-Broker Commissions
WELLS FARGO: Rose Suit Removed to C.D. California
WESCO DISTRIBUTION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 19, 2025
WINWINX INC: Unlawfully Stores Users' Facial Geometry, Turner Says
XPEDITION LLC: Faces Hamilton Class Action Suit Over Gun Safety
Asbestos Litigation
*********
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Lange Class Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN LANGE and TONI THORN, his wife v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No.
2:24-cv-04461-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14, 2024) is a class action seeking
for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
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 PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS 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. 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 the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
in the U.S. Air Force. Mr. Lange was diagnosed with thyroid disease
and/or other medical related conditions as a result of the alleged
exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr.
John E. Keefe, Jr.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 224-9400
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Lee Class Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN LEE and CLAIREETA LEE, his wife v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No.
2:24-cv-04464-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14, 2024) is a class action seeking
for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
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 PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS 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. 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 the alleged exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of
the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
in the U.S. Navy. Mr. Lee was diagnosed with kidney cancer and/or
other medical related conditions as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr.
John E. Keefe, Jr.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 224-9400
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Manente Class Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEAN MANENTE and KRISTIE MANENTE, his wife, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No.
2:24-cv-04465-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14, 2024) is a class action seeking
for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
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 PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS 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. 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 the alleged exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of
the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a firefighter. Mr. Manente was diagnosed with thyroid cancer
and/or other medical related conditions as a result of exposure to
Defendants’ AFFF products.
The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr.
John E. Keefe, Jr.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 224-9400
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Phillips Class Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA PHILLIPS, individually and as Personal
Representative/Administrator/ Executor of the Estate of DAVID
PHILLIPS, deceased v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case
No. 2:24-cv-04490-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 15, 2024) seeks for damages for
personal injury and death resulting from Decedent's exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") 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 PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS, the Plaintiff contends.
Further, the defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS 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.
The Plaintiff Phillips is the personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of David
Phillips. David Phillips ("Decedent") regularly used, and was
thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish
fires during his working career as a firefighter. Prior to death,
the Decedent was diagnosed with liver cancer as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. Decedent's diagnosis caused
and/or contributed to his death. The Decedent passed away on July
24, 2021, contends the suit.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory,
consequential and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and
significant damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's
exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during
the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendants include AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 224-9400
Facsimile: (732) 224-9494
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Santos Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
NIDIA SANTOS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); and AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-04493-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 15, 2024) seeks for
damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") 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 PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS, the Plaintiff contends.
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 which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
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.
Ms. Santos regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during her career. He was
diagnosed with kidney cancer and/or other medical related
conditions as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of her
training and firefighting activities.
The Defendants include AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE 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; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 224-9400
Facsimile: (732) 224-9494
3M COMPANY: Dubicki Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Dubicki and Rebecca Dubicki, his wife, and other similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; 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; 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-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case
No. 2:24-cv-04457-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14, 2024), is brought for
personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff, in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff, was unaware of the
dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff
to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Joseph Dubicki regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires
during his working career as a civilian firefighter and was
diagnosed with liver cancer and/or other medical related conditions
as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
3M COMPANY: Free Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
----------------------------------------------------------
Roger Free, 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-04102-RMG (D.S.C., July
23, 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. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with
knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS,
which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated
with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his military career
who was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease and Hypothyroidism as a
result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF.
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:
David L. Selby, II, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
3000 Riverchase Galleria, Suite 905
Birmingham, AL 35244
Phone: 205.988.9253
Fax: 205.788.4896
Email: dselby@baileyglasser.com
3M COMPANY: Guidry Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Paula Guidry, 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-04119-RMG (D.S.C., July 24, 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. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with
knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS,
which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated
with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during her military career
who was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF.
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:
David L. Selby, II, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
3000 Riverchase Galleria, Suite 905
Birmingham, AL 35244
Phone: 205.988.9253
Fax: 205.788.4896
Email: dselby@baileyglasser.com
3M COMPANY: Marcroft-Clark Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
James Marcroft-Clark, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:24-cv-04395-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 12,
2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and during his service in the United States
Marines and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tessa G. Cuneo, Esq.
Alexandra W. Robertson, Esq.
ASK LLP
2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 400
St. Paul, MN 55121
Phone: (651) 406-9665
Facsimile: (651) 406
Email: tcuneo@askllp.com
arobertson@askllp.com
3M COMPANY: Sandoval Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Sandoval, individually and as personal representative for
Decedent, Joe Sandoval, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; 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; 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-in-interest 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, Case No. 2:24-cv-04138-RMG
(D.S.C., July 25, 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. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with
knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS,
which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated
with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Crystal Sandoval is a citizen of Curry County, New
Mexico, as was her late husband, Joe Sandoval who regularly used,
and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to
extinguish fires during his military career and was diagnosed with
Liver Cancer, Kidney Cancer, and Thyroid Disease as a result of
exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing 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:
David L. Selby, II, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
3000 Riverchase Galleria, Suite 905
Birmingham, AL 35244
Phone: 205.988.9253
Fax: 205.788.4896
Email: dselby@baileyglasser.com
808 LEX RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Tipped Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALFONSO TENEZACA, NELSON
NACIPUCHA, RENAN ZAMORA-FLORES, and MALVIN LUNA, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, v. 808 LEX RESTAURANT,
LLC d/b/a IL GRADINO RESTAURANT, TERRENCE LOWENBERG, and TODD
COHEN, Case No. 1:23-cv-08545-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order:
(1) Certifying a Class defined as all tipped food-service
employees
employed by Defendants at Il Gradino restaurant in Manhattan
on
or after Sept. 28, 2017 ("Class Members");
(2) Appointing Nelson Nacipucha and Renan Zamora-Flores as Class
Representatives;
(3) Appointing Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP as class counsel under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g);
(4) Ordering Defendants to produce a list, in Excel format,
containing all Class Members' names, dates of employment,
last
known addresses, and last known phone numbers; and
(5) Authorizing the mailing of the proposed Notice to all Class
Members.
Il Gradino is an authentic italian ristorante, which embraces all
of italy's major culinary regions.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 7, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0lAQT8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
Josef Nussbaum, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
A-LINE STAFFING: Diaz Alleges Unsecured Employees, Applicants' Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA DIAZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. A-LINE STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-12099-DML-DRG
(E.D. Mich., Aug. 12, 2024) is a class action arising out of the
recent targeted cyberattack and data breach on A-Line's network
that resulted in unauthorized access to highly sensitive
information pertaining to job applicants and employees of the
Defendant.
A-Line discovered that its systems were subject to a cybersecurity
attack on or around June 3, 2024, which resulted in unauthorized
access to the Plaintiff and Class members' personally identifiable
information. On July 19, 2024, A-Line finally acknowledged the data
security incident to the California Attorney General. On the same
day, A-Line began notifying the impacted individuals, including the
Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class. Due to A-Line's
inadequate security measures and its delayed notice to victims, the
Plaintiff and Class Members now face a present, immediate, and
ongoing risk of fraud and identity theft that they will have to
deal with for the rest of their lives, the suit says.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable
losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain,
out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time reasonably
incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, emotional
distress, and the imminent risk of future harm caused by the
compromise of their sensitive personal information. The Plaintiff
thus seek remedies including compensatory damages, treble damages,
punitive damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and
declaratory and injunctive relief including improvements to
A-Line's data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate
credit monitoring services funded by A-Line.
Ms. Diaz provided her PII to Defendant in the regular course of
contracting for employment as a nurse with a third-party (CVS
Pharmacy) through A-Line.
A-Line provides recruiting solutions for a variety of industries,
with a focus on the medical and IT industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP
412 H Street, NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-520
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
ACADIAN AMBULANCE: Brooks Files Suit in W.D. Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acadian Ambulance
Service Inc. The case is styled as Patricia Brooks, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Acadian Ambulance
Service Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-01059 (W.D. La., Aug. 7, 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
ACEROS DE AMERICA: Controls Steel Products' Prices, Tiger Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIGER GROUP LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACEROS DE AMERICA, INC.; CAROLINA BUILDING
MATERIALS, INC.; CAROLINA BUILDING LLC; STEEL SERVICES & SUPPLIES,
INC.; JUAN C. APONTE-TOLENTINO; EDGARDO SOLA-COLON; FRANCIS GARCIA-
HAGHVERDIAN; COCONSPIRATOR ENTITIES A through Z; CO-CONSPIRATOR
INDIVIDUALS 1 through 25; INSURERS XYZ, Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-01360 (D.P.R., August 14, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and Puerto Rico Antimonopoly Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in illegal
price-fixing by acting in concert to substantially lessen
competition and create a monopoly in the steel distribution market
in Puerto Rico and other affected regions. The alleged illegal
price-fixing and customer/market allocation conspiracy was carried
out over an eight-year period, between 2015 and 2022. As a result
of these illegal activities, the Defendants significantly distorted
the steel market in Puerto Rico and other affected regions, causing
substantial financial harm to consumers and businesses who were
forced to pay inflated prices for steel products.
Tiger Group LLC is a construction contractor based in Puerto Rico.
Aceros de America, Inc. is a building materials supplier in Puerto
Rico.
Carolina Building Materials, Inc. is a distributor of building
materials based in Puerto Rico.
Carolina Building LLC is a distributor of building materials based
in Puerto Rico.
Steel Services & Supplies, Inc. is a distributor of building
materials based in Puerto Rico. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alberto J. Castaner-Padro, Esq.
CASTANER & CIA PSC
MAI Center
771 Calle 1, Ste 204
San Juan, PR 00920
Telephone: (787) 707-0802
Facsimile: (888) 227-5728
Email: alberto@castanerlaw.com
- and -
Harold D. Vicente-Gonzalez, Esq.
Harold D. Vicente-Colon, Esq.
VICENTE LAW, LLC
P.O. Box 11609
San Juan, PR 00910
Telephone: (787) 751-8000
Facsimile: (787) 756-5250
Email: hvicente@vclawpr.com
hdvc@vclawpr.com
ACHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Sahagun Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acher-Daniels-Midland
Company, et al. The case is styled as Jesse P. Sahagun,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Acher-Daniels-Midland Company, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. CGC24617054 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Aug. 7,
2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
The Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, commonly known as ADM --
https://www.adm.com/ -- is an American multinational food
processing and commodities trading corporation founded in 1902 and
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: 213-232-3128
Fax: 213-232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
AERA ENERGY: Radford Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christopher Radford, an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. AERA ENERGY SERVICES COMPANY, a
Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. BCV-24-101317
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Kern, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on Aug. 8, 2024, and assigned Case No.
1:24-at-00621.
On April 16, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a notice to California's
Labor and Workforce Development Agency alleging various violations
of California's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"),
California Labor Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Hope Anne Case, Esq.
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
Five Palo Alto Square
3000 El Camino Real, Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94306-9814
Phone: 650-320-1500
Facsimile: 650-320-9905
Email: hcase@rutan.com
- and -
Kenneth J. Zielinski, Esq.
K. Bartlett Jordan, Esq.
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
18575 Jamboree Road. 9th Floor
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: 714-641-5100
Facsimile: 714-546-9035
Email: kzielinski@rutan.com
bjordan@rutan.com
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE: Hendricks Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brian Hendricks, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, Texas
Back Institute Operations, Inc., M.D. Jack E. Zigler, Case No.
2:19-cv-06840 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on Aug. 9, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-mc-00046-X to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Motion to Compel.
Aetna Life Insurance Company -- https://www.aetna.com/ -- provides
insurance products. The Company serves customers throughout the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S Gianelli, Esq.
GIANELLI & MORRIS
12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 505
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: (213) 489-1600
Fax: (213) 489-1611
Email: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert A Bragalone, Esq.
GORDON & REES LLP
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 231-4660
Fax: (214) 461-4053
Email: bbragalone@gordonrees.com
ALBERTSON'S LLC: Court Tosses Sherman Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER SHERMAN et
al., v. ALBERTSON'S, LLC et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06377-ODW-RAO
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an order
denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Court said that the Plaintiffs fail to establish that
Defendant's alleged conduct applies generally to the entire class.
Further, the facts and circumstances of this wage and hours action
demonstrate that the Plaintiffs' primary intent is to recover
monetary damages, not declaratory or injunctive relief. For each
damages subclass Plaintiffs identify in the Motion, the Plaintiffs
identify an identical subclass for declaratory/injunctive relief.
If that were not sufficient to demonstrate the Plaintiffs' primary
aim of recovering monetary damages, Plaintiffs make it clear in
their Prayer for Relief where they seek sixteen types of monetary
damages and merely two types of injunctive relief. As such,
monetary damages are not "merely incidental" to the claim for
injunctive relief. Accordingly, certification under either Rule
23(b)(1)(A) or (b)(2) is inappropriate for these additional
reasons, the Court adds.
The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against the
Defendant, asserting claims for invasion of privacy and violation
of California wage and hour laws.
The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant "had a consistent policy
and practice" of violating California labor laws, including
requiring Plaintiffs to work off-the-clock for pre-shift
route-bidding, pre- and post-shift security checks, and COVID
screenings.
Finally, Plaintiffs assert that Defendant misrepresented to
Plaintiffs that the DriveCam Video System, installed in Defendant's
trucks pursuant to the drivers' union's Collective Bargaining
Agreement ("CBA"), would only record when triggered (hard braking,
swerving, or collision), when in fact the cameras were always
recording.
Accordingly, the Court accepts Plaintiffs' Motion as seeking to
certify only the "Plaintiff Class," "all non-exempt transportation
drivers employed by Defendant in California at any time in the four
years preceding the filing of the operative complaint," as either a
damages class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), or a
declaratory/injunctive relief class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1)(A) or
(b)(2), or both.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as non-exempt
transportation drivers within Los Angeles and Orange Counties in
California, operating out of the Irvine and Brea Distribution
Centers ("IDC" and "BDC," respectively).
Albertsons operates a chain of grocery stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9vR9Et at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Lucas Sues Over Mislabeled Juice Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN LUCAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC. Defendant, Case
No. 4:24-cv-04675-AGT (N.D. Cal., August 1, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of California's Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and
California's False Advertising Law, as well as for breach of
express warranty.
The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated consumers who purchased Signature Select Sliced
Peaches in 100% Juice-15 Oz, Signature Select Fruit Cup Mandarin
Oranges in 100% Fruit Juice-4-4 Oz, and Signature Select Fruit Cup
Mandarin Oranges in 100% Fruit Juice Family Pack-12-4 Oz.
According to the complaint, the Defendant markets the products as
being contained in "100% fruit juice" and "100% juice." However,
and unbeknownst to reasonable consumers, 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.
Albertsons Companies, Inc. is an American grocery company founded
and headquartered in Boise, Idaho.[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
=
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Cert. Due Oct. 4
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PARKS, et al., v.
Alejandro Mayorkas, Case No. 1:23-cv-03561 (D.D.C., Filed Nov. 29,
2023), the Hon. Judge Randolph D. Moss entered an order on motion
for extension of time to file response / reply order on motion for
scheduling order:
-- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due on or before
Oct. 4, 2024.
-- The parties are hereby ORDERED to file on or before Aug. 30,
2024,
a status report proposing a briefing schedule for the motion
for
class certification.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment
Discrimination.
Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas is an American lawyer and politician
who is the 7th and current United States Secretary of Homeland
Security, serving since 2021.[CC]
ALISO RIDGE: Baldwin Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brian M. Baldwin, an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ALISO RIDGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
LLC., a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2024-01406334-CU-OE-CXC was removed
from the Superior Court of California, Orange County, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
Aug. 8, 2024, and assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-01738.
The Complaint alleges ten causes of action, both on behalf of
Plaintiff individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
employees: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum
Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest
Periods; Waiting Time Penalties; Wage Statement Violations; Failure
to Timely Pay Wages; Failure to Indemnify; Violation of Labor Code;
and Unfair Competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher Ward, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
555 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2418
Phone: 213.972.4500
Facsimile: 213.486.0065
Email: cward@foley.com
- and -
Kevin Jackson, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
11988 El Camino Real, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92130
Phone: 858.847.6700
Facsimile: 858.792.6773
Email: kjackson@foley.com
ALLIANCE ENTERTAINMENT: Feller Files Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alliance
Entertainment, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Douglas Feller,
Jeffrey Heise, Joseph Mull, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Alliance Entertainment, LLC,
Directtou, LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-61439-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 7,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
Alliance Entertainment -- http://www.aent.com/-- is the largest
wholesale distributor of home entertainment audio and video
software in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 357-2107
Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com
AMARIN PHARMA: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Nixed in KPH Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES,
INC. v. AMARIN PHARMA, INC., et al. (VASCEPA ANTITRUST LITIGATION
DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS), Case No. 3:21-cv-12747-RK-TJB
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Robert Kirsch entered an order denying the
Defendants' Motion to strike class allegations in the amended class
action complaint.
The Court denies this Motion on the grounds that it is premature.
Given that this Motion is premature, the Court need not address the
parties' remaining arguments.
The FAC—filed by the Plaintiff on Sept. 7,2021—arises from
Defendants' alleged "illegal scheme to delay competition in the
United States and its territories for Vascepa, a prescription
medication approved by the U.S. Food and Dmg Administration" The
Defendants allegedly did so "by hoarding the world's supply of the
active pharmaceutical ingredient... needed to make the drug."
The FAC asserts two counts against Defendants: (1) a claim for
violation of Section One of the Sherman Act for a contract,
combination, and conspiracy in restraint of trade and (2) a claim
for violation of Section Two of the Sherman Act for
monopolization.
As defined in the FAC, the class is:
"All persons or entities in the United States and its
territories
who purchased Vascepa directly from any of the defendants at
any
time during the period from August 7, 2020 through and until
the
anticompetitive effects of Defendants' challenged conduct cease
(the "Class Period")."
The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss which was fully briefed in
December 2021. The Motion to Dismiss was denied on Feb. 28, 2023.
The Defendants Answered the FAC on March 31,2023.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated Aug. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BwcA3m at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the
Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 21, 2024, that on December 5, 2022,
and December 7, 2022, two private party plaintiffs filed putative
class action antitrust complaints against American and JetBlue in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging that American and JetBlue violated U.S. antitrust law in
connection with the previously disclosed NEA. American, together
with JetBlue, filed a motion to dismiss on September 21, 2023,
which remains pending.
In September 2023, American, together with JetBlue, filed a motion
to dismiss a third amended complaint, and that motion remains
pending.
These actions were consolidated on January 10, 2023. The private
party plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on
February 3, 2023. On February 2, 2023, and February 15, 2023,
private party plaintiffs filed two additional putative class action
antitrust complaints against American and JetBlue in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, respectively.
On May 12, 2023, and May 24, 2023, respectively, the complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York was consolidated with the other actions, and the complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York. On June 23, 2023, the private party plaintiffs filed a
second amended consolidated complaint.
American Airlines Group Inc. is an airline holding company based in
Texas.
AMERICAN CRUISE: Class Cert Bid Filling Modified to Oct. 29
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kirk v. American Cruise
Lines, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01057 (D. Conn., Filed Aug. 8, 2023),
the Hon. Judge entered an order modifying scheduling order:
-- Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification Oct. 29,
2024
due by:
-- Opposition to Class Certification due by: Nov.8, 2024
-- Reply re: Class Certification due on: Dec. 10,
2024
-- Fact discovery shall be completed by: Dec. 17,
2024
-- Disclosure of affirmative expert reports Jan. 17,
2025
due by:
-- Disclosure of rebuttal expert reports Feb. 14,
2025
due by:
-- Depositions of expert witnesses shall be April 1,
2025
completed by:
-- All discovery shall close by: April 15,
2025
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
American Cruise is the largest river and small-ship cruise line in
the U.S.A.[CC]
AMERICAN HONDA: Clark Can File Certain Documents Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WINNIE CLARK, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., and HONDA MOTOR COMPANY LTD., a
Japanese corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-03147-AB-MRW (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte, Jr. entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's leave to file the following under seal:
-- Exhibits Attached To The Declaration Of Christopher Stiner In
Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
-- Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class
Certification
After reviewing the Application to file under seal certain portions
of Plaintiffs' motion for class Certification and exhibits in
support thereof submitted by Plaintiffs and the Application's
supporting declaration, the Court finds that compelling reasons
exist "sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in disclosure
and justify sealing court records."
American Honda is the North American subsidiary of Japanese Honda
Motor Company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A4VrVE at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMES RUBBER: Wilkins Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------
KATHERYN WILKINS and STEPHANIE HUIZINGA, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMES RUBBER
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-08226 (D.N.J., August 1,
2024) arises from the Defendant's unlawful labor practices in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, New Jersey Wage and Hour
Law, New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, New Jersey
Conscientious Employee Protection Act, the Equal Pay Act of 1963,
Family and Medical Leave Act, and the New Jersey Earned Sick Leave
Law.
The Plaintiffs assert on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated current and former employees of Defendants and those who
elect to opt into this action under the FLSA and NJWHL that the
Defendant (i) fails to pay the minimum wage, (ii) fails to pay
overtime premium pay, and (iii) fails to pay for all hours worked.
They also contend individual claims of sex discrimination,
retaliation, and hostile work environment under the state and
federal laws.
Plaintiff Wilkins worked for Defendants from July 2020 through
January 19, 2024 as a maintenance technician.
Plaintiff Huizinga also worked for Defendants from June 2016
through January 5, 2024, as a shipping administrator.
Ames Rubber Corporation supplies elastomeric design solutions. The
Company offers molded components, protective coatings, and
dispensed gaskets.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Laura Rodríguez, Esq.
FRONTERA LAW PLLC
411 Theodore Fremd Ave. Suite 235
Rye, NY 10022
Telephone: (914) 873-4388
E-mail: lrodriguez@fronteralawfirm.com
AMICK FARMS: Diaz Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Collective
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL DIAZ and DIAZ
FAMILY FARMS, LLC, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. AMICK FARMS, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-01246-JDA
(D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
conditionally certifying an Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective composed of, and facilitating the sending of written
notices to all individuals who currently or formerly grew chickens
for Amick Farms in the United States under an Amick Broiler Grower
Contract from May 8, 2020, to the present (the "FLSA Collective").
Amick Farms produces chicken products.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 7, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vijnGL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian C. Duffy, Esq.
Robert Wehrman, Esq.
DUFFY & YOUNG LLC
96 Broad Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 720-2044
E-mail: bduffy@duffyandyoung.com
rwehrman@duffyandyoung.com
- and -
Jamie Crooks, Esq.
FAIRMARK PARNERS LLP
1001 G Street NW, Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (619) 507-4182
E-mail: jamie@fairmarklaw.com
- and -
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
Michaela L. Wallin, Esq.
Olivia Lanctot, Esq.
Mariyam Hussain, Esq.
BERGER MONTAUGE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net
apiazza@bm.net
mwallin@bm.net
olanctot@bm.net
mhussain@bm.net
AMICK FARMS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in Diaz
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL DIAZ, JEAN-NICHOLE
DIAZ, and DIAZ FAMILY FARMS, LLC, on their own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. AMICK FARMS, LLC, Case No.
5:22-cv-01246-JDA (D.S.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter
an order extending the deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' motion to
certify class by 14 days, resulting in a new deadline of Sept. 4,
2024.
The current deadline is August 21, 2024. Amick makes this Motion
because it currently has a reply brief that is due in the same time
period. Specifically, Amick has an anticipated Aug. 26, 2024, Reply
in Support of its Motion to Dismiss.
As a result of Amick's upcoming filing deadline and previously
scheduled depositions, completion of its Response to the
Certification Motion by the current due date will be difficult.
Further, granting the requested extension of 14 days would not
affect any other deadlines in this litigation and would not
prejudice any party.
Amick Farms produces a diverse line of fresh and frozen chicken
products.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gogidN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Angus H. Macaulay, Esq.
Marguerite S. Willis, Esq.
Bridget A. Blinn-Spears, Esq.
Lindsey B. Nelson, Esq.
MAYNARD NEXSEN, PC
1230 Main Street, Suite 700 (29201)
Columbia, SC 29202
Telephone: (803) 253-8279
Facsimile: (803) 727-1465
E-mail: amacaulay@maynardnexsen.com
mwillis@maynardnexsen.com
bblinn-spears@maynardnexsen.com
lnelson@maynardnexsen.com
AMPLITUDE INC: Collects In-App Consumer Activities, Atkins Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE ATKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMPLITUDE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
3:24-cv-04913 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 8, 2024) alleges that the Defendant
allegedly tracks consumers' sensitive locations and capturing their
in-app activities.
The lawsuit contends that Amplitude developed and disseminated a
software development kit (or "SDK") that enables backdoor access to
consumers' devices and opens a data collection pipeline directly
from consumers to Amplitude. Thousands of developers have embedded
Amplitude's SDK into their mobile apps allowing them to siphon data
from millions of consumers. The data Amplitude collects from
unsuspecting consumers is incredibly sensitive. Amplitude collects
in-app consumer activity such as the pages they view and, in the
case of shopping apps, the items they place in their shopping carts
and the search terms they input. Even worse, Amplitude collects
consumers' names and email addresses together with their
geolocation data that reveals where a consumer lives, works, and
the locations they frequent, the Plaintiff says.
The collected location data reveals sensitive information about a
consumer, for instance, their religious affiliation, sexual
orientation, and medical condition allowing Amplitude to build a
comprehensive profile on the consumer and their whereabouts, the
Plaintiff adds.
The Plaintiff and the Class are consumers whose sensitive location
data and search terms (among other in-app activities and usage)
have been obtained from their devices while using ordinary mobile
apps with Amplitude's SDK embedded. The Plaintiff and the Class do
not know—nor could they—that the apps they regularly use have
embedded Amplitude's SDK and, as such, did not (and could not)
consent to Amplitude's data collection practices.
The Plaintiff and the Class suffered harm as a result of
Defendant's violations of the Wiretap Act, and therefore seek (a)
preliminary, equitable, and declaratory relief as may be
appropriate, (b) the sum of the actual damages suffered and the
profits obtained by Defendant as a result of its unlawful conduct,
or statutory damages as authorized by 18 U.S.C. Section
2520(c)(2)(B), whichever is greater, (c) punitive damages, and (d)
reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, the lawsuit asserts.
Plaintiff Atkins is a natural person and citizen of the State of
California.
Amplitude is a data analytics company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rafey Balabanian, Esq.
Jared Lucky, Esq.
Schuyler Ufkes, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
jlucky@edelson.com
sufkes@edelson.com
ANVIL 14654: Pardo Sues Over Inaccessible Commercial Property
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. THE ANVIL
14654 INC. and PRESOUTH, INC. d/b/a DELORIS FLORIST & GIFT SHOP,
Case No. 1:24-cv-23006-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 7, 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 property, florist, and
businesses (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 uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
THE ANVIL 14654 INC., owned and operated a commercial property at
14654 Lincoln Boulevard, Miami, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Phone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Primary Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
ANYWHERE REAL: Continues to Defend Batton Nationwide Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anywhere Real Estate Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 1, 2024, that the company continues
to defend itself from the Batton nationwide class suit in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
A putative nationwide class action on behalf of home buyers
(instead of sellers) captioned Batton, Bolton, Brace, Kim, James,
Mullis, Bisbicos and Parsons v. The National Association of
Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc.,
BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster
Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern
Division) was filed on January 25, 2021 ("Batton", formerly
captioned as Leeder), in which the plaintiffs take issue with
certain NAR policies, including those related to buyer-broker
compensation at issue in the Moehrl and Burnett matters, but claim
the alleged conspiracy has harmed buyers (instead of sellers), and
seek a permanent injunction enjoining NAR from establishing in the
future the same or similar rules, policies, or practices as those
challenged in the action as well as an award of damages and/or
restitution, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.
The only claims remaining outstanding are state law claims.
The Company's motion to dismiss remains pending.
The Company disputes the allegations against it in this case,
believes it has substantial defenses to plaintiffs' claims, and is
vigorously defending this litigation. at settlement.
Madison, NJ-based, Anywhere Real Estate Inc (NYSE: HOUS) provides
franchise and brokerage operations as well as national title,
settlement, and relocation companies and nationally scaled mortgage
origination and underwriting joint ventures. Anywhere's brand
portfolio includes Better Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate, CENTURY
21(R), Coldwell Banker(R), Coldwell Banker Commercial(R),
Corcoran(R), ERA(R), and Sotheby's International Realty(R).
Moody's
expects 2023 revenue of over $5.5 billion.
ANYWHERE REAL: Continues to Defend Bumpus Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Anywhere Real Estate Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 1, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Bumpus Telephone Consumer Protection Act
class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.
Bumpus, et al. v. Realogy Holdings Corp., et al. (U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division). In this class action filed on June 11, 2019, plaintiffs
allege that independent sales agents affiliated with Anywhere
Advisors LLC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
(TCPA) using dialers provided by Mojo Dialing Solutions, LLC and
others. Plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of a National Do Not Call
Registry class, an Internal Do Not Call class, and an Artificial or
Prerecorded Message class.
While the Court certified the classes in March 2022, the plaintiffs
filed a motion in early 2023 seeking to narrow the classes, which
the Company opposed, seeking to decertify the classes.
The plaintiffs, in response to the Company's request to decertify
the classes and the court's order, have provided a Declaration with
a detailed explanation of the bases for their request to reduce the
class sizes.
Those and other pre-trail motions remain pending.
The Company disputes the allegations against it in this case,
believes it has substantial defenses to both plaintiffs' liability
claims and damage assertions, and is vigorously defending this
action.
Madison, NJ-based, Anywhere Real Estate Inc (NYSE: HOUS) provides
franchise and brokerage operations as well as national title,
settlement, and relocation companies and nationally scaled mortgage
origination and underwriting joint ventures. Anywhere's brand
portfolio includes Better Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate, CENTURY
21(R), Coldwell Banker(R), Coldwell Banker Commercial(R),
Corcoran(R), ERA(R), and Sotheby's International Realty(R).
Moody's
expects 2023 revenue of over $5.5 billion.
ANYWHERE REAL: McFall Class Suit Stayed Pending Court Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anywhere Real Estate Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 1, 2024, that the federal court of
Canada stayed the McFall class suit pending court's further order.
In this putative class action, filed on January 18, 2024, plaintiff
alleges that Coldwell Banker Canada, amongst other brokers,
franchisors, Regional Real Estate Boards ("RREB") and the Canadian
Real Estate Board ("CREB") conspired to fix the price of buyer
brokerage services in violation of civil and criminal statutes.
On March 14, 2024, the Court entered an order functionally staying
the matter pending further order of the court.
The Company believes the court will reexamine this order upon
conclusion of the appeal in a previously filed matter involving
similar allegations but different parties.
Madison, NJ-based, Anywhere Real Estate Inc (NYSE: HOUS) provides
franchise and brokerage operations as well as national title,
settlement, and relocation companies and nationally scaled mortgage
origination and underwriting joint ventures. Anywhere's brand
portfolio includes Better Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate, CENTURY
21(R), Coldwell Banker(R), Coldwell Banker Commercial(R),
Corcoran(R), ERA(R), and Sotheby's International Realty(R).
Moody's
expects 2023 revenue of over $5.5 billion.
APELLIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Soderberg Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Soderberg class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
On August 2, 2023, Judith M. Soderberg filed a putative class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware against the Company and certain current and former
executive officers of the Company (the "Complaint").
The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by misrepresenting and/or omitting
certain material facts related to the design of SYFOVRE's clinical
trials and the risks associated with SYFOVRE's commercial adoption.
The Complaint seeks, among other relief, compensatory damages and
equitable relief in favor of the alleged class against all
defendants, including interest, and reasonable costs and expenses
incurred by plaintiffs, including attorneys' and expert fees.
On October 23, 2023, the Court appointed Ray Peleckas and Michigan
Laborers' Pension Fund together as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and assigned
the action the caption In Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case 1:23-cv-00834-MN.
The Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 8,
2024 (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint is brought on
behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Apellis common stock between January 28, 2021
and July 28, 2023, inclusive, names the Company and Cedric
Francois, our chief executive officer, as defendants, and makes
similar allegations, asserts the same claims and seeks the same
relief as the Complaint.
On October 2, 2023, the defendants moved to transfer the action to
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
On May 17, 2024, the United States District Court for the District
of Delaware approved the motion to transfer to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on June 12, 2024, and
the plaintiff's opposition motion is due on August 12, 2024.
The outcome of the matter described above cannot be predicted with
certainty and therefore any loss is neither probable nor reasonably
estimable.
However, the Company intends to vigorously defend against the
litigation.
Apellis -- https://apellis.com/ -- is a global biopharmaceutical
company that develops life-changing therapies.[BN]
AQUA GUNITE: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aqua Gunite, Inc. The
case is styled as Jose Arturo Macias Martinez, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Aqua Gunite, Inc., Case No.
24CV086691 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Aug. 9, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Aqua Gunite, Inc. -- https://www.aquagunite.com/ -- operates as a
swimming pool contractor company. The Company specializes in
residential and commercial swimming pool remodeling and renovation
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carlos Jimenez, Esq.
PROTECTION LAW GROUP. LLP
149 Sheldon St.
El Segundo, CA 90245-3916
Phone: 626-556-5921
Fax: 866-264-7880
Email: carlos@protectionlawgroup.com
ARAMARK CAMPUS: Dale Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Julia Dale, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. ARAMARK CAMPUS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, and DOES 1-50 inclusive, Case No. 24CV076940 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on Aug. 8, 2024, and assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-04856.
The Plaintiff alleges nine separate causes of action for: Failure
to Pay Minimum Wages, Failure to Pay Overtime Owed, Failure to
Provide Lawful Meal Periods, Failure to Authorize and Permit Lawful
Rest Periods, Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due and Payable During
Employment, Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses,
Failure Pay Earned Vacation Wages, Knowing and Intentional Failure
to Comply With Itemized Employee Wage Statement Provisions, and
Violation of the Unfair Competition Law.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Eric Meckley, Esq.
Sarah Zenewicz, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market
Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Phone: +1.415.442.1000
Fax: +1.415.442.1001
Email: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com
sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com
- and -
Thomas A Duda, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Phone: +1.415.442.1000
Fax: +1.415.442.1001
Email: thomas.duda@morganlewis.com
ARDELYX INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ardelyx Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 1, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
On July 30 and August 12, 2021, two putative securities class
action lawsuits were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California naming as defendants Ardelyx and
two current officers captioned Strezsak v. Ardelyx, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:21-cv-05868-HSG, and Siegel v. Ardelyx, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 5:21-cv-06228-HSG (together, the Securities Class
Actions).
The complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements
and omissions of material fact related to tenapanor.
The plaintiffs seek damages and interest, and an award of costs,
including attorneys’ fees.
On July 19, 2022, the court consolidated the two putative class
actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
The lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint under which the
plaintiffs seek to represent all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Ardelyx securities between March 6, 2020 and July 19,
2021.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June
2, 2023.
On March 22, 2024, the court granted defendants’ motion to
dismiss.
The court provided plaintiffs a third opportunity to amend and
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on April 19, 2024.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on
June 3, 2024.
A hearing on the motion to dismiss is currently set for October 3,
2024.
The Company believes the plaintiff’s claims are without merit and
we have not recorded any accrual for a contingent liability
associated with these legal proceedings.
Ardelyx, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
discovery, development, and commercialization of innovative
first-in-class medicines to improve treatment for people with
kidney and cardiorenal diseases. The company is based in Waltham,
Massachusetts.
AVANT GARDNER: Avchukov Seeks August 29 Opening Brief
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Avchukov, et al., v. Avant
Gardner, LLC et al., Case No. 1:23-CV-08197-VM (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the court to enter an order adjourning the deadline
for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which is
presently due on August 8, 2024.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff request the following briefing schedule:
-- Plaintiffs' opening brief: Aug. 29, 2024
-- Defendants' opposition: Sept. 30, 2024
-- Plaintiffs' reply brief: Oct. 18, 2024
Avant Gardner operates is an event space.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 6, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3mdzq1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shelly L. Friedland, Esq.
PARKER POHL LLP
99 Park Avenue, Suite 1510
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 202-8886
Facsimile: (646) 924-3100
E-mail: parkerpohl.com
AVANT GARDNER: Ting Plaintiffs Seek August 29 Opening Brief
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ting et al., v. Avant
Gardner LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09694-VM (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
ask the court to enter an order adjourning the deadline for the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which is presently due
on Aug. 8, 2024.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff request the following briefing schedule:
-- Plaintiffs' opening brief: Aug. 29, 2024
-- Defendants' opposition: Sept. 30, 2024
-- Plaintiffs' reply brief: Oct. 18, 2024
Avant Gardner operates is an event space.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 6, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=si572v at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shelly L. Friedland, Esq.
PARKER POHL LLP
99 Park Avenue, Suite 1510
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 202-8886
Facsimile: (646) 924-3100
E-mail: parkerpohl.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Pay Officers' OT Wages, Coluzzi Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
DIANE COLUZZI, MICHAEL MARCHELOS, and GARY LIEB individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-06042 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2024) alleges that Bank
of America violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law by failing to pay the Plaintiffs and all other similarly
situated employees in a timely manner for all overtime hours worked
at one and one-half times the regular rate for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
According to the complaint, Bank of America began administering and
processing Paycheck Protection Program loans on April 1, 2020,
whereupon the company started offering loan officers, loan
consultants, and others PPP incentive pay for work on the program.
This program and incentive pay continued until May 2021. To induce
workers to remain with Bank of America and to work on the company's
lucrative PPP loan program and to replace otherwise profitable
commissions for loan origination, Bank of America promised various
incentive payments to employees who agreed to work on the PPP loan
program, the suit says.
But Bank of America failed to make good on these promises. Indeed,
Plaintiffs' pay records bear no indication that they were ever paid
these incentives, despite the fact that they worked long hours on
the PPP loan program, the suit adds.
In addition, some employees who were classified as exempt and not
entitled to overtime pay were assigned to work on the PPP loan
program, which consisted of non-exempt, ministerial work relating
to the processing of loan applications. Those employees were
misclassified for the duration of their work on the PPP loan
program, and as a result, were not paid any overtime premiums for
their substantial overtime work.
As a result of these practices, employees who stepped up to the
critical work of administering the PPP loan program were
short-changed the wages they were owed. Many Bank of America
employees, including the Plaintiffs, worked long hours and
significant overtime throughout the pandemic to ensure the nation's
small businesses had the resources they needed to stay afloat. This
suit seeks to recover for them the wages and penalties they are
owed under the law.
Ms. Coluzzi was an hourly, non-exempt senior financial lending
officer who worked for Bank of America in the state of New York
from 1998 through May 2021, and was assigned to work on the PPP
loan program on April 2020.
Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matt Dunn, Esq.
GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN PLLC
260 Fair Street
Kingston, NY 12401
Telephone: (845) 255-9370
Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
E-mail: mdunn@getmansweeney.com
- and -
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
Caleb J. Wagner, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
wagner@stuevesiegel.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Tristan Can File Exhibits Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE TRISTAN, AVANTIKA
AHUJA, and PHILLIP MYERS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; and EARLY WARNING
SERVICES, LLC D/B/A ZELLEPAY.COM, Case No. 8:22-cv-01183-DOC-ADS
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David Carter entered an order granting
the Plaintiffs' application for leave to file under seal in support
of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Court orders the Plaintiffs to file under seal the exhibits
attached to the Declaration of Scott Edelsberg in Support of
Plaintiffs' Application for Leave to File Under Seal.
Having considered the Plaintiffs’ Application for Leave to File
Under Seal in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
Certification and For Appointment of Class Counsel, and the
Declaration of Scott Edelsberg in Support thereof, hereby rules as
follows:
Document To Be Sealed Portion To Be Sealed
Edelsberg Decl. Ex. A Partial Seal
Edelsberg Decl. Ex. B Partial Seal
Edelsberg Decl. Ex. C Entire Document
Edelsberg Decl. Ex. 10 Entire Document
Edelsberg Decl. Ex. 11 Entire Document
Edelsberg Decl. Ex. 12 Entire Document
Edelsberg Decl. Ex. 13 Entire Document
Edelsberg Decl. Ex. 14 Entire Document
The documents to be sealed contain information subject to the
Stipulated Protective Order in this case that were designated
Confidential by Bank of America, N.A.
Bank of America offers saving and current account, investment and
financial services, and online banking.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AimPZA at no extra
charge.[CC]
BF PRIME: Misclassifies Drivers as Contractors, Brown Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
DARDER BROWN, MANUEL IRIZARRY, ANEESAH HANNIF, DEWARICK WASHINGTON
and KEVIN JAMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BF PRIME LLC, BEVERLY FREIGHT, INC., DORDE KANTRAK, and
IVAN ZIVANOVIC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06990 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 8, 2024) is
an action brought on behalf of current and former delivery drivers
challenging Defendants unlawful practice of misclassifying drivers
as independent contractors and thereby violating the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants full time, routinely
working 70 or more hours a week. The Plaintiff did not work
anywhere else while working for the Defendants. Although the
Defendants classified the Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers as
independent contractors, the behavior and financial control
manifested over the drivers by the Defendants demonstrates that
they were employees of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs challenge
Defendants' unlawful practice of making deductions from delivery
drivers' wages and requiring them to bear expenses which should
have been properly borne by the Defendants, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs also contend that, as a result of the deductions and
expenses they and other drivers were forced to incur, there were
weeks in which the delivery drivers' pay fell below the Illinois
and federal minimum wage.
In addition, the Plaintiffs bring, on their own behalf, claims
under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act, as well as common-law claims for unjust enrichment, negligent
representation, and fraudulent inducement. The Plaintiffs further
bring this case as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on
behalf of all current and former delivery drivers who have
contracted with Defendants to provide delivery services between
Aug. 5, 2014 and the present.
Mr. Brown worked for the Defendants as a truck driver between May
13 and June 27, 2024. As part of his work for the Defendants, he
made deliveries in Illinois and other states.
Ms. Hannif worked for the Defendants as a truck driver between May
13 and June 21, 2024. As part of her work for Defendants, she made
deliveries in Illinois and other states.
BF is a licensed and experienced freight carrier.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bradley Manewith, Esq.
Harold Lichten, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
5 Revere Drive, Suite 200
Northbrook, IL 60062
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: bmanewith@llrlaw.com
hlichten@llrlaw.com
osavytska@llrlaw.com
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Bid for Class Certification Reinstated
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATLAN et al v. BMW OF
NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-09546 (D.N.J., Filed May 22,
2018), Hon. Judge Claire C. Cecchi entered an order denying the
parties' joint letter dated Aug. 5, 2024, requesting that the IN
PERSON scheduling/settlement conference set for September 5, 2024,
be cancelled and that the motion for class certification be
reinstated.
-- The scheduling/settlement conference shall proceed as scheduled
on
September 5, 2024, and the parties shall each submit the
documentation set forth in the Court's Text Order dated July
24,
2024, in advance of the conference.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Personal Property Damage.[CC]
BOAR'S HEAD: Faces Torres Suit Over Contaminated Meat Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rita J. Torres, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Boar's Head Provisions Co. Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-05405 (E.D.N.Y., August 1, 2024) is an action
seeking to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices
of Boar's Head Provisions with respect to the manufacturing,
marketing, and sale of its meat products throughout the state of
New York and throughout the United States.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has improperly,
deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its products to
reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, by omitting and not
disclosing to consumers on its packaging that the products are
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. As alleged, the products
contain Listeria monocytogenes, which could lead to serious and
life-threatening adverse health consequences.
The Plaintiff and those similarly situated certainly expect that
the food products they purchase will not contain, or risk
containing, any knowingly harmful substances that cause disease,
says the suit.
Boar's Head Provisions Co. Inc. is a supplier of delicatessen
meats, cheeses and condiments. The Company was founded in 1905 in
Brooklyn, New York, and now distributes its products throughout the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Philip J. Furia, Esq.
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com
markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
- and -
Nick Suciu, III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: CSchaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
BONIFACE CHRYSLER: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lynn v. Boniface Chrysler
Dodge, Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-01446 (M.D. Fla., Filed Aug. 7,
2024), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the
parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for
class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in
their case management report.
The deadlines should include a deadline for
(1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, plaintiff and
defendant;
(2) discovery -- class action;
(3) motion for class certification;
(4) response to motion for class certification; and
(5) reply to motion for class certification.
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).
The Defendant is a motor vehicle manufacturing company.[CC]
BREAD FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Newtyn Partners Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bread Financial Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Newtyn Partners securities
class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.
On April 27, 2023, the Company and certain of its current and
former members of its management team were named as defendants in a
putative federal securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, captioned Newtyn
Partners, LP v. Alliance Data Systems n/k/a Bread Financial
Holdings, Inc., Case No. 23-cv-1451-EAS (S.D. Ohio), concerning
disclosures made about LVI's business prior to the spinoff.
The lead plaintiff in this matter filed an amended complaint on
March 21, 2024 and is seeking, among other things, a class action
designation and an award of damages in an amount to be proven at
trial, plus fees and expenses.
In all these actions related to the spinoff, the Company believes
the allegations contained in the complaints are without merit and
intend to defend the cases.
Headquartered in Ohio, Bread Financial offers
personalized payment, lending and saving solutions. [BN]
BRINKER INT'L: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Modified to August 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA HALE and JESUS
GOMEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
and the general public, v. BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation; BRINKER INTERNATIONAL PAYROLL COMPANY, L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership; BRINKER RESTAURANT CORPORATION, a
Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
3:21-cv-09978-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered
the updated briefing schedule ON Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification as follows:
Deadline/Hearing Current Modified
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class July 17, 2024 July 17,
2024
Certification
Defendants' Opposition Aug. 16, 2024 Aug. 30,
2024
Plaintiff's Reply Sept. 6, 2024 Oct. 4,
2024
Hearing on Motion for Class Sept. 26, 2024 Oct. 24,
2024
Certification at 10:00 a.m. at 10:00
a.m.
On Sept. 19, 2023, the Court set the initial schedule for
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, with the hearing set
for March 7, 2024.
On Nov. 22, 2023, the Parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Extend
Time for Plaintiffs to File Motion for Class Certification and to
Continue Related Dates.
On Dec. 1, 2023, the Court granted the Parties' Joint Stipulation
to Extend Time for Plaintiffs to File Motion for Class
Certification and to Continue Related Dates and thereby modified
the Scheduling Order.
In relevant part, the Court set the Hearing on Motion for Class
Certification for April 25, 2024, at 10 a.m.
On Jan. 26, 2024, the Parties filed a second Joint Stipulation to
Extend Time for Plaintiffs to File Motion for Class Certification
and to Continue Related Dates.
On January 29, 2024, the Court granted the Parties’ second Joint
Stipulation to Extend Time for Plaintiffs to File Motion for Class
Certification and to Continue Related Dates and thereby modified
the Scheduling Order.
Brinker is an American multinational hospitality industry company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NHNUNz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
Jose Maria D. Patino, Jr., Esq.
Tyson Gibb, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 460
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
jose@setarehlaw.com
tyson@setarehlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Kevin D. Reese, Esq.
Geoffrey R. Pittman, Esq.
Robert Yang, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
Telephone: (415) 394-9400
Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
E-mail: Kevin.Reese@jacksonlewis.com
Geoffrey.Pittman@jacksonlewis.com
Rob.Yang@jacksonlewis.com
BUCKLEY CABLE: Laney Class Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA, PMWA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC LANEY, for himself and on behalf of those similarly situated
v. BUCKLEY CABLE CONSTRUCTION CO., Case No. 2:24-CV-04188 (E.D.
Pa., Aug. 14, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff on
behalf of himself and on behalf of a putative class of similarly
situated persons against the Defendant to recover overtime pay as
required by Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968.
The Plaintiff contends that he worked over 40 hours in one or more
workweeks in the three years before the Complaint in this matter
was filed. When Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, he was not paid proper overtime premiums for all of his
overtime hours worked.
The Defendant is a full-service cable and fiber optic construction
company located in Trainer, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Angeli Murthy, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 327-5369
E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com
- and -
Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 237-2281
Facsimile: (407) 245-3383
E-mail: KimD@forthepeople.com
CAREMARK PHC: Oct. 15 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN FLOWERS,
individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. CAREMARK PhC, L.L.C., Case No. 4:24-cv-04031-SOH (W.D.
Ark.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the
deadline for a motion for class certification to Oct. 15, 2024, the
deadline for Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification to Nov. 29, 2024, and the deadline for
Plaintiff's reply to Dec. 30, 2024.
Extending the deadline for filing of a motion for class
certification will promote efficiency by being briefed after the
Court has addressed whether to permit inclusion of the new parties
to the matter as defendants, as proposed in Plaintiff's motion for
leave be granted to amend the complaint.
The Plaintiff is no longer seeking to pursue claims against the
only existing defendant.
In addition, the senior attorney with primary responsibly for the
existing Defendant has long-standing, extended international family
travel taking place in September of this year, that would impede
Defendant's ability to Oppose the Motion for Class Certification on
the current briefing schedule.
Finally, the amendment of a complaint to add defendants and counts
amounts to "good cause" to justify the brief extension because it
introduces new facts and theories of liability.
The Parties have not previously sought an extension of the motion
for class certification deadline set by the Case Management Order.
The Plaintiff filed this case as a putative class action asserting
various claims against the Defendant relating to pharmacy health
benefits in Arkansas.
On June 20, 2024, the Parties concluded their Rule 26(f) Conference
by filing their Joint Report of the Rule 26(f) Conference with the
Court. On July 30, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to
File an Amended Class Action Complaint.
Caremark offers pharmacy benefit management services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k7VTr3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Poynter, Esq.
Daniel Holland, Esq.
Clay Ellis, Esq.
Scout Sanders Snowden, Esq.
POYNTER LAW GROUP
4924 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Little Rock, AR 72207
Telephone: (501) 812-3943
E-mail: scott@poynterlawgroup.com
daniel@poynterlawgroup.com
clay@poynterlawgroup.com
scout@poynterlawgroup.com
- and -
Rodney P. Moore, Esq.
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2300
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 212-1324
E-mail: rpmoore@wlj.com
The Defendant is represented by:
J. Carter Fairley, Esq.
BARBER LAW FIRM PLLC
425 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 372-6175
E-mail: cfairley@barberlawfirm.com
- and -
Frank Pasquesi, Esq.
Samantha Saddler, Esq.
Michael D. Leffel, Esq.
Natalie F. Pike, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
321 North Clark Street, Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 832-4500
E-mail: fpasquesi@foley.com
ssaddler@foley.com
mleffel@foley.com
natalie.pike@foley.com
CCFI COMPANIES: Yancey Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOVON YANCEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CCFI COMPANIES, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company dba CALIFORNIA CHECK CASHING STORES, and
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 24CV010467, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on August 14, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-at-01048 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide
rest breaks, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide wage
statements, failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, and
unfair business practices.
CCFI Companies, LLC, doing business as California Check Cashing
Stores, is a check cashing services provider with its principal
place of business in Franklin County, Ohio. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael J. Nader, Esq.
Paul Smith, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 840-3150
Facsimile: (916) 840-3159
Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com
paul.smith@ogletree.com
CDK GLOBAL: Faces East McComb Class Suit Over Ransomware Attacks
----------------------------------------------------------------
EAST MCCOMB BODY SHOP, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, v. CDK GLOBAL, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06972 (N.D.
Ill., Aug. 8, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to secure its
systems and data from cyberattacks, including ransomware attacks.
On June 19, 2024, the Defendant suffered a ransomware attack, which
prevented the Defendant's clients, such as automotive dealers, from
conducting their routine and ordinary business, including receiving
payment for vehicle and parts sales and vehicle maintenance
services provided to the public.
As a result of the Data Breach, CDK shut down the majority of its
network, which made it "all but impossible [for dealers] to sell
vehicles." In light of the hack, many dealers have started
processing transactions manually, significantly slowing down their
business processes and decimating their revenues. Since the
Defendant shut down following the cyberattack, the Plaintiff has
been unable to order auto parts from dealerships who use CDK
software. This caused, and continues to cause, the Plaintiff to
suffer significant monetary losses and other harms, the suit says.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff has been unable to order
auto parts from auto dealers who use CDK software. This caused the
plaintiff significant financial losses including:
1) delayed or cancelled repairs;
2) delays in obtaining payment from clients or insurance
companies; and
3) having to pay employees higher wages for longer hours of work
due to having to address delays in auto parts supply chain.
As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, the Plaintiff and
the Class allegedly continue to experience significant business
interruption and disruption as a direct and proximate result of
their inability to conduct normal business operations while
Defendant's systems are offline due to the Data Breach.
Plaintiff East McComb Body Shop is a full-service collision
facility, located in McComb, Pike County, Mississippi. The
Plaintiff provides collision repair services on all makes and
models of vehicles.
CDK is a provider of integrated information technology and tools to
car dealers and other companies in the automotive industry.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gerald M. Abdalla, Jr., Esq.
ABDALLA LAW, PLLC
602 Steed Road, Suite 200
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Telephone: (601) 278-6055
E-mail: jerry@abdalla-law.com
- and -
Timothy W. Porter, Esq.
PORTER & MALOUF, P.A.
Jackson, MS 39236
Telephone: (601) 957-1173
E-mail: tim@portermalouf.com
- and -
Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES
120 North LaSalle Street, 36th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 899-9090
E-mail: SMM@cliffordlaw.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ronald Podolny, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Berg Hospitality Sues to Seek Damages
---------------------------------------------------------
Berg Hospitality Group, LLC, Killen's Barbecue LLC, Killen's LLC,
Fung's Kitchen, Inc., The Riel Group, LLC, GR8 Plate Group LLC,
Burns Original BBQ Bistro, LLC, Dhanu Laxmi, Inc., Galveston
Restaurant Group, Inc., Fluff Bake Bar, LLC, Bibo's Bistro 101,
LLC, Pico's Restaurant, Inc., P&A Investment Group LLC, Reel Sea
LLC, Htown Restaurant Group, LLC, and Ybarra Investments, Inc. on
behalf of themselves, and those similarly situated v. CENTERPOINT
ENERGY, INC., Case No. 2024-44198 (Tex. 165th Judicial Dist.,
Harris Cty., July 17, 2024), is brought as a result of the
Defendants who grossly failed to properly invest in infrastructure,
grossly failed to adequately inspect and maintain equipment,
grossly failed to put adequate policies in place, grossly failed to
adequately train personnel, grossly failed to hire a sufficient
number of trained personnel, grossly failed prepare for Hurricane
Beryl, grossly failed to properly conduct power restoration
operations before, during, and after Hurricane Beryl and ultimately
chose obscene profits ($6,536,000,000.00 in 2023 – a 4.91%
increase from 2022) for its shareholders rather than performing its
essential function for the community; that is, investing in, and
providing a competent power grid and conducting reasonable power
restoration efforts for the customers who rely upon CenterPoint for
power.
CenterPoint is a monopoly. Collectively the Proposed Class members
pay CenterPoint millions upon millions of dollars yearly for
electricity. Of course, if a member of the Proposed Class fails to
pay its bill on time, CenterPoint will disconnect and refuse to
provide electricity. Yet, when CenterPoint negligently fails to
provide power, even though it has promised to do so and has a legal
obligation to do so, it figuratively shrugs its shoulders, claims
ignorance, and blames its failures on the weather or other external
forces, claiming it had no idea or clue that the event causing the
disruption would be so bad or could wreak such havoc. The members
of the Proposed Class have had enough.
If the Proposed Class members were to conduct their businesses in
the manner that CenterPoint does, they would quickly be out of
business. CenterPoint, despite years of dereliction, incompetence
and gross negligence, remains in business, earning more than $6.5
Billion in profit yearly, and remains the only option for the
entire area. Government thus far has woefully failed to force
CenterPoint to do what any reasonable entity in its position would
and should do, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are businesses who suffered substantial business
interruption and other economic losses described herein during and
in the days after Hurricane Beryl.
CENTERPOINT ENERGY, INC. is an energy company responsible for
maintaining the wires, poles and electric infrastructure serving
more than 2.8 million metered customers in the greater Houston
Galveston area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony G. Buzbee, Esq.
Christopher J. Leavitt, Esq.
Ryan S. Pigg, Esq.
Michael R. Eddington, Esq.
Colby Holler, Esq.
Cheryl Bayley, Esq.
THE BUZBEE LAW FIRM
JP Morgan Chase Tower
600 Travis, Suite 7300
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 223-5393
Facsimile: (713) 223-5909
Web: www.txattorneys.com
Email: tbuzbee@txattorneys.com
cleavitt@txattorneys.com
rpigg@txattorneys.com
meddington@txattorneys.com
choller@txattorneys.com
cbayley@txattorneys.com
COLOURS COUTURE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Herrera Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. COLOURS COUTURE LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06079 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 12, 2024) is civil rights action against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website, https://crosscolours.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.
During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
July 23, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Cross Colours Hip Hop
Dictionary T-Shirt -- Black from the Defendant and to view the
information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple
access barriers. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able
to add the item[s] to the cart due to broken links, pictures
without alternate attributes and other barriers on the Defendant's
Website, says the suit.
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 suit added.
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.
Colours Couture operates the Colours online interactive Website and
retail store across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, 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: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
CORNELL COMMUNITY: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Conroy
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Conroy, v. Board of
Education Cornell Community Consolidated School District 426 et
al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01315-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
entered an order Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing
order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
Cornell Community Consolidated School is a public school district
in Illinois.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6CghXu at no extra
charge.[CC]
CRAFTED BRAND: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Bullock Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN BULLOCK, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. CRAFTED BRAND COMPANY, LLC, Case
No. 1:24-cv-06037 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2024) sues the Defendant for
their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their
website, www.craftedcocktails.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Plaintiff has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase on
craftedcocktails.com, most recently on July 3, 2024; July 9, 2024;
and July 17, 2024, but was unable to do so independently because of
the many access barriers on Defendant's website. Amongst other
access barriers experienced, the Plaintiff was unable to make an
online purchase of the Grapefruit Paloma Cocktail or Mocktail Mix
and the Dirty Martini Cocktail or Mocktail Mix. The Defendant is
denying blind and visually-impaired persons throughout the United
States with equal access to the goods and services Crafted Brand
provides to their non-disabled customers through its website, the
suit asserts.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Crafted Brand policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Crafted Brand offers a wide selection of bottled mixed cocktails,
shrubs, and condiments that can be purchased with the click of a
mouse.[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
E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
CULTURE HOUSE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Saunders Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SAUNDERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CULTURE HOUSE LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06199 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 15, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their Website,
https://culturehousenyc.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired individuals, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff was injured when attempting to access Defendant's
Website on Aug. 2, 2024, from his home in Bronx County, in an
effort to search for and purchase Defendant's products and
services, which would assist the Plaintiff in his daily quest to
overcome his physical limitations but encountered various access
barriers. These access barriers have caused a denial of Plaintiff's
full and equal access multiple times in the past, and now deter the
Plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing the Defendant's Website
in the future, the suit says.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Websites, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination. The
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Mr. Saunders is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using the computer.
Culture House is a New York State-licensed dispensary and offers a
curated collection of cannabis products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
DELOITTE CONSULTING: Fails to Properly Pay CSRs, Ugbesia Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
AVA STREET-UGBESIA and DAVID CARTER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DELOITTE CONSULTING
LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07321 (N.D. Ill., August 15, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay
employees for all hours worked including overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and for
common law unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as remote customer service
representatives in Illinois within the last three years.
Deloitte Consulting LLP is a management consulting company doing
business in Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
ASH LAW, PLLC
402 West Liberty Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Telephone: (734) 234-5583
Email: cash@nationalwagelaw.com
- and -
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
55 E Monroe Street, Suite 3800
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Email: AFrisch@forthepeople.com
- and -
Oscar A. Rodriguez, Esq.
HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C.
126 South Main Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (734) 662-4426
Email: orod@hooperhathaway.com
DELTA AIR: Faces Khaku Class Suit Over Flight Cancellation
----------------------------------------------------------
AUNALI KHAKU individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03594-MHC (N.D.
Ga., Aug. 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
their cancellation of thousands of flights purchased by consumers
and subsequent failure to refund in full or in part for the grave
inconvenience it caused.
On Friday, July 19, 2024, an automatic update to a cybersecurity
software developed by CrowdStrike resulted in millions of computers
operating with Microsoft Windows crashed, resulting in Delta's
inability to operate their flights. The CrowdStrike outage affected
CrowdStrike customers who utilize Microsoft Windows products,
including most airports and airlines.
Airlines and airports utilize Microsoft Office 356 for travel needs
like scheduling, and transporting crew members, passengers, and
cargos to their appropriate destinations. However, the CrowdStrike
outage inhibited airlines from conducting their day-to day
activities, which resorted to manual operations, such as checking
in passengers in on paper. This severely crippled airlines,
airports, and passengers from attending their scheduled programs
accordingly. Moreover, the CrowdStrike outage resulted in massive
delays globally, the suit alleges.
According to FlightAware, a flight tracking firm, there were more
than 4,000 flight cancellations and 35,000 flight delays worldwide
by Friday afternoon. Delta specifically reported more than 4,500
flight cancellations between Friday, July 19, 2024, and Sunday,
July 21, 2024. By the close of the weekend, Delta one of the few
airlines that failed to recover and resume normal operations. Delta
continued to cancel flights into the new workweek. On Monday, July
22, it was reported that Delta canceled more than 1,250 flights.
These cancellations accounted for nearly 70% of all lights within
the United States.4 No other U.S. airline had canceled one-tenth as
many flights. The Plaintiff contends that Delta's actions were
unfair, unlawful, and unconscionable, thus unjustly enriching
themselves at the expense of its customers.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action in order to retrieve
their monies for each and every similarly situated consumer Delta
wronged by refusing to issue full refunds for flights cancelled or
significantly affected as a direct and proximate result of the
CrowdStrike outage.
DELTA AIR LINES, INC. provides scheduled air transportation for
passengers, freight, and mail over a network of routes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Sizemore, Esq.
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: TeamSizemore@poulinwilley.com
Paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
DENNY'S INC: Court OK's Wintjen Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULI WINTJEN, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, v. DENNY'S, INC., Case No.
2:19-cv-00069-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell
Wiegand will grant Ms. Wintjen's unopposed motion to certify
subclass, and other related relief and Ms. Gower's unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of collective and class action partial
settlement and release between herself and the Defendant.
Finally, the Court concludes that the settlement appears to fall
within the range of possible approval. Based on the damages
calculation provided by Ms. Gower, if successful at trial, the
class would recover approximately $471,956.10.
In light of the Court's finding that Ms. Gower has met the
requirements to certify an ETCN Rule 23 Subclass, supra at 11, the
Court likewise finds provisional certification appropriate under
Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3).
Accordingly, the Court finds that the FLSA settlement is fair and
reasonable and does not frustrate the implementation of the FLSA.
On Jan. 22, 2019, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
employees, Ms. Wintjen filed this hybrid collective and class
action, asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
On March 19, 2024, following a mediation session with Michael
Russel, Esq., the parties notified the Court that they had reached
a partial settlement.
For settlement purposes only, Ms. Gower seeks certification of a
proposed class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) consisting of:
"All Tipped Employees of Defendant identified on "Exhibit A"
submitted to the Court on March 14, 2024."
Denny's is an American table service diner-style restaurant chain.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated Aug. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ECRHgh at no extra
charge.[CC]
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Allowed to File Sur-Reply Brief
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Dentsply Sirona, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:18-cv-07253 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 19, 2018),
the Hon. Judge Nina Gershon entered an order granting motion for
leave to file document / sur-reply brief in further opposition to
class certification.
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.
Dentsply is an American dental equipment manufacturer and dental
consumables producer that markets its products in over 120
countries.[CC]
DIADORA US: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Herrera Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. DIADORA U.S. INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-06115 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 12, 2024) is civil rights action against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website, https://www.diadora.com/en/us/, to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
July 23, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Mercury Elite Urban WN
from the Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the
Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers. He was unable to
locate pricing and was not able to add the item[s] to the cart due
to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other
barriers on the Defendant's Website. 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 suit says.
This discrimination is particularly acute during the current
COVID-19 global pandemic, the suit adds.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Mr. Herrera is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Diadora is an Italian sportswear and footwear manufacturing
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, 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: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
DOLLAR TREE: Greene Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Shane Greene, Alex Fernandez, David Stanley,
Eddie Rustrian, Jenny Linares, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DOLLAR TREE DISTRIBUTION, INC., a
Virginia Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
CIV SB 2420954 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of
California, in and for the County of San Bernardino, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
Aug. 9, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01701-SSS-SP.
The Complaint asserts nine putative class action causes of action:
failure to pay minimum and straight time wages; failure to pay
overtime; meal break violations; rest break violations; failure to
pay wages at termination; failure to provide accurate wage
statements; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses;
failure to produce requested employment records; and unfair
competition in violation of California Business and Professions
Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Rachael Lavi, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
Phone: 310.553.0308
Fax: 800.715.13
Email: rlavi@littler.com
DRY GOODS: Underpays Retail Store Staff, Torres Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ROSA TORRES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DRY GOODS SHOP INC., AARON GOLD, and DAVID
GOLD, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05693 (E.D.N.Y., August 14,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from August 2015 to
January 26, 2024.
Dry Goods Shop Inc. is an operator of a retail store selling
clothes and dry goods, located in Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Oscar Alvarado, Esq.
SACCO & FILLAS LLP
3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor
Astoria, NY 11102
Telephone: (718) 269-2207
Facsimile: (718) 559-6517
Email: OAlvarado@SaccoFillas.com
EDUCATIONAL COMPUTER: Class Settlement in Nguyen Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA NGUYEN, TAMICA
BREWSTER, KYLE STRICKENBERGER, MICHELLE CAYNOR, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. EDUCATIONAL
COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. Case No. 2:22-cv-01743-PLD (W.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Patricia Dodge will grant Plaintiffs' unopposed motion
for final approval of class action settlement.
The Settlement Agreement establishes a $3.65 million fund from
which class members would receive cash compensation on a pro rata
basis based on the number of relevant fees assessed against an
account during the Class Period.
As a result, the Court finds that the degree of direct benefit
provided to the class members points to approving the settlement.
In summary, having considered all of the relevant factors, the
Court finds that final approval of the Settlement is warranted.
The final certified settlement class is defined as follows:
"All natural persons (1) within the United States who paid a
fee
to the Defendant for (2) optional payment services to make a
Perkins student loan payment by telephone, IVR, or the internet
("Processing Fee"), between Dec. 6, 2018, through and including
Oct. 31, 2023."
It estimated that the class consists of 557,773 borrowers, who
were assessed a total of $14,882,703.90 in Processing Fees
during
the Class Period.
Based on this definition, the settlement class consists of
557,773
Borrowers.
The Plaintiffs Rebecca Nguyen, Tamica Brewster and Kyle
Strickenberger, in their own right and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, commenced this action by filing a Complaint on
Dec. 6, 2022.
In this class action, Plaintiffs allege:
(1) violations of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing embedded in every contract;
(2) violations of California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, and the laws of seven other states whose
debt-collection laws are materially uniform;
(3) violations of section 1788.13(e) of the Rosenthal Act;
(4) violations of California's Student Borrower Bill of Rights,
Illinois's Student Loan Servicing Rights Act, and the laws
of
nine other states whose student loan borrower bills of
rights
are materially uniform;
(5) violations of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"),
and
(6) violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act ("ICFA").
The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement was also filed on January 5, 2024 and was granted
by Order dated January 23, 2024.
The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of class action
settlement was docketed on June 10, 2024. A final hearing was held
on June 24, 2024.
Educational Computer provides educational support services.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Aug. 7, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gxFawy
at no extra charge.[CC]
EPIC LANDSCAPE: Bid for Leave to File Surreply Moot
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE GONZALEZ GOMEZ, et
al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. EPIC
LANDSCAPE PRODUCTIONS, L.C., EPIC LANDSCAPE PRODUCTIONS, INC., JOHN
CONSTANT and MARTY SILLER, Case No. 2:22-cv-02198-JAR-ADM (D.
Kan.), the Hon. Judge Julie Robinson entered an order that the
Defendants' motion for leave to file a surreply to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification is moot.
By Aug. 7, 2024, the Plaintiffs shall either withdraw their Motion
for Class Certification or their Reply to the motion.
If the Plaintiffs withdraw their Motion for Class Certification,
they may file an Amended Motion for Class Certification by Aug. 19,
2024, and Defendants shall respond to the amended motion by Aug.
26, 2024.
The Defendants move for leave to file a surreply, pointing out the
inconsistency between the different class and subclass definitions.
The Defendants argue they are prejudiced by the discrepancy because
they focused their response to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification on Plaintiff's initial definition of the proposed
class and subclasses.
The Court agrees with the Defendants that Plaintiffs' varied
definitions of their proposed class(es) and subclasses are
confusing and inconsistent.
The Plaintiffs have put forth three iterations of their proposed
class(es) for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 certification. First,
in the Amended Complaint, they proposed the following class:
"All current and former hourly employees at Defendants' sites in
Missouri at any time during the two years preceding the filing
of
this lawsuit, and as to those times covered by the parties'
tolling
agreement, and who performed work without proper compensation.
Second, in Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, they defined
the proposed class as:
"all persons who worked for Defendants as hourly laborers in
Kansas
and Missouri from May 30, 2017 to July 2021, and who performed
overtime work for the Defendant for more than 40 hours in
workweek
without overtime compensation."
In this opening brief, they propose four subclasses:
A. H-2B workers who did not receive overtime compensation after
having worked more than 40 hours in a workweek;
B. Non H-2B workers who did not receive overtime compensation
after
having worked more than 40 hours in a workweek;
C. Missouri H-2B workers who did not receive overtime
compensation
after having worked more than 40 hours in a workweek; and
D. Non H-2B workers who did not receive overtime compensation
after
having worked more than 40 hours in a workweek.
EPIC Landscape Productions specializes in designing and building
creative, functional and fabulous landscapes.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Oei7Wj at no extra
charge.[CC]
EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG: Lewis Seeks to Certify 3 Classes of Homeowners
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLI LEWIS, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG,
LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00302-FL-BM (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order certifying the following Classes:
(1) Notice of Lien Class:
"All North Carolina homeowners, during the respective
statute
of limitations period, that received a Notice of Lien from
EquityExperts substantially identical to the Notice of Lien
delivered to the Plaintiff."
(2) Notice of Intent to Foreclose Class:
"All North Carolina homeowners, during the respective
statute
of limitations period, that received a Notice of Intent to
Foreclose from EquityExperts substantially identical to the
Notice of Intent to Foreclose delivered to the Plaintiff."
(3) Unconscionable Collection Fee Class:
"All North Carolina homeowners that were charged more than
$1,200 in collection fees by EquityExperts during the
respective statute of limitations period."
Excluded from the classes are: (a) any Judge or Magistrate
presiding over this action and members of their families;
(b)
EquityExperts and any entity which EquityExperts has a
controlling interest or which has a controlling interest in
EquityExperts and all its legal representatives; (c) all
persons who properly execute and file a timely request for
exclusion from the classes.
Equity Experts is a collections agency for HOAs and Condo
Associations.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zXLUJM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward H. Maginnis, Esq.
Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq.
Ian E. Vance, Esq.
MAGINNIS HOWARD
7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone: (919) 526-0450
Facsimile: (919) 882-8763
E-mail: emaginnis@carolinalaw.com
kgwaltney@carolinalaw.com
ivance@carolinalaw.com
EVEREVE INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Evereve Incorporated, Case No. 0:24-cv-03240-DSD-JFD
(D. Minn., Aug. 12, 2024) asserts that the Defendant's website,
www.evereve.com, is not fully and equally accessible to 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, its implementing regulations and the Minnesota
Human Rights Act.
As a consequence of the Plaintiff's experience visiting Defendant's
website, including in the past year, and from an investigation
performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff allegedly found the
Defendant's website has a number of digital barriers that deny
screen-reader users like her full and equal access to important
website content -- content the Defendant makes available to its
sighted website users.
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, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in
the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to
become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual
disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota
pursuant to Minn. Stat. 363A.33, Subd. 6 and Minn. Stat. section
363A.29, subd. 4 (2023); damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant
to Minn. Stat. section 363A.33, subd. 6 (2023), and Minn. Stat.
section 363A.29, subd. 4 (2023).
Ms. Dalton is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled
under the ADA.
The Defendant offers apparel and accessories for sale including,
but not limited to dresses, pants, jeans, blazers, shoes, jewelry,
and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: jason@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
EZ FESTIVALS: Brockmole Seeks August 29 Opening Brief
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brockmole, et al., v. EZ
Festivals LLC et al., Case No. 1:23-CV-08106-VM (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the court to enter an order adjourning the deadline
for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which is
presently due
on Aug. 8, 2024.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff request the following briefing schedule:
-- Plaintiffs' opening brief: Aug. 29, 2024
-- Defendants' opposition: Sept. 30, 2024
-- Plaintiffs' reply brief: Oct. 18, 2024
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nuo2eE at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shelly L. Friedland, Esq.
PARKER POHL LLP
99 Park Avenue, Suite 1510
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 202-8886
Facsimile: (646) 924-3100
E-mail: parkerpohl.com
FERADYNE OUTDOORS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Calcano Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS CALCANO, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. FERADYNE OUTDOORS LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06114
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://www.feradyne.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
During the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
July 19, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Halo Series Boot Dryer
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 suit alleges.
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,
says the suit.
This discrimination is particularly acute during the current
COVID-19 global pandemic.
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. Calcano is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Feradyne manufactures outdoor sports goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, 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: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
GANNETT CO: Ryan Wu CDAFA Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled RYAN WU and SABER KHAMOOSHI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. GANNETT CO., INC., Case
No. CGC-24-615921, was removed from the Superior Court of the
County of San Francisco, California, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on August 14, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-05150 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act and the California
Invasion of Privacy Act, and invasion of privacy under the
California Constitution.
Gannett Co., Inc. is a media company based in Pittsford, New York.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
David R. Singh, Esq.
Amy Tu Quyen Le, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, 6th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 802-3000
Facsimile: (650) 802-3100
Email: david.singh@weil.com
amy.le@weil.com
- and -
David L. Yohai, Esq.
Blake J. Steinberg, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Telephone: (212) 310-8000
Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
Email: david.yohai@weil.com
blake.steinberg@weil.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Lambert Suit Over Vehicles' Defective Paint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE LAMBERT, ZACHARY FISCHER and ANTHONY COTTOM, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS
LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-61484 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 14, 2024) is a class
action suit brought by the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated alleging that Defendant is liable
to them and the proposed Class under federal and state law for the
design, manufacturing, marketing, and sale of vehicles with
defective paint.
The vehicles at issue in this litigation include, but may not be
limited to, the 2015-2020 Cadillac Escalade, ("Class Vehicles).
This action is brought to remedy violations of law in connection
with Defendant's designing, manufacturing, marketing, advertising,
selling, warranting, and servicing of the Class Vehicles. The Class
Vehicles were all painted by Defendant, and the paint has a serious
latent defect that causes the exterior surfaces of the Class
Vehicles to peel, crack, become cloudy, and delaminate without any
external or environmental influence, the lawsuit says.
The Defendant knew, or should have known, prior to Plaintiffs’
purchases that the paint itself (and any clear coating) was
defective, and that its application of the defective paint (and any
clear coating) further contributed to the cracking, cloudiness,
peeling and delamination. Although defect manifested over time,
Defendant knew or should have known of those issues prior to sale
of the Class Vehicles; yet Defendant continued to put the latently
defective Class Vehicles on the market, the lawsuit adds.
The Defendant allegedly breached its express warranty by continuing
to sell the defective Class Vehicles and refusing to remedy the
issues; instead, it actively concealed them from Plaintiffs and
the putative class. The Defendant fraudulently concealed the issues
with the paint on the Class Vehicles in violation of various state
consumer protection laws.
The Defendant designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold,
leased, and warranted the vehicles at issue. The Defendant also
developed and disseminated the manuals, warranty booklets,
advertisements, and promotional materials relating to the Class
Vehicles. It took those actions to distribute Class Vehicles for
sale in Florida, purposely availing itself of the laws of that
state and accounting for the purchase or lease of the Class
Vehicles by the Plaintiffs and Class.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mariam Grigorian, Esq,
Rocco Scarfone, Esq.
SCARFONE LAW GROUP
2424 N. Federal Hwy No. 166
Boca Raton, FL
Telephone: (561) 609-1200
Facsimile: (561) 609-1234
E-mail: mgrigorian@scarfonelawgroup.com
rocco@scarfonelawgroup.com
service@scarfonelawgroup.com
GFP ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Laborers' OT Wages, Albers Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DUSTIN ALBERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GFP ENTERPRISES, LLC, an Oregon limited liability
company, Case No. 6:24-cv-01302-MK (D. Or., Aug. 8, 2024) sues the
Defendant for its failure to pay the Plaintiff time and one-half
the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each
seven-day workweek, under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff's weekly work schedule typically encompassed 12 hours
of work per day, seven days per week. However, the Defendant
allegedly did not pay the Plaintiff time and one-half the regular
rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each and every
workweek.
The Plaintiff files this lawsuit individually and as an FLSA
collective action on behalf of all similarly situated current and
former employees of the Defendant while paid on a day rate basis
who, like the Plaintiff, were not paid time and one-half their
respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in
each seven day workweek in the time period of three years preceding
the date this lawsuit was filed and forward.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members seek
all damages available under the FLSA, including back wages,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees, costs, and
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a laborer in
connection with its emergency response solutions business
operations from Aug. 1, 2023 to Jan. 5, 2024.
GFP Enterprises is a private sector wildland firefighting
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron W. Baker, Esq.
Serena L. Liss, Esq.
BAKER LAW PC
1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2300
Portland, OR 97205
Telephone: (503) 234-8800
Facsimile: (503) 525-0650
E-mail: aaron@awbakerlaw.com
serena@awbakerlaw.com
- and -
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75254
Telephone: (214) 489-7653
Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
GIANT COMPANY: Soda Contains Brominated Vegetable Oil, Daniels Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHAVONNE DANIELS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE GIANT COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-01363-CCC (M.D. Pa., Aug. 13, 2024) is class action lawsuit
brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of themselves, and all others
similarly situated who purchased GIANT brand Orange Soda which was
unfit for its intended use because it contains Brominated Vegetable
Oil.
Brominated Vegetable Oil (BVO) is an oil additive used in food and
drinks to keep citrus flavoring from separating and floating in the
product. High levels of bromine, one of the ingredients in BVO, can
damage the thyroid gland and can cause hypothyroidism, leading to
weight gain, and depression. Bromine has also been "been linked to
neurologic symptoms in people who drink large quantities of citrus
soda."
The Plaintiff and Class Members were significantly exposed to soda
products containing BVO, a proven hazardous substance, as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant's negligence. As a consequence of
the Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered, and continue to suffer, financial injury. The Plaintiff
brings suit to recover the economic costs of the extra medical
evaluations that Plaintiff expects to incur as a result of their
exposure to BVO. This action seeks refunds of the amount the
Plaintiff and other members of the Classes paid, medical monitoring
costs, and other damages as pled here.
Ms. Daniels is a citizen of the State of South Carolina.
Giant Company is an American regional supermarket chain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
E-mail: pauldoolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Thukral Files Suit in D. Utah
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HealthEquity Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Dhruv Thukral, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. HealthEquity Inc., WageWorks,
Inc., Further Operations, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00565-HCN (D. Utah,
Aug. 7, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.
HealthEquity, Inc. -- https://healthequity.com/ -- is an American
financial technology and business services company that is
designated as a non-bank health savings trustee by the IRS.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jared D. Scott, Esq.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
50 W Broadway, Ste. 600
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Phone: (801) 534-1700
Fax: (801) 364-7697
Email: jscott@aklawfirm.com
HOME DEPOT: Kirkpatrick Sues Over Unlawful and Deceptive Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Kirkpatrick, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:24-cv-01927-CKD (E.D. Cal., July 15, 2024), is brought to redress
Home Depot's unlawful and deceptive practices in connection with
the sale, marketing, and distribution of its Home Accents LED
Christmas lights that it mislabels as having standard C9 bulbs, in
violation the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA");
California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); and California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL").
Although Christmas lights come in an array of shapes and sizes,
there are two standard bulb sizes: C7 and C9. These standard bulbs
fit into any compatible socket regardless of the brand. Industry
lighting standards define the dimensions of C7 and C9 bulbs. This
is important because consistency in physical characteristics--size,
shape, and base--simplifies the consumer's ability to choose the
appropriate bulbs and replacement bulbs for their decorations.
Despite style variations, the core dimensions of the C7 and C9
bulbs should remain uniform.
Home Depot sells and distributes Home Accents LED Christmas lights
that are conspicuously labeled and advertised as standard C9 bulbs.
Yet the Home Accents lights are smaller, narrower, have a different
base, and do not otherwise meet the dimensions and characteristics
of a C9 bulb. As a result, the C9 label is materially false and
misleading, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff paid $48.96 (including $3.48 in tax) for Home Depot's
Home Accents Holiday brand LED Christmas lights, which he purchased
on November 15, 2023, at a Home Depot.
Home Depot is the largest home improvement retailer in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gretchen Nelson, Esq.
Gabriel S. Barenfeld, Esq.
Carlos F. Llinas Negret, Esq.
NELSON & FRAENKEL, LLP
601 So. Figueroa St., Suite 2050
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (844) 622-6469
Fax: (213) 622-6019
Email: gnelson@nflawfirm.com
gbarenfeld@nflawfirm.com
cllinas@nflawfirm.com
HP INC: Wright Employment Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KATHERINE WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HP INC. DBA HP COMPUTING AND PRINTING
INC., a foreign profit corporation; HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
COMPANY, a foreign profit corporation; HEWLETT-PACKARD FINANCIAL
SERVICES COMPANY, a foreign profit corporation; HP HEALTH SOLUTIONS
INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown
Washington entities, Case No. 24-00002-15632-1-SEA, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the
County of King, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington on August 15, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-01261 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged use of job postings
that do not include the wage scales or salary ranges to be offered
to hired applicants.
HP Inc., doing business as HP Computing and Printing Inc., is an
American multinational information technology company headquartered
in Palo Alto, California.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company is an American multinational
information technology company based in Spring, Texas.
Hewlett-Packard Financial Services Company is an information
technology leasing company based in Murray Hill, New Jersey.
HP Health Solutions Inc. is a healthcare technology solutions
provider based in Delaware. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Breanne Martell, Esq.
Derek A. Bishop, Esq.
Daniel Rhim, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
One Union Square
600 University Street, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-3300
Facsimile: (206) 447-6965
Email: bsmartell@littler.com
debishop@littler.com
drhim@littler.com
HUMAN TECHNOLOGY: Montgomery Balks at Unprotected Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY MONTGOMERY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUMAN TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:24-cv-00057-EKD-JCH (W.D. Va., August 1, 2024) arises
from the recent data security incident and data breach that was
perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain
personally identifiable information and protected health
information of Plaintiff and other current and former customers of
Defendant -- the putative class members.
According to the complaint, the private information was accessed
and/or acquired by cyber-criminals who perpetrated the attack and
remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals. The data breach that
occurred between around March 14-15, 2024, resulted from the
Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
individuals' private information with which they were entrusted for
either treatment or employment or both.
Through this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on
behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose
Private Information was accessed during the data breach.
Human Technology, Inc. offers a comprehensive, one-stop source for
organizations seeking integrated solutions for enhancing their
human resources.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth R. Carroll, Esq.
COMMONWEALTH LAW GROUP
3311 West Broad St.
Richmond, VA 23230
Telephone: (804) 999-999
Facsimile: (866) 238-6415
E-mail: scarroll@hurtinva.com
- and -
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: jarett@ellzeyaw.com
IEM INTERNATIONAL: Faces Turner Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.D.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
ALYSSA TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IEM INTERNATIONAL, INC., f/k/a INNOVATIVE
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02352
(D.D.C., August 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California's Unfair
Competition Law, the DC Minimum Wage Revision Act (DCMWA), and the
DC Wage Payment and Collection Law including failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to pay double time, failure to provide meal
& rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and
waiting time penalties.
From approximately September 2021 until November 2023, Ms. Turner
worked for IEM under the job titles of Mid-Level Planner and Deputy
Project Manager.
IEM International, Inc., formerly known as Innovative Emergency
Management, Inc., is a global security consulting firm,
headquartered in Morrisville, North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H St., NE Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
IMAGINE LEARNING: Faces Haviland Suit Over "Tiktok" Trace Device
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH HAVILAND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. IMAGINE LEARNING LLC, an Arizona limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
2:24-at-01046 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2024) alleges that the Defendant
violated the California Trap and Trace Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has installed on its
Website software created by TikTok in order to identify website
visitors (the "TikTok Software"). The TikTok Software acts via a
process known as "fingerprinting." 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. The TikTok
Software gathers device and browser information, geographic
information, referral tracking, and url tracking by running code or
"scripts" on the Website to send user details to TikTok. The TikTok
Software begins to collect information the moment a user lands on
the Website. Thus, even though the Website has a "cookie banner"
the information has already been sent to TikTok regarding the
user's visit California Penal Code section 638.50(c).
California law defines a "trap and trace device" as "a device or
process that captures the incoming electronic or other impulses
that identify the originating number or other dialing, routing,
addressing, or signaling information reasonably likely to identify
the source of a wire or electronic communication, but not the
contents of a communication."
The TikTok Software is a process to identify the source of
electronic communication by capturing incoming electronic impulses
and identifying dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling
information generated by users, who are never informed that the
website is collaborating with the Chinese government to obtain
their phone number and other identifying information, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situation (the "Class") defined as follows:
"All persons within California who within the statute of
limitations period: (1) communicated with Defendant via
the chat feature on Defendant’s Website using cellular or
landline telephony, and (2) whose communications were
recorded and/or eavesdropped upon without prior consent."
The Defendant is an Arizona limited liability company that owns,
operates, and/or controls www.imaginelearning.com, an online
retailer that offers language and literacy software programs for
students and educators.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tauler, Esq.
Narain Kumar, Esq.
TAULER SMITH LLP
rtauler@taulersmith.com
nkumar@taulersmith.com
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 927-9270
IMAGINE LEARNING: Software Collects Personal Info, Haviland Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH HAVILAND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. IMAGINE LEARNING LLC, an Arizona limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
2:24-cv-02185-TLN-SCR (E.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant violated the California Trap and Trace Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has installed on its
Website software created by TikTok in order to identify website
visitors (the "TikTok Software"). The TikTok Software acts via a
process known as "fingerprinting." 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. The TikTok
Software gathers device and browser information, geographic
information, referral tracking, and url tracking by running code or
"scripts" on the Website to send user details to TikTok. The TikTok
Software begins to collect information the moment a user
lands on the Website. Thus, even though the Website has a "cookie
banner" the information has already been sent to TikTok regarding
the user's visit California Penal Code section 638.50(c).
California law defines a "trap and trace device" as "a device or
process that captures the incoming electronic or other impulses
that identify the originating number or other dialing, routing,
addressing, or signaling information reasonably likely to identify
the source of a wire or electronic communication, but not the
contents of a communication."
The TikTok Software is a process to identify the source of
electronic communication by capturing incoming electronic impulses
and identifying dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling
information generated by users, who are never informed that the
website is collaborating with the Chinese government to obtain
their phone number and other identifying information. The Plaintiff
brings this action individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situation (the "Class") defined as follows:
"All persons within California who within the statute of
limitations period: (1) communicated with Defendant via
the chat feature on Defendant’s Website using cellular or
landline telephony, and (2) whose communications were
recorded and/or eavesdropped upon without prior consent."
The Defendant is an Arizona limited liability company that owns,
operates, and/or controls www.imaginelearning.com, an online
retailer that offers language and literacy software programs for
students and educators.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tauler, Esq.
Narain Kumar, Esq.
TAULER SMITH LLP
rtauler@taulersmith.com
nkumar@taulersmith.com
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 927-9270
INGERSOLL-RAND: Court Partly Adopts Proposed Scheduling Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DALLAS BOWMAN, et al., v.
INGERSOLL-RAND INDUSTRIAL U.S. INC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00285-CCB-MGG
(N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Michael Gotsch, Sr. entered an order
adopting in part the parties' proposed Aug. 1, 2024, scheduling
order:
1. Pre-Discovery Disclosures. The parties will exchange the
information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) by Aug. 9,
2024.
2. The last date for the parties to amend the pleadings without
leave of court is Sept. 3, 2024.
3. The court views the last month of discovery to be for the
purpose of concluding your work, not extending it.
The parties propose a two-phase discovery approach: Phase I
consisting of discovery related to conditional certification under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and, if the Court grants
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and/or motion for
class certification, the parties will then proceed to Phase II of
discovery, consisting of class-wide discovery. Consistent with that
plan, the Court now enters the instant Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order
regarding the conduct of discovery and deadlines for Phase I
Discovery regarding class certification matters.
Ingersoll is an American multinational company that provides flow
creation and industrial products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XqIyRb at no extra
charge.[CC]
IZAKOV DIAMONDS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Herrera Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. IZAKOV DIAMONDS LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06153 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 14, 2024) is civil rights action against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website, https://izakov.diamonds, to be fully accessible to and
in-dependently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
July 23, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a 14K Gold Personalized
Multiple Hebrew Diamond Nameplate Necklace from Defendant and to
view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple
access barriers that denied 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; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods,
and services of the Website by being unable to purchase a 14K Gold
Personalized Multiple Hebrew Diamond Nameplate Necklace, as well as
other products available online and to ascertain information
relating to Defendant's: jewelry, as well as other types of goods,
pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials, the suit
alleges.
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. Herrera is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
re-quires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Diadora is an Italian sportswear and footwear manufacturing
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, 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: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
J&C AMBULANCE: Parties Seek More Time to File Opposition Briefs
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARA FIRST and SUZANNE
FIRST, v. J&C AMBULANCE SERVICES, INC., AMERICAN EMS, LLC, and
FORTUNE-HR, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-03296-MHW-KAJ (E.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiffs and the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order
extending the time to file their opposition briefs to the pending
cross-Motions for Partial Summary Judgment, as well as Plaintiffs'
renewed Motion for Class Certification.
-- The current deadline is Aug. 21, 2024
-- The parties request an additional fourteen days and a new
deadline of Sept. 4, 2024.
The Plaintiffs' Complaint, filed on Aug. 31, 2022, alleges
discrimination, retaliation, and violation of the FMLA and COBRA in
connection with the termination of Plaintiff Kara First's
employment with the Defendant.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class on their COBRA claim.
On May 6, 2024, this Court entered an Order denying without
prejudice Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
J&C Ambulance offers emergency and scheduled medical
transportation, ventilating, and managed patient care services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 6, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jvpEC5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason E. Starling, Esq.
WILLIS SPANGLER STARLING
4635 Trueman Boulevard, Suite 100
Hilliard, OH 43026
Telephone: (614) 586-7915
Facsimile: (614) 586-7901
E-mail: jstarling@willisattorneys.com
- and -
John C. Camillus, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN C. CAMILLUS, LLC
Columbus, OH 43214
Telephone: (614) 558-7254
Facsimile: (614) 559-6731
E-mail: jcamillus@camilluslaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
James H. Gordon, Esq.
Melissa R. Lock, Esq.
LOCK GORDON LAW GROUP, PLLC
100 East Campus View Blvd., Suite 250
Columbus, OH 43235
J&T RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum Wages, Giblaint Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICAH GIBLAINT and CHLOE HOSEK, and others similarly situated v.
J&T RESTAURANTS ROUND ROCK, L.L.C.; J&T RESTAURANTS 2, L.L.C.; GKSD
CREEKSIDE, L.L.C.; GKSD ANDERSON LANE, L.L.C.; GKSD CEDAR PARK,
L.L.C.; GKSD RESTAURANT ENTERPRISES, L.L.C.; GKSD2 RESTAURANT
ENTERPRISES, L.L.C.; JACK GILMORE and TOM KAMM, Case No.
1:24-cv-00909 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 12, 2024) alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay their servers the required federal minimum
wage for each hour worked and misappropriated the servers' tips to
pay other workers who do not customarily and regularly receive
tips, specifically "silverware rollers" and 'side work night
bartenders," in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The suit contends that the Defendants retained the server's tips in
an amount equal to 4% to 4.5% of the servers' gross sales and
distributed a part of those retained tips to the silverware rollers
and side work night bartenders, which are positions that do not
customarily or regularly receive tips.
In addition to allowing the silverware rollers to participate in
the tip pool or, as an alternative to participating in the tip
pool, the Restaurants' management deducted $5.00 per shift from the
servers' tips and distributed that money to the silverware rollers.
Despite retaining some of servers' tips and distributing a portion
of those retained tips to the silverware rollers and side work
night bartenders, the Defendants claimed a tip credit, the suit
claims.
As a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and
all others similarly situated are entitled to actual and
compensatory damages, including the amount of unlawfully retained
tips and minimum wages which was not paid that should have been
paid.
Plaintiff Giblaint worked as a server for J&T Restaurants Round
Rock L.L.C. within the last three years.
Plaintiff Hosek worked as a server for GKSD Creekside, L.L.C.
within the last three years.
J&T Restaurants operates a restaurant under the business name Salt
Traders Coastal Cooking in Round Rock, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
ROSS • SCALISE LAW GROUP
1104 San Antonio Street
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 474-7677
Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
E-mail: Charles@rosslawpc.com
JAMES DAVIS: Soliz Plaintiffs Seek Conditional Status of Collective
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEBER SOLIZ and LEVI
SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. JAMES G. DAVIS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and CHARLES A.
KLEIN & SONS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00974-LMB-WBP (E.D. Va.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs'
renewed motion for conditional certification of a collective action
and court-facilitated notice.
The Plaintiffs note that this Renewed Motion is nearly identical to
the initial Motion. However, this Renewed Motion narrows the group
of employees for conditional certification. This group consists of
approximately 20–30 workers who were jointly employed by the
Defendants to perform HVAC-related construction work and who were
treated by the Defendants as independent contractors.
The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional Certification and
Court-Facilitated Notice on June 20, 2024, with the consent of the
Defendant Charles A. Klein & Sons.
The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion on June 24, 2024.
On July 5, 2024, Davis Construction Corporation filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court's June 24, 2024, Order, which the
Court granted on July 9, 2024.
Also on July 5, 2024, Davis Construction filed a Motion to Dismiss
the Plaintiffs' Complaint, to which the Plaintiffs responded by
filing an Amended Complaint.
The Defendants operate a construction contracting business.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JUwlJk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark Hanna, Esq.
Nicole Rubin, Esq.
Ricardo Perez, Esq.
MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC
1401 K Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 223-2620
E-mail: mhanna@murphypllc.com
nrubin@murphypllc.com
rperez@murphypllc.com
JANUARY TECHNOLOGIES: Gregory Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against January Technologies,
Inc. The case is styled as Tameika Gregory, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated v. January Technologies,
Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-61435-RS (S.D. Fla., Aug. 7, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
January -- https://www.january.com/ -- sets a new standard for
humanized debt collection.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq.
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
jibrael@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
JOHN PAUL: Heagney Seeks OK of Proposed Class Cert Briefing Sched
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDALL HEAGNEY, RICA
GUERRERO, KERRIE GONNELLA, JOHN ROHLOFF, and JEWEL RULE,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS, Case No. 3:23-cv-00687-VC
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter their proposed
class certification briefing schedule as follows:
Event Proposed Dates
Class Certification Expert Disclosures
Initial: Dec. 12, 2024
Rebuttal: Jan. 23, 2025
Cutoff: Feb. 20, 2025
Class Certification Briefing and Dauberts
related to Class Certification Motion: March 6, 2025
Response: April 10, 2025
Reply: May 1, 2025
Hearing on Class Certification Motion May 15, 2025
Further Case Management Conference June 6, 2025.
The Plaintiffs' proposed schedule gives both parties sufficient
time to complete all class certification expert discovery and
briefing. P
The Plaintiffs' proposed schedule reasonably gives JPMS five
weeks to file a response, and Plaintiffs three weeks to file a
reply. The Plaintiffs even offered to push the schedule back a week
to give JPMS six weeks to file a response or work with them on a
response date that fits their schedule—even though that would be
less convenient for Plaintiffs' counsel's schedule—but JPMS
refused unless the Plaintiffs would also agree to end fact
discovery in less than six months and agree to unnecessary expert
discovery.
The Plaintiffs submit this administrative motion proposing a class
certification briefing schedule, as requested by the Court. During
the May 31, 2024, case management conference, the Court declined to
adopt either party’s proposed schedule—instead setting a class
certification hearing date and further case management
conference—and ordering the parties to "work together to put
together a briefing schedule in accordance with those dates."
John Paul is an American manufacturer of hair care products and
styling tools.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 6, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RWI07L at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
Robert B. Carey, Esq.
Leonard W. Aragon, Esq.
Michella A. Kras, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com
rob@hbsslaw.com
leonarda@hbsslaw.com
michellak@hbsslaw.com
KARP SCARSDALE: Foreste Seeks Conditional Status of Collective
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LILINE FORESTE, on behalf
of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. KARP
SCARSDALE, LLC. d/b/a THE AMBASSADOR OF SCARSDALE, and AMBA SHARMA,
Case No. 7:24-cv-01089-KMK-JCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional collective
certification and for court facilitation of notice pursuant to 29
u.s.c. section 216(b).
The Ambassador of Scarsdale is a senior living community in White
Plains, New York offering assisted living and memory care.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 7, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tcoGxw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
KASEYA US LLC: Machado Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jose Machado, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KASEYA US LLC, Case No.
2024-012422-CA-01 was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on Aug. 9, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-23031-XXXX.
In the Complaint, Machado alleges he was not paid overtime in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul B. Ranis, Esq.
Sabrina D. Niewialkouski, Esq.
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 768-8239
Facsimile: (954) 759-5506
Email: ranisp@gtlaw.com
niewialkouskis@gtlaw.com
- and -
Catherine H. Molloy, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
101 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 318-5700
Fax: (813) 318-5900
Email: molloyk@gtlaw.com
KELLY SERVICES: Lewis Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Marquise Lewis, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. KELLY SERVICES GLOBAL, LLC, a
Michigan limited liability company; KELLY SERVICES, INC., a
Delaware corporation; CANOO INC., a California corporation; CANOO
SALES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CANOO
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV16782 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
Aug. 9, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-06781.
The Plaintiff bases his claims on alleged violations of the
California Labor Code. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Kelly
violated the Labor Code by: failure to provide meal periods;
failure to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to pay
minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay all
wages due to discharged and quitting employees; failure to maintain
required records; failure to furnish accurate itemized wage
statements; failure to indemnify employees for necessary
expenditures incurred in discharge of duties; and unfair and
unlawful business practices; and Plaintiff seeks to pursue a
representative action for penalties under the Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Nick Baltaxe, Esq.
Meriel Kim, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Email: nbaltaxe@duanemorris.com
mkim@duanemorris.com
- and -
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3700
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Email: gmaatman@duanemorris.com
jariley@duanemorris.com
- and -
Shireen Y. Wetmore, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
Spear Tower
One Market Plaza, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94105-1127
Email: sywetmore@duanemorris.com
KELLY-MOORE PAINT: Morris Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHANIEL MORRIS on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. KELLY-MOORE PAINT
COMPANY, INC and FLACKSGROUP LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00050-P (N.D.
Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
(a) certifying a class pursuant to the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
comprised
of the Plaintiff and all former employees who worked at the
facility located at 301 W Hurst Blvd, Hurst, Texas, and were
terminated without cause on their part on Jan. 12, 2024, or
within 30 days of that date or thereafter, as part of or as
the
result of the alleged mass layoff and/or plant closing
carried
out at the Facility and who do not file a timely request to
opt-out of the class (the "Class”),
(b) appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative,
(c) appointing Lankenau & Miller, LLP, The Gardner Firm, P.C.,
Aldous PC and Webster Vicknair MacLeod as Class Counsel,
(d) approving the form and manner of Notice to the Class, and
(e) granting such other and further relief as this Court may
deem
proper.
The Plaintiff has simultaneously filed his Brief in Support of the
Class Motion, which sets forth the facts, arguments, and
authorities entitling Plaintiff to the relief sought in the Class
Motion.
Pursuant to LR 23.2-3, the contents of the Class Motion will be set
forth in the Brief.
Kelly-Moore produces paint products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dTOJ1q at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
THE GARDNER FIRM
182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103
Mobile, AL 36602
Telephone: (251) 433-8100
Facsimile: (251) 433-8181
- and -
Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
Johnathan Miller, Esq.
LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
100 Church Street, 8th FL
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 581-5005
Facsimile: (212) 581-2122
- and -
Jason C. Webster, Esq.
THE WEBSTER LAW FIRM
6200 Savoy Drive, Suite 150
Houston, TX 77036
Telephone: (713) 581-3900
Facsimile: (713) 581-3907
E-mail: filing@thewebsterlawfirm.com
- and -
Steven E. Aldous, Esq.
ALDOUS P.C.
500 Crescent Court, Suite 240
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 716-2101
E-mail: saldous@aldous-pc.com
KEN'S FOODS: Class Cert Response in Austin Due August 26
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Austin v. Ken's Foods,
Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-40040 (D. Mass., Filed March 13, 2024), the
Hon. Judge Margaret R. Guzman entered an order granting motion for
extension of time to file response / reply as to motion to certify
class.
-- Response/reply due by Aug. 26, 2024
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Ken's Foods produces, packages, and retails salad dressings and
sauces.[CC]
KEN'S FOODS: Seeks August 26 Extension to File Class Cert Response
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID AUSTIN,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
KEN'S FOODS, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-40040-MRG (D. Mass.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the time for
it to file its response to the Motion for Conditional Certification
until Aug. 26, 2024, and grant such other and further relief as it
deems just and proper.
The requested extension is necessary because counsel for Ken's
Foods needs additional time to review the Memorandum and
declarations submitted in support of the Motion, communicate with
the client, and prepare a response, the Defendant contends.
Counsel for Ken's Foods has conferred with counsel for the
Plaintiff, who has consented to the requested extension through
Aug. 26, 2024.
On July 29, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the Motion for Conditional
Certification and Memorandum in Support. A response to the Motion
is presently due on August 12, 2024.
Ken's Foods produces, packages, and retails salad dressings and
sauces.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 6, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tzMBuk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Stephen I. Hansen, Esq.
Tristan Duncan, Esq.
William Martucci, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
One Federal Street, Suite 2540
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 531-1411
Facsimile: (617) 531-1602
E-mail: mndavis@shb.com
sihansen@shb.com
tlduncan@shb.com
wmartucci@shb.com
- and -
Lawrence G. Green, Esq.
BURNS & LEVINSON
125 High Street
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 345-3000
Facsimile: (617) 345-3299
E-mail: lgreen@burnslev.com
KOOMA III: Class Settlement in Lunemann Suit Gets Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAYLA LUNEMANN,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. KOOMA
III LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-03704-KSM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
entered an order granting the motion for approval of the
class/collective settlement and approving Plaintiff's request for
an award of attorney's fees, reimbursement of expenses to class
counsel, and a service award in the amount of $2,500.00.
Here, Plaintiff seeks $33,750 in attorney's fees, which amounts to
30% of the $112,500 settlement fund. When deducting the amount by
the $518.62 in litigation costs, which is factored into Plaintiff's
requested fee, Plaintiff is left with $33,231.38 in attorney's
fees, which amounts to 29.5% of the settlement fund. The Court
concludes based on the following analysis of the Gunter factors and
a lodestar cross-check that this request is reasonable.
In sum, all seven Gunter factors weigh in favor of approval of the
requested attorney's fee.
Thus, the Court finds that the lodestar consideration also counsels
in favor of approving the requested attorney's fee. For these
reasons, the Court will approve a payment of $33,750 to class
counsel as attorney's fees, including $518.62 in litigation costs.
The Court finds that, to the extent there are excess settlement
funds, donating that money to the Pennsylvania IOLTA Board will put
the money to its next-best use. Therefore, the Pennsylvania IOLTA
Board will be approved as the cy pres recipient.
This is a class action and Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA')
collective lawsuit brought by named Plaintiff Cayla Lunemann.
the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Kooma III LLC violated the
minimum wage provisions of the FLSA and the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act ("PMWA").
On May 13, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the Class Action settlement.
The settlement class consists of
"all individuals who, during any time between Sept. 22, 2020
and
Dece. 10, 2023, worked as servers at Kooma Asian Fusion & Sushi
Bar in King of Prussia, PA."
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Aug. 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VrM4jT at no extra
charge.[CC]
KOPPERS INC: Petrus Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koppers, Inc. The
case is styled as Colin Petrus, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated v. Koppers, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-06872 (N.D.
Ill., Aug. 6, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Property Damage.
Koppers -- https://www.koppers.com/ -- is a global chemical and
materials company based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marshall P. Whalley, Esq.
MARSHALL P. WHALLEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
51 W. 112th Avenue
Crown Point, IN 46307
Phone: (219) 769-2900
Fax: (219) 627-1557
Email: staff@marshallslaw.com
KROGER CO: Kirkbride Seeks Permanent Sealing of Reply Memo
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDY KIRKBRIDE and BEETA
LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. THE KROGER CO., Case No. 2:21-cv-00022-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order permanently sealing the
Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law In Support of their Motion for
Class Certification and the exhibits to it.
Plaintiffs additionally request that the Court order them to refile
those documents on the public docket with the redactions reflected
as attached to this Motion. Defendant does not oppose this motion.
Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and
multi-department stores throughout the United States.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4D5FGF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott D. Simpkins, Esq.
MANSOUR GAVIN LPA
North Point Tower
1001 Lakeside Ave., Suite 1400
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 523-1500, ext. 129
E-mail: ssimpkins@mggmlpa.com
- and -
Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Fl.
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com
- and -
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, P.C.
867 Boylston Street
5th Floor, No. 1520
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 377-7404
E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com
LABORATORY CORP: Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply Denied in McDonald
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMIAN MCDONALD, v.
LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, Case No.
1:22-cv-00680-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Loretta Biggs
entered an order denying the Defendant's Motion for Leave to File
Sur-Reply in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.
Laboratory Corp operates one of the largest clinical laboratory
networks in the world.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9DpC1g at no extra
charge.[CC]
LARSEN LOGISTICS: Combs Sues Over Denied Payment of Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Combs, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
LARSEN LOGISTICS and ROBERT E. LARSEN, Case No. 5:24-cv-03264 (E.D.
Pa., July 23, 2024), is brought arising under the laws of the
United States, specifically the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") as a result of denied
timely payment of overtime wages and unlawful termination in
retaliation for complaining of FLSA violations, and in retaliation
for taking protected FMLA leave.
The Plaintiff was entitled, under the FLSA, to compensation for
hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek at a rate of
one-and-a halftimes the rate at which she was regularly employed.
It was routine for Defendants to require their employees including
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to work in excess
of forty hours in a workweek the Defendants did not keep accurate
records of the work times of Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees.
The Defendants have failed to record, report, credit and/or
compensate Plaintiff and Collective Members, and Defendants have
failed to make, keep and preserve records with respect to each of
its employees sufficient to determine the wages, hours and other
conditions practices of employment in violation of the FLSA,
The Plaintiff has complained to Defendants multiple times about
Defendants' failure pay her correctly. The Plaintiff has refused to
follow Defendants' unlawful order to clock in and out at her first
and last delivery stop. As a of Plaintiffs refusal to obey
Defendants' unlawful order, Defendants received multiple Hours of
Service notices from the United States Department of
Transportation, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants for over four years as
a FedEx driver/delivery person.
Larsen Logistics, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Frances Ryan, Esq.
WUSINICH, SWEENEY & RYAN, LLC
102 Pickering Way, Suite 403
Exton, PA 19341
Phone: (610) 594-1600
Email: mfrancesryan@wusinichsweeney.com
LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Ramseur Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHEREA RAMSEUR, KRISTINA POYTNER, JARED BATES, KEVA D. PIPPIN,
LINDA J. CUNDALL and GINA LOEHR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LIFEPOINT HEALTH, INC., THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF LIFEPOINT HEALTH, INC., LIFEPOINT HEALTH RETIREMENT
COMMITTEE and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 3:24-cv-00994 (M.D. Tenn.,
Aug. 15, 2024) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), against the Plan's
fiduciaries, which include LifePoint Health, Inc., the Board of
Directors of LifePoint Health and its members during the Class
Period, and the LifePoint Health Retirement Committee and its
members during the Class Period for breaches of their fiduciary
duties.
The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period, the
Defendants breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the
Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by failing to
control the Plan's RKA costs. Another way in which Defendants
breached their duty to Plan participants was in failing to
"defray[] reasonable expenses of administering the [Plan]." Their
failure stems from the use of Plan participant forfeited funds to
reduce Company contributions to the Plan instead of using the funds
to reduce or eliminate the amounts charged to Plan participants for
RKA services. This action by the Company was a clear breach of the
duty of loyalty to Plan participants and cost Plan participants
millions of dollars, the Plaintiff says.
The Defendants¶ mismanagement of the Plan and their blatant
disloyalty, which was all detrimental to participants and
beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of
prudence and loyalty, in violation of 29 U.S.C. section 1104. Their
actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost
the Plan and its participants millions of dollars, the suit
contends.
Plaintiff Ramseur participated in the Plan and was subject to the
excessive RKA costs. She suffered injury to her Plan account by
overpaying for her share of RKA costs.
LifePoint is an American company that provides healthcare services
in growing regions, rural communities and small towns.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nicholas D. Waite, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS D. WAITE, PLLC
112 East High Street
Lebanon, TN 37087
Telephone: (855) 566-3948
Facsimile: (615) 348-6072
E-mail: waitelawoffices@ndw4u.com
- and -
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
James A. Maro, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
jamesm@capozziadler.com
LTF CLUB: Seeks Partial Denial of Turner Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL TURNER,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees
pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, v. LTF
CLUB MANAGEMENT CO., LLC, an unknown business entity; LIFE TIME
FITNESS, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-00046-DAD-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the
Defendants, on Sept. 17, 2024, will move the Court, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for an order denying class
certification in part on the grounds that the Plaintiff Samuel
Turner is unable to meet Rule 23's requirements because numerous
putative class members he seeks to represent are subject to binding
arbitration agreements covering the claims he alleges.
The Plaintiff asserts wage and hour claims against his former
employer on behalf of a putative class of hourly employees in
California since Nov. 21, 2019.
Life Time filed a motion to deny class certification in part on
Feb. 13, 2024. The Court denied the motion on June 24, 2024,
without prejudice, on the basis that the motion was premature
because discovery was not complete when the parties briefed the
motion. Discovery is now complete, as fact discovery ended on March
29, 2024, and expert discovery ended on June 28, 2024.
Mr. Turner worked as a Life Cafe supervisor in the company's
Roseville, California club from December 2017 to September 2018.
LTF Club operates premium athletic clubs nationwide, including
eight clubs in California.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HnxxEr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregory W. Knopp, Esq.
Jonathan P. Slowik, Esq.
Laura L. Vaughn, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3010
Telephone: (310) 557-2900
Facsimile: (310) 557-2193
E-mail: gknopp@proskauer.com
jslowik@proskauer.com
lvaughn@proskauer.com
MANSARI LLC: Abrams Seeks to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IZAIAH ABRAMS,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MANSARI L.L.C. d/b/a College HUNKS Hauling Junk & Moving, Case No.
8:24-cv-00949-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
(a) conditionally certifying the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA")
Collective of movers defined as:
"all similarly situated non-exempt classified employees who
performed the duties of a mover and who worked for the
Defendant Mansari L.L.C. at the Tampa, Florida location
during
any part of the period from three (3) years prior to the
date
the Court issued an Order on this Motion to the present;"
(b) requiring Defendants to produce in an electronic or
computer-
readable format the full name, address(es), and personal
email
address(es) for each potential member of the FLSA
Collective;
(c) authorizing notice (substantially in the form attached as
Exhibit C, with a form of Consent to Join (substantially in
the
form attached as Exhibit D) to the members of the FLSA
Collective, disseminated by U.S. Mail and email (returnable
via
mail, and email); and
(d) granting any further relief that this Court deems just and
proper.
On April 19, 2024, the Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging
violations of the FLSA on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated movers.
On May 15, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
correcting the name of the Defendant.
The Plaintiff, Izaiah Abrams (plus opt-in Plaintiff Jayden
McQueen), worked for the Defendant as movers at a College Hunks
Hauling Junk & Moving located at 4756 N Dale Mabry Hwy, Tampa, FL
33614.
The Defendant is
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U7a3bu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary L. Printy, Jr., Esq.
THE PRINTY LAW FIRM
5407 N Florida Avenue
Tampa, FL 33604
Telephone: (813) 434-0649
Facsimile: (813) 423-6543
E-mail: garyjr@printylawfirm.com
e-service@printylawfirm.com
MASONITE CORP: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Shugars Due Dec. 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shugars, et al., v.
Masonite Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01237 (N.D.N.Y.,
Filed Nov. 21, 2022), the Hon. Judge Mae A D'Agostino entered an
order granting in part and denying in part insofar as and only to
the extent that the schedules and deadlines are extended as
follows:
(1) Plaintiffs Expert Disclosure Deadline is: Nov. 6, 2024
(2) Defendants Expert Disclosure Deadline is: Nov. 20, 2024
(3) Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadline is: Nov. 27, 2024
(4) The Class Certification Motion is due by: Dec. 20, 2024
(5) All Discovery, including all depositions, Jan. 6, 2025
shall be completed by:
(6) Dispositive Motions shall be filed by: Feb. 6, 2025
The suit alleges Diversity-Employment Discrimination.
Masonite Corporation is a manufacturer of particleboard door core,
door components, and doors.[CC]
MASTERCARD INC: Court Nixes Approval of Settlement in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 31, 2024, that the court held a
preliminary settlement approval hearing in June 2024, and
subsequently issued a decision denying approval of the settlement.
In 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on behalf
of merchants against Mastercard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc.,
Visa International Service Association and a number of financial
institutions. Taken together, the claims in the complaints were
generally brought under both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act,
which prohibit monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to
monopolize a particular industry, and some of these complaints
contain unfair competition law claims under state law. The
complaints allege, among other things, that Mastercard, Visa, and
certain financial institutions conspired to set the price of
interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules (including
the "no surcharge" rule) in violation of antitrust laws and engaged
in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and services,
resulting in merchants paying excessive costs for the acceptance of
Mastercard and Visa credit and debit cards. The cases were
consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York in MDL No. 1720. The
plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint seeking
treble damages.
In 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs filed a
supplemental complaint alleging that Mastercard's initial public
offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 and certain
purported agreements entered into between Mastercard and financial
institutions in connection with the IPO: (1) violate U.S. antitrust
laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent conveyance because the
financial institutions allegedly attempted to release, without
adequate consideration, Mastercard's right to assess them for
Mastercard's litigation liabilities. The class plaintiffs sought
treble damages and injunctive relief including, but not limited to,
an order reversing and unwinding the IPO.
In 2011, Mastercard and Mastercard International entered into each
of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing
agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa International
Service Association and a number of financial institutions; and (2)
a Mastercard settlement and judgment sharing agreement with a
number of financial institutions.
The agreements provide for the apportionment of certain costs and
liabilities which Mastercard, the Visa parties and the financial
institutions may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of
an adverse judgment or settlement of one or all of the U.S. MDL
Litigation Cases. Among a number of scenarios addressed by the
agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa
parties, the financial institutions and Mastercard, Mastercard
would pay 12% of the monetary portion of the settlement. In the
event of a settlement involving only Mastercard and the financial
institutions with respect to their issuance of Mastercard cards,
Mastercard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such
settlement.
In 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement agreement
with respect to the U.S. MDL Litigation Cases (including with
respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants
separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual
merchant plaintiffs. The settlements included cash payments that
were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to the omnibus
judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement described above.
Mastercard also agreed to provide class members with a short-term
reduction in default credit interchange rates and to modify certain
of its business practices, including its no surcharge rule. The
court granted final approval of the settlement in 2013. Following
an appeal by objectors and as a result of a reversal by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the district court divided
the merchants’ claims into two separate classes - monetary
damages claims and claims seeking changes to business practices.
The court appointed separate counsel for each class.
In 2018, the parties to the damages class litigation entered into a
class settlement agreement to resolve the Damages Class claims,
with merchants representing slightly more than 25% of the Damages
Class interchange volume choosing to opt out of the settlement. The
Damages Class settlement agreement became final in August 2023.
Since 2018, Mastercard has reached settlements or agreements in
principle to settle with over 250 opt-out merchants. These opt-out
merchant settlements, along with the Damages Class settlement,
represent over 90% of Mastercard's U.S. interchange volume. During
the first quarter of 2024, the district court denied the
defendants’ motions for summary judgment with respect to the
ongoing individual opt-out merchant cases and has issued orders
recommending that these cases be sent back to their original
jurisdictions for potential trials.
In 2021, the district court granted the rules relief class's motion
for class certification. In March 2024, the parties to the Rules
Relief Class litigation entered into a settlement agreement to
resolve the Rules Relief Class claims.
Mastercard Incorporated is a technology company in the global
payments industry that connects consumers, financial institutions,
merchants, governments, digital partners, businesses and other
organizations worldwide by enabling electronic payments and making
those payment transactions safe, simple, smart and accessible.
MDL 2873: Mount Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
WANDA MOUNT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50),
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04487-RMG (D.S.C., August 15, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery,
inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent
concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and
wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, says the
suit.
The Mount case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave., Bldg. 6, 2nd Fl., Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 224-9400
Facsimile: (732) 224-9494
MDL 2873: Sharp Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES SHARP JR. and ELIZABETH SHARP, his wife, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04466-RMG
(D.S.C., August 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by
Plaintiff James Sharp Jr. as a result of his exposure to the
Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing
synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively
known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn
military and/or civilian firefighters, including Mr. Sharp, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a
danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, Mr. Sharp was
exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with testicular
cancer, says the suit.
The Sharp case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave., Bldg. 6, 2nd Fl., Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 224-9400
Facsimile: (732) 224-9494
MDL 2873: Speciale Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS SPECIALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50),
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04468-RMG (D.S.C., August 14, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery,
inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent
concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and
wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with testicular cancer, says the
suit.
The Speciale case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave., Bldg. 6, 2nd Fl., Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 224-9400
Facsimile: (732) 224-9494
MDL 2903: Settlement in Barton v Mattel Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barton v. Mattel, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00670 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey
Crawford entered an order granting the motion for preliminary
certification of a settlement class and approval of class action
settlement.
The proposed settlement class consist of:
"All Persons in the United States, the District of Colombia,
Puerto
Rico and all other United States territories and/or possessions
who, during the class period, (a) purchased (including to be
given
as a gift to another Person) or acquired (including by gift) an
RNPS, or (b) have an RNPS in their possession."
Excluded from the class are:
(i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a
cash
refund;
(ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of
resale to consumer at wholesale or retail;
(iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal
representatives, successors, assignees, officers,
directors
and employees; and
(iv) judicial officers and their immediate family members and
associated court staff assigned to this case.
In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class
Members
once they timely and properly exclude themselves from Class, as
provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion
request is finally approved by the Court.
The Court appoints Demet Basar, James Eubank and Paul Evans as
class counsel.
The Court appoints the following persons as class representatives
for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton,
Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen
Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden,
Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius
Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily
Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renne Wray.
The Defendants shall bear the cost of the Settlement Administrator
up to $250,000. The Plaintiff shall no be responsible for these
costs.
The Barton case is consolidated in FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY
SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION (MDL 2903).
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
FisherPrice's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will
suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis.
The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising
and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that
Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing and
entertainment company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YZa1cx at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2903: Settlement in Black v. Mattel Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Linda Black v. Mattel,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01083 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Geoffrey Crawford entered an order granting the motion for
preliminary certification of a settlement class and approval of
class action settlement.
The proposed settlement class consist of:
"All Persons in the United States, the District of Colombia,
Puerto
Rico and all other United States territories and/or possessions
who, during the class period, (a) purchased (including to be
given
as a gift to another Person) or acquired (including by gift) an
RNPS, or (b) have an RNPS in their possession."
Excluded from the class are:
(i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a
cash
refund;
(ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of
resale to consumer at wholesale or retail;
(iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal
representatives, successors, assignees, officers,
directors
and employees; and
(iv) judicial officers and their immediate family members and
associated court staff assigned to this case.
In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class
Members
once they timely and properly exclude themselves from Class, as
provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion
request is finally approved by the Court.
The Court appoints Demet Basar, James Eubank and Paul Evans as
class counsel.
The Court appoints the following persons as class representatives
for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton,
Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen
Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden,
Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius
Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily
Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renne Wray.
The Defendants shall bear the cost of the Settlement Administrator
up to $250,000. The Plaintiff shall no be responsible for these
costs.
The Black case is consolidated in FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL
2903).
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
FisherPrice's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will
suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis.
The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising
and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that
Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing and
entertainment company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gl3sza at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2903: Settlement in Cuddy v Fisher-Price Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cuddy v. Fisher Price,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00787 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Geoffrey Crawford entered an order granting the motion for
preliminary certification of a settlement class and approval of
class action settlement.
The proposed settlement class consist of:
"All Persons in the United States, the District of Colombia,
Puerto
Rico and all other United States territories and/or possessions
who, during the class period, (a) purchased (including to be
given
as a gift to another Person) or acquired (including by gift) an
RNPS, or (b) have an RNPS in their possession."
Excluded from the class are:
(i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a
cash
refund;
(ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of
resale to consumer at wholesale or retail;
(iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal
representatives, successors, assignees, officers,
directors
and employees; and
(iv) judicial officers and their immediate family members and
associated court staff assigned to this case.
In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class
Members
once they timely and properly exclude themselves from Class, as
provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion
request is finally approved by the Court.
The Court appoints Demet Basar, James Eubank and Paul Evans as
class counsel.
The Court appoints the following persons as class representatives
for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton,
Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen
Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden,
Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius
Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily
Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renne Wray.
The Defendants shall bear the cost of the Settlement Administrator
up to $250,000. The Plaintiff shall no be responsible for these
costs.
The Cuddy case is consolidated in FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL
2903).
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
FisherPrice's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will
suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis.
The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising
and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that
Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TXiojQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2903: Settlement in Drover-Mundy Suit Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Drover-Mundy et al v.
Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv- 00512 (W.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order granting the motion
for preliminary certification of a settlement class and approval of
class action settlement.
The proposed settlement class consist of:
"All Persons in the United States, the District of Colombia,
Puerto
Rico and all other United States territories and/or possessions
ce
who, during the class period, (a) purchased (including to be
given
as a gift to another Person) or acquired (including by gift) an
RNPS, or (b) have an RNPS in their possession."
Excluded from the class are:
(i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a
cash
refund;
(ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of
resale to consumer at wholesale or retail;
(iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal
representatives, successors, assignees, officers,
directors
and employees; and
(iv) judicial officers and their immediate family members and
associated court staff assigned to this case.
In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class
Members
once they timely and properly exclude themselves from Class, as
provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion
request is finally approved by the Court.
The Court appoints Demet Basar, James Eubank and Paul Evans as
class counsel.
The Court appoints the following persons as class representatives
for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton,
Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen
Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden,
Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius
Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily
Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renne Wray.
The Defendants shall bear the cost of the Settlement Administrator
up to $250,000. The Plaintiff shall no be responsible for these
costs.
The Drover-Mundy case is consolidated in FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY
SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION (MDL 2903).
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
FisherPrice's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will
suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis.
The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising
and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that
Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=le4Sxp at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2903: Settlement in Nabong v Mattel Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NABONG v. Mattel, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00668 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey
Crawford entered an order granting the motion for preliminary
certification of a settlement class and approval of class action
settlement.
The proposed settlement class consist of:
"All Persons in the United States, the District of Colombia,
Puerto
Rico and all other United States territories and/or possessions
who, during the class period, (a) purchased (including to be
given
as a gift to another Person) or acquired (including by gift) an
RNPS, or (b) have an RNPS in their possession."
Excluded from the class are:
(i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a
cash
refund;
(ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of
resale to consumer at wholesale or retail;
(iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal
representatives, successors, assignees, officers,
directors
and employees; and
(iv) judicial officers and their immediate family members and
associated court staff assigned to this case.
In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class
Members
once they timely and properly exclude themselves from Class, as
provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion
request is finally approved by the Court.
The Court appoints Demet Basar, James Eubank and Paul Evans as
class counsel.
The Court appoints the following persons as class representatives
for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton,
Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen
Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden,
Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius
Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily
Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renne Wray.
The Defendants shall bear the cost of the Settlement Administrator
up to $250,000. The Plaintiff shall no be responsible for these
costs.
The Nabong case is consolidated in FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY
SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION (MDL 2903).
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
FisherPrice's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will
suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis.
The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising
and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that
Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing and
entertainment company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tH8lY0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
NESTLE HEALTH: Bowler Sues Over Mislabeled Fish Oil Capsules
------------------------------------------------------------
YESENIA BOWLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NESTLE HEALTH SCIENCE U.S., LLC (D/B/A
NATURE’S BOUNTY), Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-06521 (C.D. Cal.,
August 1, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of California's False Advertising Law, California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition
Law, and for breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranties, negligent misrepresentation and omission, and
intentional misrepresentation and omission.
Defendant Nestle Health Science makes, sells, and markets Nature's
Bounty brand fish oil capsules. Each bottle is prominently labeled
"Heart Health," and makes claims about supporting heart health.
None of the labels on the products mention the risks of fish oil
supplements, including the increased risk of atrial fibrillation.
Like other consumers, the Plaintiff bought the Nature's Bounty Fish
Oil Capsules. She read and relied on this statement that the
product supports heart health. She would not have paid the price
she did for the products if she knew that Nature's Bounty Fish Oil
Capsules did not benefit heart health and, in fact, may harm it,
says the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Lyon, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: rick@dovel.com
- and -
Zachary Arbitman, Esq.
George Donnelly, Esq.
FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER
TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP
1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 567-8300
Facsimile: (215) 567-8333
E-mail: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com
gdonnelly@feldmanshepherd.com
ONNIT INC: Discloses Customers' Identities to Meta, Macalpine Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC MACALPINE; and ANDREW GREMMO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ONNIT, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-00933 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 15, 2024) seeks to redress the
Defendant's practices of knowingly disclosing Plaintiffs' and its
other customers' identities and the titles of the prerecorded video
materials that they purchased to Meta Platforms, Inc, in violation
of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act.
Over the past two years, the Defendant has systematically
transmitted (and continues to transmit today) its customers'
personally identifying video viewing information to Meta using a
snippet of programming code called the "Meta Pixel," which the
Defendant chose to install and configure on its onnit.com website,
the Plaintiff contends.
The information Defendant disclosed (and continues to disclose) to
Meta via the Meta Pixel includes the customer's Facebook ID ("FID")
and the title of the specific prerecorded video material that each
of its customers purchased on its Website. Entering
"Facebook.com/[FID]" into a web browser returns the Meta profile of
the person to whom the FID corresponds. Thus, the FID identifies a
person more precisely than a name, as numerous persons may share
the same name, but each person's Facebook profile (and associated
FID) uniquely identifies one and only one person, the suit says.
Further, the Defendant disclosed and continues to disclose its
customers' Private Viewing Information to Meta without asking for,
let alone obtaining, their consent to these practices.
Accordingly, on behalf of themselves and the putative Class
members, the Plaintiffs bring this Class Action Complaint against
the Defendant for intentionally and unlawfully disclosing their
Personal Viewing Information to Meta.
Plaintiff MacAlpine is, and was, a citizen and resident of Plymouth
County in Plymouth, Massachusetts. He has used and continues to use
the same device to maintain and access an active Facebook account
throughout the relevant period in this case.
The Defendant operates and maintains the Website www.onnit.com,
where it sells various types of pre-recorded videos.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tyler K. Somes, Esq.
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
Elliot O. Jackson, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
1100 15th Street NW, Ste 04-108
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 900-3332
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
E-mail: tsomes@hedinllp.com
fhedin@hedinllp.com
ejackson@hedinllp.com
- and -
Matthew J. Langley, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (312) 576-3024
E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com
ORTHOCONNECTICUT PLLC: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EBERTO RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ORTHOCONNECTICUT PLLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01322 (D.
Conn., Aug. 15, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its
patients.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information
-- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding
that the Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was
targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data
Breach, the suit contends.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included
Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, Social Security numbers,
and dates of birth ("personally identifiable information" or "PII")
and medical treatment information, which is protected health
information ("PHI") as defined by the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA").
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and approximately
118,000 Class Members suffered concrete injuries in fact including:
(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, the suit claims.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the Private
Information that the Defendant collected and maintained has been
accessed and acquired by data thieves. As a result of the Data
Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a
heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The
Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely
monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft,
contends the suit.
Plaintiff Rodriguez is a resident and citizen of Norwalk,
Connecticut.
The Defendant operates a "multi-specialty orthopedic
practice."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Slossberg, Esq.
Kristen L. Zaehringer, Esq.
HURWITZ, SAGARIN, SLOSSBERG & KNUFF LLC
135 Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
Telephone: (203) 877-8000
Facsimile: (203) 878-9800
E-mail: DSlossberg@hssklaw.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20015-2052
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Conspires to Fix Crude Oil Prices, TBC Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
TBC SERVICES, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERMIAN RESOURCES CORP. f/k/a
CENTENNIAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC.; CHESAPEAKE ENERGY
CORPORATION; CONTINENTAL RESOURCES INC.; DIAMONDBACK ENERGY, INC.;
EOG RESOURCES, INC.; HESS CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM
CORPORATION; and EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION f/k/a PIONEER NATURAL
RESOURCES COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00820-MLG-LF
(D.N.M., August 15, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Sherman Act and state antitrust and consumer
protection laws in the U.S.
According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired with one
another to coordinate, and ultimately constrain, domestic shale oil
production, which has had the purpose and effect of fixing,
raising, and maintaining the price of crude oil in and throughout
the United States, and worldwide. Moreover, the Defendants
conspired with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting
Countries, an international consortium of oil producing nations
generally considered to act as an oil cartel, to constrain
production of crude oil. The Plaintiff and the Classes suffered
substantial harm as a result of the supracompetitive prices they
paid for retail jet fuel as a direct and proximate result of the
cartel to constrain domestic production of shale oil in the U.S.
TBC Services, LLC is a limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Nashville, Tennessee.
Permian Resources Corp., formerly known as Centennial Resource
Development, Inc., is a producer of crude oil, headquartered in
Midland, Texas.
Chesapeake Energy Corporation is a producer of crude oil,
headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Continental Resources Inc. is a producer of crude oil,
headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Diamondback Energy, Inc. is a producer of crude oil, headquartered
in Midland, Texas.
EOG Resources, Inc. is a producer of crude oil, headquartered in
Houston, Texas.
Hess Corporation is a producer of crude oil, headquartered in New
York, New York.
Occidental Petroleum Corporation is a producer of crude oil,
headquartered in Houston, Texas.
Exxon Mobil Corporation, formerly known as Pioneer Natural
Resources Company, is a producer of crude oil, headquartered in
Irving, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul J. Kennedy, Esq.
Jessica M. Hernandez, Esq.
KENNEDY HERNANDEZ & HARRISON, PC
201 12th St. NW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: (505) 842-8662
Email: pkennedy@kennedyhernandez.com
jhernandez@kennedyhernandez.com
- and -
Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
Michael S. Smith, Esq.
PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, LLP
One City Center
Portland, ME 04101
Telephone: (207) 791-3000
Email: ghansel@preti.com
msmith@preti.com
- and -
Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 238-1700
Email: jkohn@kohnswift.com
- and -
Stewart H. Lapayowker, Esq.
LAPAYOWKER JET COUNSEL, P.A.
Attorneys at Law
501 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 300
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 202-9600
Email: Stewart@JetCounsel.Law
RBS CITIZENS: Responses in Opposition Due August 28
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REINIG, et al., v. RBS
CITIZENS, N.A., Case No. 2:15-cv-01541 (W.D. Pa., Filed Nov. 23,
2015), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order
that on or before Aug. 21, 2024, to the extent the parties
disagree, Plaintiffs shall file their opening motion(s) regarding
the preceding items (1)-(3) and Defendant shall file its opening
motion regarding preceding item (4).
-- All responses in opposition due on Aug. 28, 2024
The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC]
ROSESKINCO INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Bishop Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. ROSESKINCO INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-06013 (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
8, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://roseskinco.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
July 15, 2024, in an attempt to purchase an electric shaver 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 suit says.
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 suit adds.
This discrimination is particularly acute during the current
COVID-19 global pandemic.
Accordingly, 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. Bishop is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
RoseSkinCo creates transformative at-home beauty products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, 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: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
ROYAL LEAF: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Saunders Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SAUNDERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROYAL LEAF NY LLC, d/b/a STATIS CANNABIS
CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06175 (S.D.N.Y., August 14, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human
Rights Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York
State Civil 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,
https://statiscannabis.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: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or descriptive
elements, not working "Frequently Asked Questions" section, and
inaccessible links to specific products.
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.
Royal Leaf NY LLC, doing business as Statis Cannabis Co., is a
company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
SEATIDE FISH: Fails to Pay Delivery Workers' OT Wages, Diaz Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SEATIDE FISH & LOBSTER INC. d/b/a SEATIDE FISH MARKET
and PAUL OLIVERI and DOMINICK OLIVERI, as individuals, Case No.
1:24-cv-05656 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2024) alleges that the Defendants
willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff's overtime wages for all
hours regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week at a wage
rate of one and a half times the regular wage, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was regularly required to work 72 hours each week.
However, the Plaintiff was paid by Defendants a flat hourly rate
of: (i) approximately $18.00 per hour for all hours worked from
August 2018 until December 2018; (ii) approximately $15.00 per hour
for all hours worked from January 2019 until December 2021; and
(iii) approximately $18.00 per hour for all hours worked from
January 2022 until June 2022, the lawsuit alleges.
Additionally, the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff with
an accurate wage statement that included all hours worked and all
wages received each week when the Plaintiff was paid in violation
of the NYLL.
The Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants, jointly
and severally, his unpaid wages and an equal amount in the form of
liquidated damages, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
of the action, including interest.
Plaintiff Diaz was employed by the Defendant as a delivery worker
while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants
such as loading and unloading deliveries, from June 2015 until June
2022.
Seatide provides a vast selection of fish, shrimp, and
lobsters.[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
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Faces Jurdi Suit Over "Tiktok" Trace Device
------------------------------------------------------------------
LILLIAN JURDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE SERVICES INC, a Kansas
corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
2:24-cv-06896 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2024) alleges that the Defendant
violated the California Trap and Trace Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has installed on its
Website software created by TikTok in order to identify website
visitors (the "TikTok Software"). The TikTok Software acts via a
process known as "fingerprinting." 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. The TikTok
Software gathers device and browser information,
geographic information, referral tracking, and url tracking by
running code or "scripts" on the Website to send user details to
TikTok. The TikTok Software begins to collect information the
moment a user
lands on the Website. Thus, even though the Website has a "cookie
banner" the information has already been sent to TikTok regarding
the user's visit California Penal Code section 638.50(c), says the
suit.
California law defines a "trap and trace device" as "a device or
process that captures the incoming electronic or other impulses
that identify the originating number or other dialing, routing,
addressing, or signaling information reasonably likely to identify
the source of a wire or electronic communication, but not the
contents of a communication."
The TikTok Software is a process to identify the source of
electronic communication by capturing incoming electronic impulses
and identifying dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling
information generated by users, who are never informed that the
website is collaborating with the Chinese government to obtain
their phone number and other identifying information. The Plaintiff
brings this action individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situation (the "Class") defined as follows:
"All persons within California who within the statute of
limitations period: (1) communicated with Defendant via
the chat feature on Defendant's Website using cellular or
landline telephony, and (2) whose communications were
recorded and/or eavesdropped upon without prior consent."
Selectquote is a Kansas corporation that owns, operates, and/or
controls www.selectquote.com, an online platform that allows
customers to compare and shop for insurance coverag.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tauler, Esq.
Narain Kumar, Esq.
TAULER SMITH LLP
rtauler@taulersmith.com
nkumar@taulersmith.com
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 927-9270
SHEPHERD HEALTH: Brisson Seeks Site Supervisors' OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE BRISSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SHEPHERD HEALTH AND LIVING, LLC and CHASE VANCE, Case
No. 1:24-cv-01364 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 8, 2024) challenges
wage-and-hour practices of the Defendant allegedly violating the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. sections 201-219, the Ohio
overtime compensation statute, and Ohio's common law.
The suit contends that the Defendants misclassified all Site
Supervisors, including Ms. Brisson and other similarly situated
employees, as overtime exempt, meaning that Site Supervisors were
not paid any overtime premium pay regardless of the number of hours
worked. The job duties and/or positional requirements of a Site
Supervisor at Shepherd's locations do not permit application of any
overtime exemption under the FLSA, says the suit.
The Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that their Site
Supervisors were entitled to overtime compensation under federal
and state laws. For instance, the Defendants knew that they were
not staffing their facilities with sufficient employees for Site
Supervisors to customarily and regularly direct work or tasks to
the equivalent of two other full-time employees (80
employee-hours). Further, the Defendants knew that their Site
Supervisors did not perform other job duties that would make them
as exempt from overtime, the suit alleges.
Ms. Brisson worked for Shepherd as a Site Supervisor, from July 21,
2023 through Feb. 2, 2024.
Shepherd provides housing and support services to individuals with
disabilities throughout Ohio through the ownership and operation of
group homes for individuals with developmental disabilities
throughout Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott D. Perlmutter, Esq.
LITTLE LAW FIRM
4106 Bridge Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 308-1522
Facsimile: (8880 604-9299
E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com
tittle@tittlelawfirm.com
SIRH LLC: Fails to Pay Hourly Employees' OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
John Doe Employee, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SIRH, LLC, an Arizona limited liability
company; RTH Enterprises, LLC, an Arizona limited liability
company; John Doe Corporations I-XX; Rahul Haria and Jane Doe
Haria, a married couple; and Hansa Haria and Jane Doe Haria II, a
married couple, Case No. 2:24-cv-01990-SMM (D. Ariz., Aug. 8, 2024)
is an action for unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. section 201, et seq.
The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants have operated pursuant to a
policy and practice of intentionally sharing Hourly Employees
between their restaurant locations, requiring them to work in
excess of 40 hours in a given workweek, requiring them to work
under more than one name, reporting hours worked across multiple
such names to reduce or eliminate the appearance of overtime
worked, and not paying overtime for time worked in excess of 40
hours under the pretext that such work was performed by multiple
individuals when it was actually performed by one individual.
The Plaintiff, in his work for the Defendants, was generally
scheduled to, and did, work 70-85 hours per week. Rather than
compensate the Plaintiff at a rate of one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, the Defendants required the Plaintiff to work under
multiple different names and issued the Plaintiff multiple
paychecks in the same biweekly pay period under such names in an
attempt to avoid paying overtime. Pursuant to this practice, the
Defendants have willfully failed or refused to pay overtime to
their Hourly Workers, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff generally worked at the Gilbert Location. However,
throughout his employment, the Defendants often assigned the
Plaintiff to work at the Tempe Location, the Chandler Location, the
Mesa Location, and the Broadway Location.
SIRH was a franchisee of Denny's restaurants and owned and operated
as a chain of Denny's restaurants with multiple locations company
in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
Phoenix, AZ 85060
Telephone: (480) 382-5176
Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
chris@bendaulaw.com
SNOWFLAKE INC: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Nader Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTOUN NADER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SNOWFLAKE, INC. and LENDINGTREE, LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-00079-BMM (D. Mont., Aug. 15, 2024) sues the Defendants for
their failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and
Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within
Defendants' information network.
On no later than June 11, 2024, unauthorized third-party
cybercriminals gained access to the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
PII as hosted with the Defendants, with the intent of engaging in
the misuse of the PII, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's
and Class Members' PII. The vulnerable and potentially exposed data
of the Plaintiff and the Class stored on Defendants' information
network, includes consumers' names, residential addresses, and
dates of birth. The Plaintiff received a letter from LendingTree,
LLCs subsidiary, QuoteWizad, dated July 30, 2024, stating that
their PII was involved in the Data Breach.
As a result, the Plaintiff was injured in the form of lost time
dealing with the consequences of the Data Breach, which included
and continues to include: time spent verifying the legitimacy and
impact of the Data Breach; time spent exploring credit monitoring
and identity theft insurance options; time spent self-monitoring
their accounts with heightened scrutiny and time spent seeking
legal counsel regarding their options for remedying and/or
mitigating the effects of the Data Breach.
Additionally, the Plaintiff, as a result of the Data Breach, has
increased anxiety for their loss of privacy and anxiety over the
impact of cybercriminals accessing, using, and selling their PII.
The Plaintiff has suffered imminent and impending injury arising
from the substantially increased risk of fraud, identity theft, and
misuse resulting from their PII, in combination with their name,
being placed in the hands of unauthorized third parties/criminals,
the suit contends.
As required in order to obtain services from the Defendants, the
Plaintiff provided the Defendants with highly sensitive personal
information who then possessed and controlled it.
Snowflake is an American cloud computing–based data cloud
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Heenan, Esq.
HEENAN & COOK
1631 Zimmerman Trail
Billings, MT 59102
Telephone: (406) 839-9091
Facsimile: (406) 839-9092
E-mail: john@lawmontana.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon
Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
SOUTHWEST ANSWERING: Vleet Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JANINE VAN VLEET, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SOUTHWEST ANSWERING SERVICE, INC., a
Nevada corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV16768, was removed from the Superior Court of California for
Los Angeles County to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on August 15, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-06932 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions
Code including (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay
overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to
provide rest breaks; (5) failure to reimburse business expenses;
(6) failure to pay vested vacation; (7) failure to timely pay final
wages; (8) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
and (9) unfair and unlawful competition.
Southwest Answering Service, Inc. is an answering and virtual
receptionist service provider headquartered in Nevada. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Joel Andersen, Esq.
NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS PA
250 Marquette Avenue South, Suite 800
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 305-7500
Facsimile: (612) 305-7501
Email: jandersen@nilanjohnson.com
SPECTRUM BUILDING: Lopez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EDUARDO LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. SPECTRUM BUILDING SERVICES OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California corporation; SPECTRUM BUILDING
SERVICES OF AMERICA, entity type unknown; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2024-01407880-CU-OE-CXC, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Orange to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on August 1, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-01677 to the
proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges 10 causes of action against Defendant, on
behalf of the putative class: (1) unpaid overtime; (2) unpaid meal
period premiums; (3) unpaid rest period premiums; (4) unpaid
minimum wages; (5) final wages not timely paid; (6) wages not
timely paid during employment; (7) failure to provide accurate wage
statements; (8) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses;
(9) failure to pay accrued vacation; and (10) violation of the
California Business & Professions Code.
Spectrum Building Services of Southern California offers commercial
janitorial and building maintenance services.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Danielle R. Goodman, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK
& STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: danielle.goodman@ogletree.com
- and -
Kyle A. Wende, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK
& STEWART, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 840-3150
Facsimile: (916) 840-3159
STABILITY AI: Court Narrows Claims in Andersen, et al. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case SARAH ANDERSEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STABILITY AI
LTD., et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-00201-WHO (N.D. Cal.),
Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted, in part, and denied, in
part, the motions filed by defendants to dismiss various claims
from plaintiffs' first amended complaint.
Artists Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, Karla Ortiz, Hawke
Southworth, Grzegorz Rutkowski, Gregory Manchess, Gerald Brom,
Jingna Zhang, Julia Kaye, and Adam Ellis filed this putative class
action on behalf of artists challenging the defendants' creation
and/or use of Stable Diffusion, an artificial intelligence software
product. They allege that Stable Diffusion used plaintiffs'
artistic works as "training images" and as a result Stable
Diffusion can produce output images "in the style" of those images.
In the First Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege claims against
the three defendants identified in the original complaint --
Stability AI, Inc., Midjourney, Inc., and DeviantArt, Inc. -- and
against a new defendant, Runway AI, Inc. Plaintiffs contend Runway
AI worked with, helped train, and then distributed Stable Diffusion
with Stability AI. Plaintiffs assert that Runway made a
text-to-image generator available via its online AI image product
called AI Magic Tools.
Plaintiffs' claims center first around the creation of the LAION
training sets, where five billion images were allegedly scraped
into datasets used by Stability and Runway to train the versions of
Stable Diffusion. Plaintiffs state that Midjourney likewise trained
its product using Stable Diffusion, and that all four defendants
use Stable Diffusion in their AI products; in doing so, those four
defendants copy or utilize versions of plaintiffs' artistic works.
Significantly, plaintiffs allege that the "LAION-5B dataset
contains only URLs of training images, not the actual training
images. Therefore, anyone who wishes to use LAION-5B for training
their own machine learning model must first acquire copies of the
actual training images from their URLs using the img2dataset or
other similar tool." They also clarify their theory of direct
infringement, adding allegations regarding CLIP-guided diffusion in
the training phase but also in use, after training.
Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of six different classes:
1. "Injunctive Relief Class" under Rule 23(b)(2): All persons
or entities nationalized or domiciled in the United States that own
a copyright interest in any work that was used to train any version
of an AI image product that was offered directly or incorporated
into another product by one or more Defendants during the Class
Period.
2. "Damages Class" under Rule 23(b)(3): All persons or
entities nationalized or domiciled in the United States that own a
copyright interest in any work that was used to train any version
of an AI image product that was offered directly or incorporated
into another product by one or more Defendants during the Class
Period.
3. "LAION-5B Damages Subclass" under Rule 23(b)(3): All
persons or entities nationalized or domiciled in the United States
that own a registered copyright in any work in the LAION-5B dataset
that was used to train any version of an AI image product that was
offered directly or incorporated into another product by one or
more Defendants during the Class Period.
4. "LAION-400M Damages Subclass" under Rule 23(b)(3): All
persons or entities nationalized or domiciled in the United States
that own a registered copyright in any work in the LAION-400M
dataset that was used to train any version of an AI image product
that was offered directly or incorporated into another product by
one or more Defendants during the Class Period.
5. "DeviantArt Damages Subclass" under Rule 23(b)(3): All
members of the Damages Class who (1) maintained an account on
DeviantArt; (2) posted copyrighted work on DeviantArt; and (3) had
that work used to train any version of an AI image product.
6. "Midjourney Named Artist Class" under Rule 23(b)(3): All
persons or entities who appear on the Midjourney Names List and
whose names were invoked within prompts of the Midjourney Image
Product during the Class Period.
Plaintiffs assert the following claims against the different sets
of defendants:
-- Against Stability AI: (1) direct copyright infringement of
the LAION-5B Registered Works by training the Stability Models,
including Stable Diffusion 2.0 and Stable Diffusion XL 1.0 on
behalf of the LAION-5B Registered Plaintiffs and Damages Subclass;
(2) inducement of copyright infringement by distributing Stable
Diffusion 2.0 and Stable Diffusion XL 1.0 for free on behalf of the
LAION-5B Registered Plaintiffs and Damages Subclass; (3) violations
of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by removing and altering
copyright management information ("CMI") of training images on
behalf of all Plaintiffs, the Damages and the Injunctive Classes;
and (4) unjust enrichment under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200
and California Common Law on behalf of all Plaintiffs, the Damages
and the Injunctive Classes.
-- Against Runway AI: (1) Direct copyright infringement of the
LAION-5B Registered Works by training the Runway Models, including
Stable Diffusion 1.5 on behalf of the LAION5B Registered
Plaintiffs, LAION-5B Subclass, and Karla Ortiz Individually; (2)
Inducement of copyright infringement by distributing Stable
Diffusion 1.5 for free on behalf of the LAION-5B Registered
Plaintiffs and Subclass; (3) DMCA violations by removing and
altering CMI of training images on behalf of all Plaintiffs, the
Damages and Injunctive Classes; and (4) Unjust enrichment under
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 and California Common Law on
behalf of all Plaintiffs, the Damages and Injunctive Classes.
-- Against Midjourney: (1) Direct copyright infringement of
the LAION-400M Registered Works by training the Midjourney 400M
Models, including Midjourney Model version 1 on behalf of the
LAION-400M Registered Plaintiffs and Damages Subclass; (2) Direct
copyright infringement of the LAION-5B Registered Works by training
the Midjourney 5B Models, including Midjourney Model version 5.2 on
behalf of the LAION-5B Registered Plaintiffs and Damages Subclass;
(3) DMCA violations by removing and altering CMI of training images
on behalf of All Plaintiffs, the Damages and Injunctive Class; (4)
Lanham Act - false endorsement by unauthorized commercial use of
artists' names on behalf of the Midjourney Named Plaintiffs and
Class; (5) Lanham Act - vicarious trade-dress violation by
profiting from imitations of protectable trade dress on behalf of
the Midjourney Named Plaintiffs and Class; and (6) Unjust
enrichment under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 and California
Common Law on behalf of all Plaintiffs, and the Damages and
Injunctive Class.
-- Against DeviantArt: (1) Direct copyright infringement by
copying the DreamUp–CompVis Model and incorporating it into
DreamUp on behalf of the LAION-5B Registered Plaintiffs; (2) Breach
of contract for violation of its Terms of Service on behalf of the
DeviantArt Plaintiffs; (3) Unjust enrichment under Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Sec. 17200 and California Common Law on behalf of the
DeviantArt Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs added defendant Runway AI and seven new plaintiffs when
it filed the FAC. Each defendant moves to dismiss.
Defendants' motions to dismiss the DMCA claims are granted and the
DMCA claims are dismissed with prejudice. Defendants' motions to
dismiss the unjust enrichment claims are granted and those claims
are dismissed with leave to amend.
Defendants' motions to dismiss the Copyright Act claims are denied.
Midjourney's motion to dismiss the Lanham Act claims is denied.
DeviantArt's motion to dismiss the breach of contract and breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims is
granted and those claims are dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated August 12, 2024, is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W00Qls
STELLANTIS NV: Faces Long Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN LONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. STELLANTIS N.V., CARLOS TAVARES, and NATALIE M. KNIGHT,
Case No. 1:24-cv-06196 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2024) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Stellantis' securities between Feb. 15, 2024 to
July 24, 2024, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws (the
"Class").
The suit says that the Defendants provided investors with material
information regarding Stellantis' expected revenue for the full
year 2024. The Defendants' statements included, Stellantis'
reduction of inventory levels, pricing improvements, and expansion
of its product offering thereby supporting Defendants' decision to
forecast double-digit adjusted operating income (AOI) margin in
2024, as well as positive industrial free cash flow.
The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to
investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false
and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts
concerning inventory levels, pricing and market share
stabilizations. This caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to
purchase Stellantis' securities at artificially inflated prices,
the suit alleges.
The truth emerged on July 25, 2024 when the Defendants issued a
press release announcing their financials for the first half of
2024. In pertinent part, the Defendants results missed consensus
and were expected a disappointing "near-term outlook."
Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Stellantis'
revelation. The price of Stellantis' common stock declined
dramatically. From a closing market price of $19.60 per share on
July 24, 2024 to $17.66 per share on July 26, 2024.
The Plaintiff purchased Stellantis' common stock at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the
revelation of the Defendants' alleged fraud.
Stellantis designs, engineers, manufactures, distributes and sells
vehicles across five portfolios: (i) luxury vehicles under the
Maserati brand; (ii) premium vehicles covered by Alfa Romeo, DS and
Lancia brands; (iii) global sport utility vehicles under the Jeep
brand; (iv) American brands covering Dodge, Ram and Chrysler
vehicles and (v) European brands covering Abarth, Citroën, Fiat,
Opel, Peugeot and Vauxhall vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
SUMMERSALT INC: Calcano Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS CALCANO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUMMERSALT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06178 (S.D.N.Y., August 14, 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.summersalt.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: lack of alternative text (alt-text), or a text
equivalent, empty links that contain no text causing the function
or purpose of the link to not be presented to the user, redundant
links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, 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.
Summersalt, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in 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
Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE ACTOS END PAYOR ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:13-cv-09244-RA-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Stewart Aaron entered an order that:
-- Takeda's motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of the
EPPs' expert Laura R. Craft is denied,
-- Takeda's motion for leave to file a sur-reply is granted,
-- The EPPs' motion to strike Takeda's sur-reply document is
denied,
-- Takeda's motion to strike the DPPs' response to the notice of
Supplemental authority is denied as moot, and it is recommended
that the EPPs' and DPPs' motions for class certification be
granted, and that Court certify the EPP Class and the DPP
Class.
The Court further recommended that, pursuant to Rule 23(g),
Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, Miller Shah LLP, Wexler Boley & Elgersma
LLP and Motley Rice LLP be appointed as Co-Lead Class Counsel in
the EP Action and that Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and Nussbaum Law
Group be appointed as Co-Lead Class Counsel in the DP Action.
On March 14, 2018, the EPPs filed their Fourth Amended Complaint.
On April 17, 2024, the EPPs and DPPs filed their reply memoranda in
further support of their motions to certify.
On June 12, 2024, Takeda filed a notice of supplemental authority
with respect to the DPPs' motion to certify.
On July 31, 2024, the Court held a hearing with respect to the
pending motions.
The proposed EPP class (the "EPP Class") consists of the
following:
"All entities that, for consumption by their members, insureds,
or
beneficiaries, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or
all
of the purchase price of Actos or generic pioglitazone in the
[Class States], [15] other than for resale, at any time from
Jan.
17, 2011 through and until Dec. 31, 2015; and All individuals
who
paid for some or all of the purchase price of Actos in the
[Class
States] at any time from Jan. 17, 2011 through and until Dec.
31,
2015."
The DPPs seek to certify a class (the "DPP Class") comprised of:
"All persons or entities in the United States and its
territories
and possessions, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, who
purchased Actos or its AB-rated generic equivalent directly
from
Defendants or any generic manufacturer at any time on or after
Jan. 17, 2011 through Jan. 31, 2013 (the "Actos class
period")."
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TWRKZG at no extra
charge.[CC]
TULARE CTY, CA: Fails to Pay Battalion Chiefs' OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD DOYLE, BRIAN DUFFY, JASON ELIZONDO, MARK FLEMING, CASEY
LEWIS, KYLE NEWTON, JOE ROSA, RAYMOND RUSSELL, DEREK STEIDLEY, AND
DAVID VASQUEZ, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
individuals, v. COUNTY OF TULARE, Case No. 1:24-at-00627 (E.D.
Cal., Aug. 12, 2024), seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, costs of suit,
and reasonable attorney' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The suit contends that the Defendant failed to properly compensate
the Plaintiffs at the rate of time and one-half the "regular rate"
of pay for overtime hours worked under the FLSA. The Plaintiffs are
regularly scheduled to work 192 hours every 24-days, consisting of
4 shifts, each of 48 hours.
In addition, the Plaintiffs often work additional shifts outside
their normal schedule to fill vacancies or otherwise meet the needs
of the department. The Plaintiffs occasionally work out of County
as a part of interagency statewide strike teams facilitated by the
California Governor's Office of Emergency Services. The Plaintiffs
are paid overtime for work performed on strike teams. However, the
Defendant has allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiffs any overtime
for any non-strike team work performed in excess of 40 hours in
7-days during the 3 years preceding the commencement of this
Action, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs are currently employed by the Defendant as Fire
Battalion Chiefs with the Tulare County Fire Department.
The Defendant is a political subdivision of the State of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David E. Mastagni, Esq.
Taylor Davies-Mahaffey, Esq.
Amanda R. Mccarthy, Esq.
MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT
1912 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-3151
Telephone: (916) 446-4692
Facsimile: (916) 447-4614
E-mail: davidm@mastagni.com
tdavies-mahaffey@mastagni.com
amccarthy@mastagni.com
TWILIO INC: Collects In-App Consumer Activities, Bender Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
NOAH BENDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TWILIO INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
3:24-cv-04914-SK (N.D. Cal., Aug. 8, 2024) sues the Defendant for
eavesdropping on consumers' sensitive in-app communications.
The suit says that Twilio developed and disseminated a software
development kit (or "SDK") called Segment that enables backdoor
access to consumers' devices and opens a data collection pipeline
directly from consumers to Twilio. Thousands of developers have
embedded Twilio’s Segment SDK into their mobile apps allowing
them to siphon data from millions of consumers.
The data Twilio collects from unsuspecting consumers is incredibly
sensitive. Twilio collects consumers' in-app search terms, search
results, keystrokes, button presses, page views, and consumers'
names and email addresses. This data reveals consumers' likes,
interests, and information about other behavioral attributes. By
way of example, Twilio collects real-time data from the Calm
meditation app—intended to help with various mental health
issues—that reveals whether an individual is dealing with
anxiety, depression, or any other issue, the Plaintiff asserts.
Armed with a wealth of data on the consumer, Twilio leverages its
proprietary artificial intelligence to correlate data from various
sources to compile a comprehensive digital dossier on each
consumer. This dossier includes detailed insights and analytics,
enabling the prediction of consumer behavior, such as the
likelihood of making a purchase, added the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff and the putative Class are consumers whose sensitive
keystrokes and search terms (among other In-App Activities) have
been intercepted from their devices while using mobile apps with
the Segment SDK embedded. The Plaintiff and the Class do not
know—nor could they—that the apps they regularly use have
embedded the Segment SDK and, as such, could not have consented to
Twilio's data collection practices.
The Plaintiff and the Class allegedly suffered harm as a result of
Defendant's violations of the Wiretap Act, and therefore seek (a)
preliminary, equitable, and declaratory relief as may be
appropriate, (b) the sum of the actual damages suffered and the
profits obtained by Defendant as a result of its unlawful conduct,
or statutory damages as authorized by 18 U.S.C. section
2520(c)(2)(B), whichever is greater, (c) punitive damages, and (d)
reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.
Plaintiff Bender is a natural person and citizen of the State of
California.
Twilio is a data mining company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rafey Balabanian, Esq.
Jared Lucky, Esq.
Schuyler Ufkes, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
jlucky@edelson.com
sufkes@edelson.com
VALHALLA TEA: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALHALLA TEA COMPANY LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05858 (S.D.N.Y., August 1, 2024) is a
civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff visited the website in order to purchase a Black
Caesar Salt Caramel Black Tea Caffeinated (4oz Glass Skull). He
attempted to purchase the product but was unable to locate pricing
and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links,
pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on
Defendant's website, which prevented him from doing so. These
access barriers on Defendant's website have deterred Plaintiff from
visiting the website and enjoying it equal to sighted individuals,
says the suit.
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.
Valhalla Tea Company LLC operates the Valhalla online interactive
Website and retail store across the United States.[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
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
WALMART INC: Misclassifies Drivers as Contractors, Medeiros Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIC MEDEIROS, SHEILA MARCIL, AND DINIZ MARTINS LUIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
WALMART INC. D/B/A SPARK DRIVER F/K/A DELIVERY DRIVERS, INC.., Case
No. 1:24-cv-12114 (D. Mass., Aug. 15, 2024) alleges that Walmart
misclassified all delivery drivers as independent contractors when
they are actually employees for the purposes of the Massachusetts
wage laws.
The suit contends that Walmart has violated G.L. c. 149, section
148 and G.L. c. 151, sections 1, 1A by failing to pay minimum wage
and overtime premium to delivery drivers, and failing to reimburse
them for all work-related expenses. Walmart does not compensate
Spark Drivers for the time spent logged into the Spark Driver app,
time spent waiting for work, or time spent waiting at Walmart for a
curbside pickup order. Spark Drivers are also not reimbursed for
mileage, vehicle wear and tear, data use, or any other reasonably
necessary expenses incurred in the course of performing services
for Walmart, the suit adds.
In addition, Walmart controls Spark Drivers' schedules and pay; for
example, Spark Drivers are unable to set or negotiate prices for
the available jobs. Walmart customers do not select their Spark
Drivers but rather place their orders through Walmart. Walmart
collects payment per delivery from the customer and then pays its
Spark Drivers per delivery.
The Plaintiff brings this these claims on behalf of all similarly
situated employees pursuant to G.L. c. 149, section 150, G.L. c.
151, section 20 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
The Plaintiffs also bring claims to recover unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 207, 216.
Mr. Medeiros worked as a delivery driver for Walmart from February
2022 to the present.
Ms. Marcil worked as a delivery driver for Walmart from February
2022 to the present.
Walmart is one of the nation's largest retailers and offers its
customers same-day delivery across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Matthew W. Thomson, Esq.
Jack Bartholet, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
mthomson@llrlaw.com
jbartholet@llrlaw.com
WATSON REALTY: Land Trust Hits Inflated Buyer-Broker Commissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Land Trust No. 2020 Continental Avenue, #221, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Watson Realty
Corp., Premiere Plus Realty Co.; MVP Realty Associates, LLC; Higher
Tech Realty FL, LLC; Florida Homes Realty & Mortgage LLC;
Downing-Frye Realty, Inc.; Charles Rutenberg Realty, Inc.; Smith &
Associates Real Estate, LLC; Michael Saunders & Company; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-22937 (S.D.
Fla., Aug. 1, 2024) alleges a nationwide conspiracy between the
real estate broker Defendants and their co-conspirators, including
the National Association of Realtors, to restrain trade by
adopting, implementing, and enforcing anticompetitive Multiple
Listing Service (MLS) rules that require Plaintiff and Class
Members to pay buyer broker fees and inflated commissions on home
sales in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiff, a home seller, brings this action on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated against several of the
largest real estate brokerages in Florida for conspiring to enforce
anticompetitive MLS rules that cause home sellers to pay inflated
commissions in connection with the sale of their homes.
To carry out the conspiracy, NAR, an unnamed co-conspirator, allows
brokers representing or otherwise working with home sellers and
home buyers to use MLSs controlled by NAR on the condition that
those brokers agree to adhere to and help implement and enforce the
MLS's terms and conditions that significantly restrain competition.
Specifically, NAR requires every listing broker (including
Defendants) who lists a property on an MLS, to make a "blanket
unilateral offer[] of compensation" to any broker who may work with
a buyer in purchasing that property, says the suit.
The Defendants' conspiracy has inflated buyer-broker commissions,
which, in turn, have inflated the total commissions paid by home
sellers such as Plaintiff and other home sellers. The Plaintiff and
the other class members have each incurred, on average, thousands
of dollars in overcharges as a result of the Defendants' alleged
conspiracy, the suit asserts.
Watson Realty Corp. is an independent real estate company
headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-0931
E-mail: rmcgee@forthepeople.com
- and -
Jill M. Manning, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
555 Montgomery St., Suite 1205
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 433-9000
E-mail: jmanning@pwfirm.com
WELLS FARGO: Rose Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sean Rose, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and WELLS FARGO
& COMPANY, Case No. 24STCV16626 was removed from the Los Angeles
County Superior Court, State of California, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 8,
2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-06727.
In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges five causes of action against
Prime Now: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum
Wages; Failure to Pay All Wages Upon Termination; Failure to
Provide Accurate Wage Statements; and Unfair Competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Molly M. White, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
Phone: 310.315.8200
Facsimile: 310.315.8210
Email: mwhite@mcguirewoods.com
- and -
Todd J. Dressel, Esq.
Athena G. Rutherford, Esq.
Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94111-3821
Phone: 415.844.9944
Facsimile: 415.844.9922
Email: tdressel@mcguirewoods.com
arutherford@mcguirewoods.com
WESCO DISTRIBUTION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 19, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MATOR AND NANCY
MATOR, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPERESENTATIVES OF A CLASS OF
PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES IN AND ON BEHALF OF THE WESCO
DISTRIBUTION, INC. RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN; v. WESCO DISTRIBUTION,
INC., AND; THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND INVESTMENT COMMITTEE FOR WESCO
DISTRIBUTION, INC. RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN, JOHN AND JANE DOES
1-30, Case No. 2:21-cv-00403-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Marilyn
Horan entered an initial case management order as follows:
-- Disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) Aug. 9,
2024
shall be made on or before:
-- Additional parties shall be joined on or Oct. 11,
2024
Before:
-- Pleadings shall be amended on or before: Oct. 11,
2024
-- Fact discovery shall be completed on or March 31,
2025
before:
-- Date by which Plaintiffs' Expert Reports May 5, 2025
should be filed:
-- Date by which Defendant's Expert Reports June 4, 2025
should be filed:
-- Service of Rebuttal Expert Reports (if any): July 14,
2025
-- Completion of Expert Discovery: Aug. 14,
2025
-- Motion for Class Certification: Feb. 19,
2025
-- Any Opposition to Motion for Class March 21,
2025
Certification:
-- Any Reply in Support of Class Certification: April 4,
2025
WESCO distributes electrical products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jan4a0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
WINWINX INC: Unlawfully Stores Users' Facial Geometry, Turner Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MONEEK TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WINWINX, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07263 (N.D. Ill., August 14, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful collections,
obtainments, use, storage, and disclosure of consumers' facial
geometry as part of its full identity verification process. WinWinX
users are required to upload the front and back of their government
identification and then record a facial video for them to open a
WinWinX account. However, WinWinX failed to permanently destroy
users' facial geometry following the opening of their accounts.
WinWinX's unlawful collection, obtainment, storage, and use of its
users' biometric data exposes them to serious and irreversible
privacy risks, says the suit.
WinWinX, Inc. is a financial technology firm based in Laguna Beach,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave. Suite 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
Email: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
Simon Law Co.
11 1/2 N. Franklin Street
Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
Email: james@simonsayspay.com
XPEDITION LLC: Faces Hamilton Class Action Suit Over Gun Safety
---------------------------------------------------------------
RUSS HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. XPEDITION LLC dba FORTRESS SAFE and CABELA'S LLC, Case
No. 2:24-cv-02157-KJM-CSK (E.D. Cal., Aug. 12, 2024) is a class
action about gun safety.
In 2024, the federal government recalled nearly a quarter million
biometric gun safes after reports that they could be opened without
authorization -- including by a child as young as 6 -- putting
people at risk of injury or death. The recalls were not the result
of an anomalous manufacturing problem; instead, they involved
numerous gun safe brands sold in most major retailers like Walmart
and Amazon. The recent scrutiny of gun safes was prompted by an
earlier recall in 2023, which was linked to approximately 40
reports of people gaining access to guns that were thought to be
secured in safes, including one involving a fatal shooting of a
12-year-old boy.
The 2023 recall involved nine gun safes made by Defendant Xpedition
LLC dba Fortress Safe, and these are the same gun safes at issue in
this case. The gun safes were sold at major retailers like
Defendant Cabela's, where some of the recalled products were
re-branded as "Cabela's" guns safes, says the suit.
Mr. Hamilton purchased and owns a Cabela's-brand Home Defense Safe
with Biometric Lock, model number 4BGGBP, which he bought in
approximately Spring 2022 from a Bass Pro store in Manteca,
California.
Xpedition is a supplier of In-Home Safe Storage products in North
America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
166 Geary Street, Ste. 1500-1507
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 839-7000
E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com
joel@skclassactions.com
Asbestos Litigation
*********
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 ***