/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240916.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, September 16, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 186
Headlines
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Falkenhagen Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Griffith Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Harms Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Horan Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Horton Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Levine Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, McGee Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Miller Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Shillinglaw Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: Bautista Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Baynard Files Suit in D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Benson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Browne Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Hamada Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
7-ELEVEN INC: Lee Sues Over Deceptive and Misleading Practices
AEROVIRONMENT INC: Oral & Written Discovery in Labor Suit Ongoing
AGC CHEMICALS: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Hutton Class Suit Alleges
AGC CHEMICALS: Kunkel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
AGENUS INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
ALLEVIATE TAX LLC: Morton Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
AMAZON.COM INC: Valles Suit Removed to N.D. California
AMP LTD: Court Approves $100MM BOLR Class Action Settlement
APL LOGISTICS: Padilla Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
APPLE INC: Faces iPhone Liquid Contact Class Action Suit in Quebec
ASCENT FUNDING: Palmer Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
ATKORE INC: Faces Wrobbel Suit Over PVC Pipe Price Monopoly
AUSTRALIA: Settles Historic Stolen Wages Class Action for $202MM
BEL-BORN MANAGEMENT: Herrera Sues Over Website's ADA Violations
BERLIN, NJ: McCarroll Seeks Refund of Excessive Registration Fees
BUZZFEED INC: Settles Data Sharing Class Suit for $9-Mil.
C&S WHOLESALE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Goodman Alleges
C3.AI INC: Has Until Sept. 26 to File Reply Brief
CALIFORNIA TEACHING: Faces Gash Class Suit in Fresno, Calif.
CARESPRING HEALTH: Valentine Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
CASINO QUEEN: Agrees to Settle ESOP Class Action Lawsuit
CLAYTON RUBLE: Swindler Files Suit in D. Oregon
CLEO AI: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Franklin Suit to 4th Cir
COLE HAAN: Faces Villaverde Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
D&A HAULING: Lopez Sues Over Labor Law Violations
DIGITAL TRUST: Meagher Sues Over Private Data Breach
ELITE ONE: Wesley Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
EQUITY ONE: Property Has Architectural Barriers, Pardo Says
FIBCO INC: Does not Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Santiago Suit Says
FLORIDA: Judge Approves Settlement in Medicaid Class Action
FOCUS BUILDERS: Carpenters-Contractors Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Sabrowski Suit Removed to C.D. California
FURTHERED INC: Ezpeleta Files Suit in S.D. New York
GINKGO BIOWORKS: Class Settlement Hearing Set December 5
GITLAB INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
GOBRANDS INC: Guerrero Alleges Labor Law Violations
HAZEL BY JENNA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Gaspa Says
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Thukral Alleges Failure to Secure Personal Info
HEINZ FUNERAL: Attorney Seeks Class-Action Status in DNA Lawsuit
HESS BAKKEN: Penman Appeals Ruling to 8th Circuit
HUMAN BEAUTY: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD: Faces Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit
J & S CONCEPTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Welch Alleges
J-MASTER PROPERTIES: Juarez and Flores Seek Proper Wages
JAY-BEE PRODUCTION: Announces $42.6-Mil. Class Action Settlement
JC PENNEY COMPANY: Robinson Sues Over False Reference Pricing
JERICO PICTURES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Nieves Alleges
JERRY'S ARTARAMA: Ramos Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Mouth Wash Causes Cancer, Vasseur Alleges
JOY CONE: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set October 5
JP MORGAN: Marron Suit Removed to S.D. California
K-LINE: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Antitrust Law Violations
KAISER FOUNDATION: To Pay for Woman's New Wheelchair in Class Suit
KHOSROW SADEGHIAN: Appeals Denied Bid for New Trial in Marquis Suit
KIRKLAND'S INC: Continues to Defend Miles Class Suit in California
KIRKLAND'S INC: Continues to Defend Sicard Class Suit in New York
KODIAK CAKES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fagnani Claims
LENDMARK FINANCIAL: Parker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LOYAL SOURCE: Pembrick Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
MANITOBA: Settlement in Special Allowance Suit Gets Court Final OK
METHODE ELECTRONICS: Continues to Defend Salem Class Suit
METHODIST HOSPITAL: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Rodriguez Claims
MONTREAL, QC: Court Recognizes Racial Profiling in Police Suit
NEIMAN MARCUS: Pelosi Balks at Failure to Secure Personal Info
NEXT BRIDGE: Continues to Defend Targgart Securities Suit
ONLY WHAT YOU NEED: Ri'Chard Sues Over Deceptive Trade Practices
OSCAR DE LA RENTA: Porcelli Sues Over Caller ID Rules Violations
PARKSITE INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Oliver Alleges
PAUL LABRECQUE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Picon Suit Says
PETER PAN BUS: Mulani Sues Over Deceptive Extra Fees
PLANET LABS: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit in DE
RAJAN PATEL: Smith Appeals Denied Motions to Reopen Case
RAYMOND JAMES: Schmidlin Suit Hits Illegal Cash Sweep Programs
RITE AID: Faces Hale Jr. Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
RODD & GUNN: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Pollitt Suit Says
ROGUE VALLEY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martin Suit Alleges
ROSANGELA KIRILAUSCAS: Pardo Alleges Inaccessible Commercial Space
SANOH AMERICA: Rush Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
SINGLE ROOM: Anderson Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
STATE FARM: Ninth Circuit Allows Class Action Lawsuit to Continue
STEAK 'N SHAKE: Illegally Collects Face Biometrics, Massel Says
STOCKX LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Murphy Suit Says
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Faces Investment Scheme Class Action Suit
TITAN PHARMACEUTICALS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With BSKE
TRAXNYC CORP: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Trippett Says
TWITTER INC: Court Certifies Age Bias Claims in Mass Layoff Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: IPO Class Settlement Hearing Set on December 5
VENTRA HEALTH: Jacobs Sues Over Failure to Compensate Hours Worked
VERIZON COMMUNICATION: Pollitt Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
VOLCARE HEALTH: Hill Seeks Proper Wages for Caregivers
WALGREENS CO: Faces Class Suit Over Benzene Product Labeling
WALMART INC: Jenkins Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
WEBTOON ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
WHOLE FOODS: Brooks Suit Alleges Unlawful Labor Practices
XZY INC: Gaspa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
YOUNG CONSULTING: Xavier Sues Over Data Breach
ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
[*] Addition of Arbitration Clauses on Residential Leases Discussed
[*] Class-Action Suit Planned for PCB Victims in Hartford Schools
*********
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Falkenhagen Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES FALKENHAGEN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case
No. 2:24-cv-04809-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 4, 2024) is a class action
seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear
(TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl sub-stances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF 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, 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 or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to
the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
Mr. Falkenhagen is a resident and citizen of South Carolina. He
regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in
training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a
military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with
Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma as a result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendants include AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPO-RATION; 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.).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 815-9000
Facsimile: (216) 274-9365
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Griffith Class Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HARVEY GRIFFITH v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case
No. 2:24-cv-04810-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 4, 2024) is a class action
seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear
(TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl sub-stances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting, the Plaintiff
contends.
PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to
the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
Mr. Griffith is a resident and citizen of Texas. He regularly used,
and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to
extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or
civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendants include AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; 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:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 815-9000
Facsimile: (216) 274-9365
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Harms Class Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HARMS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case
No. 2:24-cv-04803-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 4, 2024) is a class action
seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear
(TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the
Plain-tiff 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 or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to
the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
Mr. Harms is a resident and citizen of Arkansas. He regularly used,
and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to
extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or
civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a
result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendants include AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPO-RATION; 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.).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 815-9000
Facsimile: (216) 274-9365
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Horan Class Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HORAN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case
No. 2:24-cv-04805-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 4, 2024) is a class action
seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear
(TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl sub-stances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF 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, 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 or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to
the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
Mr. Horan is a resident and citizen of Texas. He regularly used,
and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to
extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or
civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a
result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendants include AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPO-RATION; 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.).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 815-9000
Facsimile: (216) 274-9365
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Horton Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MYRON HORTON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufactur-ing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case
No. 2:24-cv-04802-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 4, 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).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the
Plaintiff contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to
the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
The Plaintiff Horton is a resident and citizen of Rockingham
County, North Carolina. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was
thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish
fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Renal Cell Carcinoma
as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities.
The Defendants include AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; and 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:
Frederick T. Kuykendall III, Esq.
THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC
23710 US Hwy A-1
Fairhope, AL 36532
Telephone: (205) 252-6127
Facsimile: (205) 449-1132
E-mail: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Levine Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK LEVINE v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case No.
2:24-cv-04806-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 4, 2024) is a class action seeking
for damages for person-al 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).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, 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 or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to
the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
Mr. Levine is a resident and citizen of New York. He regularly
used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to
extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or
civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with thyroid cancer as a
result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendants include AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPO-RATION; 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.).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
ear-ly 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 815-9000
Facsimile: (216) 274-9365
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, McGee Class Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MCGEE v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case No.
2:24-cv-04822-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 4, 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).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the
Plain-tiff contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to
the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
Mr. McGee is a resident and citizen of Iredell County, North
Carolina. HE regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with
Thyroid Cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities.
The Defendants include AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; and 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:
Frederick T. Kuykendall III, Esq.
THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC
23710 US Hwy A-1
Fairhope, AL 36532
Telephone: (205) 252-6127
Facsimile: (205) 449-1132
E-mail: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Miller Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JERRY MILLER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case
No. 2:24-cv-04807-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 4, 2024) is a class action
seeking for damages for person-al 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).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, 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 or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to
the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
Mr. Miller is a resident and citizen of Florida. He regularly used,
and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to
extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or
civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a
result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendants include AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPO-RATION; 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.).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 815-9000
Facsimile: (216) 274-9365
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Shillinglaw Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD SHILLINGLAW v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case
No. 2:24-cv-04818-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 4, 2024) is a class action
seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear
(TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl sub-stances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF 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, 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 or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to
the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
Mr. Shillinglaw is a resident and citizen of Wisconsin. He
regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in
training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a
military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with
prostate and kidney cancers as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendants include AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPO-RATION; 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.).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 815-9000
Facsimile: (216) 274-9365
3M COMPANY: Bautista Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
Beda Bautista, Jr., 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.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION;
CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.;
DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE
PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY
PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE
PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN &
COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY
SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES,
INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED;
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case
No. 2:24-cv-04758-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 30, 2024), is brought for
damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF 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 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 or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at 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 during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer
as a result of exposure to the 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:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
3M COMPANY: Baynard Files Suit in D. South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al.
The case styled as Mickey Baynard, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No.
2:24-cv-04823-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 4, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Personal Injury.
3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational
conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Frederick Thurman Kuykendall, III
THE KUYKENDALL GROUP LLC, ESQ.
201 East Second Street
Bay Minette, AL 36507
Phone: (800) 922-8661
Email: attorneynotice@thekuykendallgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Benson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bobby Benson, 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; 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-04801-RMG
(D.S.C., Sept. 4, 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 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 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 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 during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
Kidney Cancer, Thyroid Disease as a result of exposure to the
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:
Frederick T. Kuykendall, III, Esq.
THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC
23710 US Hwy A-1
Fairhope, AL 36532
Phone: (205) 252-6127
Facsimile: (205) 449-1132
Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Browne Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Browne, 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; 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-04813-RMG
(D.S.C., Sept. 4, 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 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 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 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 during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
thyroid cancer as a result of exposure to the 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:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Phone: 216-815-9000
Facsimile: 216-274-9365
3M COMPANY: Hamada Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Hamada, 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; 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-04795-RMG
(D.S.C., Sept. 4, 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 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 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 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 during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
Kidney Cancer as a result of exposure to the 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:
Frederick T. Kuykendall, III, Esq.
THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC
23710 US Hwy A-1
Fairhope, AL 36532
Phone: (205) 252-6127
Facsimile: (205) 449-1132
Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com
7-ELEVEN INC: Lee Sues Over Deceptive and Misleading Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 7-ELEVEN INC., Case No. 718197/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Queens Cty., Sept. 4, 2024), is brought against the Defendants as a
result of deceptive and/or misleading practices regarding their
coffee cups.
An example of a consumer commodity which, upon information and
belief, and the investigation of Counsel, for which the quantity or
amount has been decreased, based on representations as to its
capacity, 24 ounces, through its own website and/or information
provided to and published by third parties, and/or expectations of
purchasers, accustomed to receiving a consistent quantity or
amount, are the extra-large coffee cups manufactured, distributed,
marketed, and/or sold, by 7-Eleven Inc.
However, based on information and belief, and investigation of
Counsel, the extra-large cup cannot hold 24 ounces of coffee and/or
holds less liquid than the prior version of the extra-large cup,
and such allegations are likely to have support, following the
opportunity for reasonable discovery. One reason for the deficit of
over two ounces based on expected capacity of 24 ounces, and/or
inability to hold the same quantity of liquid compared to prior
versions of the extra-large cup, is due to the "extra-large"
indent, conservatively measured at three-quarters of an inch, at
the bottom of the cup, and such allegations are likely to have
support, following the opportunity for reasonable discovery.
The result is that coffee drinkers are paying the same price,
roughly $2.99, for an extra-large cup represented, directly or
indirectly, with a capacity of 24 ounces, an expected fill capacity
identical to prior versions of its extra-large cups, without any
visual indication its design, including the large indent at the
bottom, meant the fill capacity would be reduced by a significant
or non-de minimis amount.
The Plaintiff is like many 7-Eleven customers, who relied, and/or
came to rely, on extra-large cups represented, directly and
indirectly, with a capacity of 24 ounces, extra-large cups with a
consistent capacity for fill, compared to any prior versions of the
extra-large cups of coffee, and/or the visual display of an
extra-large cup, without any visual indication its design,
including the large indent at the bottom.
The Plaintiff did not expect to not receive a cup with a capacity
less than 24 ounces, not receive a cup with a capacity for fill
which was less than prior versions of the extra-large cup, and/or
not receive a cup where its fill capacity was significantly less
than promised based on viewing the extra-large cup, based on the
large indent at the bottom, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased extra-large coffee at 7-Eleven locations in
this State.
7-Eleven Inc. is a Texas corporation with a principal place of
business in Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and -
James Chung, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JAMES CHUNG
43-22 216th Street
Bayside, NY 11361
Phone: (718) 461-8808
Email: jchung_77@msn.com
AEROVIRONMENT INC: Oral & Written Discovery in Labor Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AeroVironment Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending July 27, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 4, 2024, that written and oral
discovery ongoing is in a California labor class suit.
On August 9, 2021, a former employee filed a class action complaint
against AeroVironment in California Superior Court in Los Angeles,
California alleging various claims pursuant to the California Labor
Code related to wages, meal breaks, overtime, unreimbursed business
expenses and other recordkeeping matters.
The complaint seeks a jury trial and payment of various alleged
unpaid wages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees in
unspecified amounts.
The Company filed its answer on December 16, 2021.
Written and oral discovery are ongoing.
Aerovironment, Inc. is into multi-domain robotic systems and
related services based in Virginia.
AGC CHEMICALS: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Hutton Class Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
WAYMOND HUTTON v. AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04819-RMG
(D.S.C., Sept. 4, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, 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 or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to
the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Mr. Hutton is a resident and citizen of Imboden, Arkansas. He
regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG
in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a
military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with
testicular cancer, thyroid cancer, and other injuries, as a result
of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products.
The Defendants include ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF
CORPORATION; 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;
HONEY-WELL 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.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, 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.); a, W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.;
and 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company).
AGC CHEMICALS 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:
Eric W. Cracken, Esq.
Steven D. Davis, Esq.
TORHOERMAN LAW, LLC
210 S. Main Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 656-4400
Facsimile: (618) 656-4401
AGC CHEMICALS: Kunkel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
-------------------------------------------------------
Jason Kunkel, and other similarly situated v. AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; 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.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA,
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.; a, W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, Case No.
2:24-cv-04771-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 3, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF 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 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 or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at 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 during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
testicular cancer, thyroid cancer, and other injuries, as a result
of exposure to the 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:
Eric W. Cracken, Esq.
Steven D. Davis, Esq.
TORHOERMAN LAW, LLC
210 S. Main Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Phone: 618-656-4400
Facsimile: 618-656-4401
AGENUS INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Agenus Inc. ("Agenus" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:AGEN) and
certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and docketed
under 24-cv-12299, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Agenus securities between January 23, 2023 and
July 17, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Sage
securities during the Class Period, you have until November 5, 2024
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.
Agenus is a clinical-stage biotechnology company that discovers and
develops immuno-oncology products in the United States and
internationally. Among other product candidates, the Company is
developing balstilimab, an anti-PD-1 antagonist that has completed
a Phase 2 clinical trial to treat second line cervical cancer; and
botensilimab, an antigen 4 blocking antibody that is in a Phase 2
clinical trial for the treatment of pancreatic cancer and
melanoma.
Agenus purports to pursue clinical trials "designed to strengthen
the efficacy and safety signals demonstrated to date and that may
support a potential filing for full approval and/or accelerated
approval based on the magnitude of benefit demonstrated" and,
according to the Company, its strategy "revolves around pioneering
optimal combination treatments for cancer patients, with
botensilimab as [its] cornerstone." In particular, Agenus has
focused on the development of the "botensilimab/balstilimab
combination," the Company's investigational therapy for the
treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the combination therapy of botensilimab and
balstilimab was less effective than Defendants had led investors to
believe; (ii) accordingly, botensilimab and balstilimab's clinical
results, as well as their regulatory and commercial prospects, were
overstated; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On July 18, 2024, Agenus issued a press release announcing the
results of an "end-of-Phase 2 meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), for the advancement of its immunotherapy
combination, botensilimab and balstilimab, for the treatment of
adult patients with relapsed/refractory microsatellite stable
colorectal cancer with no active liver metastases." The press
release revealed that the "FDA advised against submission of these
results in support of an Accelerated Approval based on their view
that objective response rates may not translate to survival
benefit."
On this news, Agenus's stock price fell $10.43 per share, or
58.83%, to close at $7.30 per share on July 18, 2024.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]
ALLEVIATE TAX LLC: Morton Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alleviate Tax LLC.
The case is styled as Jan Morton, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Alleviate Tax LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-02263-N
(N.D. Tex., Sept. 4, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Alleviate Tax LLC -- https://alleviatetax.com/ -- is a company
which helps reach a tax relief agreement with the IRS.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Nayeem N. Mohammed, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NAYEEM N MOHAMMED
539 W Commerce St #1899
Dallas, TX 75208
Phone: (972) 767-9099
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: nayeem@nnmpc.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Valles Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Isabella Valles; Ebony Ware; Daniela Uribe;
Jinah Chung; Casey Miles; Krystal Larrea; Jacquelyn Perez;
Marbleane Bond; Ruby Horta; Emily Parker; Brandi Nevel; Xiomara
Carlos; Dina Ali; Jenisea Haro; Rayna Carr; Sonia Duarte; Karen
Williams; Monica Stevens; Juliana Ibanez Trujillo; Kaylee Michelle;
Ariela Petruescu; Hiennesseyy Le; Amanda Seda; Arielle White; and
Alinaa Lopez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-24-615805 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on Sept. 4, 2024, and assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-06233-LB.
This action involves alleged injuries to Plaintiffs from their use
of "YIANNA Waist Trainer for Women Hourglass Body Shapers (the
"Product"). They contend that the Product "caused Plaintiffs to
experience adverse skin reactions, including without limitation,
rashes, burns, blisters, bruises, and/or scars" and "traumatized
them." The Plaintiffs assert several claims based on product
liability theories: strict liability for failure to warn, strict
liability for design and manufacturing defect, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent product liability,
negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. The Plaintiffs also assert
a claim under the California Unfair Competition Law on behalf of a
putative class of California consumers who purchased the
Product.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Julie L. Hussey, Esq.
Jacob L. Speckhard, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92130-2080
Phone: +1.858.720.5700
Facsimile: +1.858.720.5799
Email: JHussey@perkinscoie.com
JSpeckhard@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Mallory Gitt Webster, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: +1.206.359.8000
Facsimile: +1.206.359.9000
Email: MWebster@perkinscoie.com
AMP LTD: Court Approves $100MM BOLR Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laura Drew of Money Management, reports that the $100 million
settlement for members of the AMP buyer of last resort (BOLR) class
action has been approved.
In orders published on 6 September, the settlement was approved
subject to three adjustments. These are the funders' litigation
costs be disallowed, the funders' administration cost be
disallowed, and an adjustment to be made regarding claims for
future legal costs.
The status of the case, which was first filed in July 2020, is now
closed.
Last week, members of the AMP buyer of last resort class action
appeared in Federal Court in Melbourne to state their objections to
the settlement. In a two-day hearing, many members indicated that
they would be open to appealing the verdict in the hope of
receiving a larger sum.
AMP announced last November that the settlement offer was $100
million, double what the firm had made a provision for in its H1
2023 financial statement. It had previously stated it believed $50
million reflected a current assessment of the potential liabilities
related to the advice practices that were the subject of the
judgment.
The initial verdict in the case had been handed down by Justice
Moshinsky last July.
Last month, AMP announced Entireti, which was formed as a parent
company of Fortnum Private Wealth and Personal Financial Services
(PFS), would acquire AMP's advice licensees and Jigsaw, and AMP
would retain a 30 per cent stake.
This was for $10.2 million, 70 per cent in cash and 30 per cent
being AMP's equity stake, which would hold AMP's three licensees
and Jigsaw.
Secondly, AZ NGA will acquire minority stakes held by AMP in 16
practices for $82.2 million. The initial focus of the partnership
will be on a seamless transition that maintains the current service
proposition for AMP advisers, supported by the continuity of AMP
management and their adviser community.
AZ NGA chief executive Paul Barrett has told Money Management that
he plans to "seize the day" by assisting each of the 16 businesses
to achieve their growth ambitions in a way that AMP was unable to
support.
"Ultimately, these 16 firms in the portfolio have all the same
problems and ambitions that our core firms in the AZ NGA portfolio
have. We are very accustomed to working with them and solving those
problems around succession and growth," he said. [GN]
APL LOGISTICS: Padilla Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANTHONY PADILLA, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. APL LOGISTICS AMERICAS, LTD., a California corporation; APL
LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a Florida
corporation; CARMICHAEL INTERNATIONAL SERVICE, a California
corporation; APL LOGISTICS GROUP, an unknown business entity; APL
LOGISTICS LTD., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0005009, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Joaquin to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California on August 27, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02318-SCR to the
proceeding.
In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, 10 total causes of action, nine of
which are for various violations of the California Labor Code and
one for "Unfair Competition" under the California Business &
Professions Code.
APL Logistics Americas, Ltd. operates as a logistic company. The
Company provides transportation, import and export management,
freight forwarding, warehousing, and distribution services. APL
Logistics serves customers worldwide.[BN]
Defendant APL Logistics Warehouse Management Services is
represented by:
Jared L. Palmer, Esq.
Carolyn B. Hall, Esq.
Ethan Lai, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C.
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 442-4810
Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
E-mail: jared.palmer@ogletree.com
carolyn.hall@ogletree.com
ethan.lai@ogletree.com
- and -
Ricardo R. Bours, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C.
Esplanade Center III, Suite 800
2415 East Camelback Road
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 778-3700
Facsimile: (602) 778-3750
E-mail: ricardo.bours@ogletree.com
APPLE INC: Faces iPhone Liquid Contact Class Action Suit in Quebec
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel J. Rowe of CTVNewsMontreal.ca reports that a Quebec law firm
is seeking authorization for a class-action lawsuit against Apple
for anyone in the province who has had their iPhone damaged by
water.
LPC Avocats argue that Apple advertises its iPhones as "water
resistant," but that Apple Store employees "systematically refuse
to repair or replace" the devices that came into contact with
liquid based on a warranty exclusion for damage caused by getting
it wet.
"In short, Apple's iPhones are consistently damaged by liquid
contact that Apple advertised and promised that they could
withstand," the law firm says. "As such, this class action seeks to
have the clause in Apple's warranty excluding liquid contact voided
and to obtain damages for all Class Members who were forced to pay
any amount to replace or repair their iPhone due to liquid contact
(or water damage) that occurred in conditions that Apple advertised
and promised the iPhones could withstand."
Lawyer Joey Zukran is leading the case and is representing a
19-year-old CEGEP student who was in Mexico when her phone came
into contact with water near a pool.
"It immediately stopped working, her phone was purchased brand new
eight months ago," Zukran told CJAD 800 Radio host Elias Makos.
When his client took the phone to the Genius Bar, Zukran said she
was told she was excluded due to it coming in contact with water.
"So the warranty says that it does not apply the data liquid
contact, which is completely ridiculous when you look at the
marketing that Apple uses," said Zukran. "How can you exclude
liquid when you advertise that it can fall in a pool and be fine?
(. . . ) In the case of my clients, and many people who contact
their office, they're not fine. Apple refuses to fix it, and the
only remedy is to buy a brand new phone."
The class action seeks to make the "liquid contact" exclusion null
and void, reimburse those who paid to have phones fixed and pay
$500 to anyone who signs up for the case.
Zukran said that in Quebec, the law states that marketing forms
part of a consumer contract and "declarations made by the
representative of a company also form part of the contract."
"So you essentially have a contract that says your phone is 'Oops
resistant', you can drop it in the pool, and you'll be fine, only
to come a few paragraphs later and say liquid contact voids your
warranty," he said. "So you have two contradictory clauses in a
consumer contract, which, again, according to the law, has to be
interpreted in favour of the consumer or the adherent."
It is not the first time Zukran has targeted Apple with a
class-action lawsuit for violating Quebec's Consumer Protection
Act.
In 2018, Zukran, along with another lawyer, argued that Apple
failed to warn consumers of Quebec's legal warranty in the act and
the fact that it requires manufacturers to guarantee their
products, in this case, the phone's battery, for a reasonable
amount of time.
The ruling went against Apple, and the Quebec Court of Appeal
upheld the decision in 2021.[GN]
ASCENT FUNDING: Palmer Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ascent Funding, LLC.
The case is styled as Alec Palmer, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated v. Ascent Funding, LLC, Case No.
2024-12853-CIDL (Fla. Cir. Ct., Volusia Cty., Sept. 3, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Business Transactions."
Ascent Funding -- https://www.ascentfunding.com/ -- is a private
loan organization that puts students first by providing student
loans for college and consumer loans for bootcamps.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
ATKORE INC: Faces Wrobbel Suit Over PVC Pipe Price Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------
BLAKE WROBBEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ATKORE INC.; CANTEX INC.; DIAMOND PLASTICS
CORPORATION; IPEX USA LLC; JET STREAM, INC.; J-M MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC. d/b/a JM EAGLE; NATIONAL PIPE & PLASTICS, INC.; OIL
PRICE INFORMATION SERVICE, LLC; OTTER TAIL CORPORATION; PRIME
CONDUIT, INC.; SANDERSON PIPE CORPORATION; SOUTHERN PIPE & SUPPLY
COMPANY, INC.; and WESTLAKE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-08012 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 3, 2024) alleges violation of the
Sherman Act.
The Plaintiff in the complaint alleges that the Defendants are
engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to fix, raise, maintain,
stabilize, or otherwise manipulate the price of polyvinyl chloride
("PVC") pipe sold and purchased throughout the United States from
at least as early as January 1, 2021 to the present (the "Class
Period").
During the Class Period, the Defendants entered into an agreement
to reduce competition by fixing and manipulating the prices of PVC
pipe sold in the United States. This conspiracy to manipulate PVC
pipe prices caused injury to both Plaintiff and the Class by
depriving them of the benefit of competitive PVC pipe prices
reflecting true market fundamentals during and following
Defendants' unlawful conduct, and thus, Plaintiff and the Class
received less in value than they would have received absent
Defendants' wrongful conduct, says the suit.
Atkore Inc manufactures and supplies metal products and electrical
raceway solutions. The Company offers steel tubes and pipes,
electrical conduit, armored wire and cable, cable trays, metal
framing systems, and building components. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Ave., 24th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
Email: brian.hogan@scott-scott.com
kgarvey@scott-scott.com
- and -
Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
Carmen Medici, Esq.
Daniel J. Brockwell, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
Email: pcoughlin@scott-scott.com
cmedici@scott-scott.com
dbrockwell@scott-scott.com
- and -
Patrick McGahan, Esq.
Michael Srodoski, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
156 South Main Street
P.O. Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
Telephone: (860) 537-5537
Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
Email: pmcgahan@scott-scott.com
AUSTRALIA: Settles Historic Stolen Wages Class Action for $202MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Myles Houlbrook-Walk, writing for ABC News, reports that the
federal government has settled a historic stolen wages class action
in the Northern Territory for up to $202 million.
The class action was brought by Minnie McDonald, on behalf of
thousands of First Nations people who worked in the territory
between 1933 and 1971 and their relatives.
What's next?
A Federal Court hearing to approve the settlement is expected to be
held later this year, and eligible applicants will be determined
through registration.
A historic stolen wages class action brought on behalf of thousands
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers and their
relatives in the Northern Territory has been settled with the
Commonwealth for up to $202 million.
Brought by lead applicant Minnie McDonald, the class action was
filed in the Federal Court in June 2021 on behalf of First Nations
people who worked in the Northern Territory between 1933 and 1971.
Under federal wage control legislation in place at the time,
Indigenous workers could either be paid no money at all or
significantly less than non-Indigenous workers.
During hearings held across the NT last year, the court heard many
of the potential claimants worked as stockmen, farmhands, laundry
assistants and kitchen hands.
Ms McDonald said that the time, many Aboriginal people, including
herself, had grown up on stations and had their entire families
working subject to the wage control laws.
She said it was sad that many impacted workers had since died and
would never see the money they were rightfully owed.
"A lot of those people we worked with are gone now," she said.
"This is about all the people who were working everywhere and never
got paid nothing."
The $202 million settlement figure was agreed to after mediation
between lawyers for the government and Shine Lawyers.
Shine Lawyers joint head of class actions Vicky Antzoulatos said
there could be as many as 10,000 applicants once an planned
outreach program was completed, with several thousand already
signed up.
She said that while compensation payments couldn't undo the wage
theft, they would be a meaningful attempt at righting the wrong.
"It was a terrible chapter in this nation's history," she said.
"I acknowledge the efforts of the Commonwealth government to
recognise that, to reach this settlement and to attempt to bring
reconciliation to these events."
Federal Indigenous Australians Minister Malarndirri McCarthy
welcomed the settlement announcement on Friday, saying the case was
a step towards righting a "shameful chapter" in history.
"This is a significant step towards fixing the wrongs of the past
and I acknowledge Minnie McDonald and every First Nations person
involved in bringing this class action forward to seek redress and
healing," she said.
"The NT historical wages class action concerns a deeply regrettable
and shameful chapter in Australian history.
"It is my hope that, if approved, the settlement will bring closure
to many First Nations people impacted by these Commonwealth laws."
Similar cases in Western Australia and Queensland have been settled
in recent years, resulted in payouts to First Nations workers over
unpaid wages.
Wait for compensation to be awarded
The timeline for when eligible applicants will receive payments is
yet to be determined.
The Federal Court of Australia will need to approve the settlement
at a hearing, which could take place later this year.
In a statement, Shine Lawyers said claimants would need to be
registered to be considered for compensation part of the
settlement.
The firm said the registration process was expected to start in
October, subject to court orders.
"The Court will decide the amount to be received by each eligible
Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander worker or their family
members who register," the statement said.
Ms Antzoulatos said lawyers from Shine would travel around the NT
and speak to claimants about registering to receive money.
"We hope that payments will start to be received in the first half
of next year," she said.
A spokesperson for Ms McCarthy said interim payments for eligible
living applicants would be given priority. [GN]
BEL-BORN MANAGEMENT: Herrera Sues Over Website's ADA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEL-BORN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-06711 (S.D.N.Y., September 4, 2024) arises from
Defendant's 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.
Plaintiff Herrera alleges that the Defendant violated the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law by, among other things, failing to
make its website available in a manner compatible with computer
screen reader programs.
Bel-Born Management Corporation operates the Village Hat Shop
online retail store, as well as the Village Hat Shop interactive
website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New
York and throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
BERLIN, NJ: McCarroll Seeks Refund of Excessive Registration Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIK McCARROLL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOROUGH OF BERLIN, NEW JERSEY; and CAMDEN
COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, Defendants, Case No. CAM-L-002444-24 (N.J.
Sup., Camden Cty., August 8, 2024) is a class action, filed under
New Jersey law, on behalf of the Plaintiff and a proposed class of
New Jersey citizens who were charged unlawful "abandoned" property
registration fees of between $500 and $3,000 as part of Defendant
Borough of Berlin's Registration Program for Vacant and Abandoned
Properties.
According to the complaint, the Borough of Berlin's ordinances
authorizing the creation and administration of the unlawful
Program, and the Program itself -- which ran approximately from
2014 through 2022 -- were unconstitutional, ultra vires, and
contrary to New Jersey law, in that: the mandatory registration
fees charged to class members under the Program of between $500 and
$3,000 per year per property greatly exceeded the actual costs of
the Program. Thus, the Program was not a proper exercise of police
powers and instead was an unlawful revenue-raising measure of a
type barred by New Jersey law and which the Borough of Berlin was
not legally empowered to enact.
This lawsuit seeks, inter alia, an order directing that the annual
registration fees of between $500 and $3,000 per property which
were assessed and paid to Defendants by Plaintiff and the class
under the unlawful Program be refunded.
Borough of Berlin is located in Camden County, New Jersey, and is
organized as a municipality under the constitution and laws of the
State of New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq.
Shane T. Prince, Esq.
DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
Marlton, NJ 08053
Telephone: (856) 797-9951
- and -
Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
Geoffrey J. Smith, Esq.
JAVERBAUM, WURGAFT, HICKS, KAHN,
WIKSTROM & SININS, P.C.
1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Rd., Ste. 203
Voorhees, NJ 08043
Telephone: (856) 596-4100
BUZZFEED INC: Settles Data Sharing Class Suit for $9-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that a $9 million BuzzFeed settlement
resolves claims the website shared user information with Facebook
in violation of federal privacy laws.
The settlement benefits BuzzFeed account holders or digital
newsletter subscribers who accessed a video through a Buzzfeed
website (buzzfeed.com, huffpost.com, tasty.com and complex.com)
between May 16, 2021, and Nov. 10, 2023.
According to the class action lawsuit, BuzzFeed shared user
information with Facebook without their consent. This information
sharing allegedly violated the federal Video Privacy Protection
Act.
BuzzFeed is a digital media company that publishes articles,
interviews, videos and other content.
BuzzFeed hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $9
million to resolve the VPPA class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the BuzzFeed settlement, class members will
receive a payment of up to $8 and a free one-year subscription to
BuzzFeed+ valued at over $35.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 14, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct.
18, 2024.
To receive BuzzFeed settlement payments and other benefits, class
members must submit a valid claim form by the date included in
their email settlement notice.
Who's Eligible
BuzzFeed account holders or digital newsletter subscribers who
accessed a video through a Buzzfeed website (buzzfeed.com,
huffpost.com, tasty.com and complex.com) between May 16, 2021, and
Nov. 10, 2023
Potential Award
$8
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Claim Form Deadline
11/05/2024
Case Name
Peters v. BuzzFeed Inc., Case No. CACE-24-004380, in the 17th
Judicial Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida
Final Hearing
10/18/2024
Settlement Website
BFVPPASettlement.com
Claims Administrator
BuzzFeed VPPA Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 2753
Portland, OR 97208-2753
info@BFVPPASettlement.com
(877) 438-1665
Class Counsel
Gary M Klinger
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
Scott Edelsberg
EDELSBERG LAW PA
Andrew Shamis
SHAMIS & GENTILE PA
Defense Counsel
Joel Griswold
Bonnie Keane DelGobbo
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP [GN]
C&S WHOLESALE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Goodman Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
ZIEGO GOODMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. C&S WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 24080097 (Comm. Pleas., Philadelphia Cty., Aug. 6, 2024) seeks
to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs.
Plaintiff Goodman was employed by the Defendant as a warehouse
employee.
C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.is an industry leader in supply chain
solutions and wholesale grocery supply in the United States and
services customers of all sizes, supplying more than 7,500
independent supermarkets, chain stores, military bases and
institutions with over 100,000 different products [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
Mark Gottesfeld, Esq.
Deirdre Aaron, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
C3.AI INC: Has Until Sept. 26 to File Reply Brief
-------------------------------------------------
C3.ai Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending July 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 4, 2024, that the defendants have filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint by the Reckstin
Family Trust. Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief on July 15,
2024, and defendants' reply briefs are presently due September 26,
2024.
On March 4, 2022, a putative securities class action complaint
(captioned The Reckstin Family Trust v. C3.ai, Inc. et al.,
22-cv-01413-HSG) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company, and certain
current and former officers and directors.
On December 12, 2022, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.
On February 15, 2023, the lead plaintiff and three additional named
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint names as defendants the Company, four current
and former officers and directors, the underwriters in the
Company's initial public offering ("IPO"), and Baker Hughes Company
("Baker Hughes").
The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants made
material misstatements or omissions about the Company's partnership
with Baker Hughes and the Company's own salesforce.
The amended complaint alleges that defendants made these
misstatements or omissions in connection with the Company's IPO in
violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
between December 9, 2020 and December 2, 2021, inclusive, in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
The amended complaint further alleges that certain defendants
engaged in insider trading in violation of Section 20A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages, interest, fees and costs.
All defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint on
May 1, 2023.
On June 30, 2023, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the underwriter
defendants.
On February 22, 2024, the court granted the motion to dismiss on
all claims except for portions of the alleged violations of Section
11 and Section 15.
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on April 4, 2024.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss on May 17, 2024.
C3.ai, Inc. is an enterprise artificial intelligence (AI) software
provider with prebuilt and configurable AI applications for
business use cases including predictive maintenance, fraud
detection, sensor network health, supply network optimization,
energy management, anti-money laundering and customer engagement.
CALIFORNIA TEACHING: Faces Gash Class Suit in Fresno, Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against California Teaching Fellows
Foundation captioned as VIOLET GASH, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA TEACHING FELLOWS
FOUNDATION, Defendant, Case No. 24CECG03347 ( Cal., Sup., Fresno
Cty., Aug. 6, 2024).
The case is assigned to Judge Tyler D. Tharpe.
California Teaching Fellows Foundation operates as a non-profit
organization. The Company focuses develops teachers and leaders who
contribute to positive changes in the lives of students and
schools. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
Aparajit Bhowmick, Esq.
Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq.
Jeffrey S. Herman, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
CARESPRING HEALTH: Valentine Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Valentine and Tiffany Callahan II, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. CARESPRING HEALTH CARE
HOLDINGS, L.P., Case No. 1:24-cv-00481-SJD (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 4,
2024), is brought arising out of the cyberattack and data breach
that occurred from approximately October 12 to October 30, 2023,
and of which Defendant became aware on July 16, 2024 ("Data
Breach") by threat actor NoEscape, resulting from Defendant's
failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security
practices.
Despite warnings about NoEscape as early as May 2023, Defendant was
unprepared when several months later, NoEscape executed its
well-known attack pattern to encrypt and steal the highly sensitive
data in Defendant's possession. Defendant did not protect itself
from this known threat. In fact, it not only failed to meet
regulatory and industry standards for cybersecurity, but also
failed to take basic security measures like data encryption and
destruction of obsolete data.
As a result, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive personal
information, including names; addresses; dates of birth; Social
Security numbers ("PII"); medical information; health insurance
information; and medical diagnoses information ("PHI", together
"Private Information), which they entrusted to Defendant on the
mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against
disclosure—were compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the
Data Breach.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach was
exfiltrated by threat actor NoEscape and remains in the hands of
those cyber criminals who targeted the Private Information for its
value to identity thieves. The Data Breach was a direct result of
Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect its
patients' Private Information from a foreseeable and preventable
cyber-attack.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs and Class
Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or
negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized
intrusions; failing to disclose that they did not have adequately
robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard Class
Members' Private Information; failing to take standard and
reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing
to provide Plaintiffs and Class Members prompt and accurate notice
of the Data Breach, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs provided their sensitive personal information to the
Defendant.
The Defendant is one of the region's preeminent care services
providers--including independent living; assisted living; nursing
homes; skilled nursing services; memory care; and rehabilitative
care--operating 18 facilities through Cincinnati, Dayton, and
Northern Kentucky.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
Isabel C. DeMarco, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com
dgould@msdlegal.com
idemarco@msdlegal.com
CASINO QUEEN: Agrees to Settle ESOP Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for Madison - St. Clair Record, reports that
former owners of Casino Queen settled a claim that they
deliberately sold the casino to employees on terms that nearly
wiped out their $180 million pension plan.
Ryan Wheeler of Washington D.C., one of eight lawyers representing
pension plan participants, reported the settlement to U.S. District
Judge David Dugan on Sept. 3.
He asked Dugan for a Nov. 11 deadline to file a motion for
preliminary approval.
Dugan denied certification of a class action this year but
plaintiffs asked Seventh Circuit appellate judges for permission to
appeal and they granted it in 28 days.
Pension plan participants Tom Hensiek and Jason Gill sued former
owners Charles Bidwill III, Timothy Rand, and James Koman in 2020.
Hensiek and Gill alleged fraud, concealment, and breach of
fiduciary duties.
The lawsuit named former casino manager Robert Barrows and former
president Jeffrey Watson, now a St. Clair County associate judge,
as defendants.
Board of directors of Casino Queen Holding Company and trustees of
the Casino Queen employee stock ownership plan also were named as
defendants.
Plaintiffs claimed defendants couldn't find a buyer so they created
an employee ownership plan and sold the property to the plan for
about $180 million in 2012.
They claimed participants received annual statements showing the
value of a share increased every year until 2019, when they
received a statement that it dropped by 95%.
They later added more defendants and in 2022 they moved for class
certification.
Defendants opposed it, arguing that federal law limited retirement
suits to six years and state law limited them to five years.
Dugan denied class certification in February, finding superficial
common questions did not satisfy class action requirements.
He found it likely that each employee learned different pieces of
information that might have affected their knowledge of their
claims at different times.
Plaintiff counsel Michelle Yau of Washington, D.C. petitioned for
appellate review on March 11.
She claimed Dugan considered individual questions relating to
limitation periods but didn't consider questions that would result
in classwide answers.
"This is particularly egregious given that only a single common
question is required," Yau wrote.
She claimed the concealment question in retirement cases requires
no individual inquiries because proof is based on actions of
defendants, not on facts unique to individuals.
She claimed defendants forced employees to purchase Casino Queen
for an inflated price.
She also claimed they used a complicated structure to conceal the
illegality of the transaction and evade liability.
They were alleged to have hid underlying loans at 17% interest to
be paid to the sellers indirectly by the plan while they disclosed
2.4% interest the plan paid directly. Annual statements to
participants and annual filings with the U.S. labor department
misrepresented the value of stock.
Yau claimed they distributed newsletters and made presentations to
employees showing the value of stock was growing over time until
its sudden collapse.
She claimed plaintiffs asked common questions about whether U.S.
retirement law prohibited the transaction, whether the plan
purchased stock for more than market value and whether defendants
concealed unlawful conduct.
She claimed they asked a common question about the amount of losses
the plan suffered.
She claimed retirement law extends the limitations period for fraud
and concealment.
She claimed concealment by its nature is not relied upon and the
Seventh Circuit never required proof of reliance in a concealment
case.
She claimed the Seventh Circuit held the opposite, that the key to
finding fraudulent concealment is some act on the part of a
defendant designed to avoid detection.
She claimed not even diligent participants could know the stock
price was inflated because they did not have access to full
valuations.
She claimed consistent misrepresentations lulled them into a false
sense of security.
She claimed the case didn't need individual inquiries because
plaintiffs would restore all losses to the plan.
"How that recovery will be allocated by the plan to different class
members is not a question that affects class certification," she
wrote.
Defendants opposed an appeal on March 21 in a brief by Ann Barron
of Heyl Royster in Edwardsville, the only local lawyer among 30
lawyers representing defendants.
Barron represents Shauna Bidwill Valenzuela.
She claimed plaintiffs alleged a small subset of defendants made
misstatements to conceal the alleged overpayment which they claim
they did not discover until 2019.
"Plaintiffs do not allege that defendants made a single uniform
fraudulent statement to all participants," Barron wrote.
"Rather, they assert that certain defendants made various
misstatements to various employees at various times and in various
forms."
She claimed meetings were staggered to ensure that those on
different shifts could attend and information at each session was
not identical.
She claimed labor department forms weren't sent to participants but
were available on the department's website.
"The Order does not require any appellate review, let alone this
court's immediate interlocutory review," she wrote.
Circuit judges Frank Easterbrook, Ilana Rover and John Lee
disagreed and granted an appeal on April 8.
The combination of Dugan's decision for the defendants and the
Seventh Circuit's decision for the plaintiffs stimulated
negotiations.
Dugan stayed his proceedings and plaintiffs didn't even file an
appeal brief.
In August, Dugan extended the stay to Sept. 3.
Wheeler's settlement notice showed the parties settled on that
date.
Roster of defendants:
Corporate defendants: Board of directors of Casino Queen Holding
Company, administrative committee of Casino Queen employee stock
ownership plan, and trustees of the plan.
Individual defendants: Charles Bidwill III, Timothy Rand, James
Koman, Jeffrey Watson, Robert Barrows, Mary Bidwill, Brian Bidwill,
Patricia Bidwill, and Shauna Bidwill Valenzuela.
Trust defendants: Karen Hamilton Irrevocable Trust, William Koman
Jr. Irrevocable Trust, William Koman Sr. Living Trust, Elizabeth
Koman Irrevocable Trust, Janis Koman Irrevocable Trust, James Koman
Irrevocable Trust, and all their beneficiaries. [GN]
CLAYTON RUBLE: Swindler Files Suit in D. Oregon
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lt. Clayton Ruble, et
al. The case is styled as Allen Lloyd Swindler, others similarly
situated v. Lt. Clayton Ruble, Douglas County Jail, Sheriff John
Hanlin, Case No. 6:24-cv-01465-AB (D. Ore., Sept. 3, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
Lt. Clayton Ruble was nominated unanimously by the supervisors in
the Corrections Division as the Corrections Deputy of the
Year.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
CLEO AI: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Franklin Suit to 4th Cir
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CLEO AI INC. is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit
entitled Shamia Franklin, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cleo AI Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00626, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland.
The Plaintiffs bring this action, on behalf of themselves and a
class of all similarly situated persons, under the Maryland
Consumer Loan Law (CLL), Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA), and
Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA).
On Apr. 26, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to compel
arbitration or dismiss for forum non conveniens.
On June 11, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
surreply.
On July 19, 2024, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration or dismiss for forum non conveniens and granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file surreply through an Order
entered by Judge J. Mark Coulson. The Court finds that the
Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of demonstrating that the
forum-selection clause here is unreasonable.
The appellate case is captioned Shamia Franklin v. Cleo AI Inc.,
Case No. 24-1817, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit, filed on August 27, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees SHAMIA FRANKLIN, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP
412 H. Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 407-3520
Defendant-Appellant CLEO AI INC. is represented by:
Jonathan Michael Stern, Esq.
VICTOR RANE, PLC
1200 G. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 545-7768
COLE HAAN: Faces Villaverde Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA VILLAVERDE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. COLE HAAN COMPANY STORE, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. CACE-24-011166 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Aug. 6, 2024) seeks to
stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls pursuant
to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Cole-Haan Company Store, LLC operates as an online clothing store.
The Company provides apparel, bags, accessories, and footwear for
men, women, and children. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave
Dunedin, FL 34698
Telephone: (202) 709-5744
Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
D&A HAULING: Lopez Sues Over Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------
DAVID LOPEZ, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. D&A HAULING AND CONSTRUCTION, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-02088-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla., September 4,
2024) arises out of Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Lopez was employed with the Defendant from May 24, 2022,
until June 29, 2024 as a dump truck driver. He regularly worked
hours over 40 in a work week, however he was not compensated for
the required overtime premium. In addition, Defendant illegally
classified him as an independent contractor, says the Plaintiff.
D&A Hauling and Construction, LLC transports building maintenance,
construction, and waste materials in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
Lutz, FL 33558
Telephone (727) 220-4000
Facsimile (727) 483-7942
E-mail: miguel@fgbolaw.com
debbie@fgbolaw.com
DIGITAL TRUST: Meagher Sues Over Private Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
KEVIN MEAGHER, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. DIGITAL TRUST, LLC
F/K/A THE KINGDOM TRUST COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-1630
(D. Nev., September 4, 2024) arises from Digital Trust's failure to
protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class's highly sensitive
personally identifiable information.
As a result of Digital Trust's negligence and insufficient data
security, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's
inadequately protected computer systems and stole the PII of
Plaintiff and the Class on March 1, 2024. However, Digital Trust
did not begin notifying individuals of the data breach until on or
around August 1, 2024. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims
for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party
beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and for declaratory and
injunctive relief.
Headquartered in Las Vegas, NV, Digital Trust, LLC operates as an
independent qualified custodian for the assets of clients of
registered investment advisors, broker-dealers and investment
sponsors. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick R. Leverty, Esq.
William R. Ginn, Esq.
LEVERTY AND ASSOCIATES LAW, CHTD
832 Willow Street
Reno, NV 89502
Telephone: (775)322-6636
E-mail: pat@levertylaw.com
bill@levertylaw.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
Kennedy M. Brian, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
kpb@federmanlaw.com
ELITE ONE: Wesley Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Jackallisa Wesley, individually, and on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. ELITE ONE PROTECTION SERVICES, LLC and
JUAN C. SETTLES, Individually, Case No. 2:24-cv-02620 (W.D. Tenn.,
Sept. 4, 2024), is brought under this Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") for unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation.
The Defendants had a common policy and practice of failing to pay
Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per week within weekly pay periods at one and one-half
their regular hourly rates of pay for all such overtime hours. The
Defendants also had a common practice of requiring Plaintiff and
those similarly situated to falsify their compensable hours of work
to a lower number so Defendants could avoid paying them for all
their compensable hours of work at the applicable FLSA minimum wage
and overtime compensation rates of pay within weekly pay periods,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an adult citizen of the United States and was
employed as a security guard by Defendants.
The Defendants provide security services to customers in Tennessee,
Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood, IV, Esq.
Joshua Autry, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Phone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
jbryant@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
jautry@jsyc.com
EQUITY ONE: Property Has Architectural Barriers, Pardo Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff, v. EQUITY ONE (COUNTRY
WALK) LLC and MAMMA MIA PIZZERIA RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a MAMMA MIA
PIZZERIA, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-23268 (S.D. Fla., August 27,
2024) is an action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired
individuals, against the Defendant for injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Defendant, EQUITY ONE, owns and operates a commercial property
in Miami, Florida. Defendant MAMMA MIA PIZZERIA RESTAURANT owns and
operates a commercial restaurant within the property.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff Pardo found the commercial
property and commercial restaurant business located within the
property to be rife with ADA violations due to architectural
barriers. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property
and commercial restaurant business has each denied or diminished
Plaintiff's ability to visit the place and has endangered his
safety in violation of the ADA, says the suit.
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, the suit asserts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Telephone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
FIBCO INC: Does not Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Santiago Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES SANTIAGO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FIBCO, INC., a Florida Corporation, and DONALD L.
BRADDY, JR., an individual, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case
No. 4:24-cv-00343-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla., August 28, 2024) is a
collective action brought against the Defendants pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime and
compensation owed to Plaintiff and all others similarly situated.
Plaintiff Santiago was employed as an hourly wage fiber optic cable
splicer by Defendants for the previous four years until his
separation from employment in August 2024. He asserts that
Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay him for all overtime
hours worked in excess of 40 per week at the applicable time and
one-half rate.
Fibco, Inc. engages in fiber optic cable installation business
headquartered in Jackson County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Norell, Esq.
ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
300 N.W. 70th Avenue Suite 305
Plantation, FL 33317
Telephone: (954) 617-6017
Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com
FLORIDA: Judge Approves Settlement in Medicaid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Saunders of The News Service of Florida, reports that a federal
magistrate judge Tuesday, September 3, approved a class-action
lawsuit settlement requiring Florida's Medicaid program to provide
incontinence supplies to adults with disabilities.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Patricia Barksdale issued a six-page order
approving the settlement reached by lawyers for the state Agency
for Health Care Administration and two women with disabilities and
the advocacy group Disability Rights Florida.
The settlement had been in the works for more than a year,
including the Agency for Health Care Administration going through a
rule-making process to provide "medically necessary" incontinence
supplies to adults, according to court documents.
"Through the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs will receive the
relief they sued to obtain," Barksdale wrote in the said order.
"Absent settlement, litigation would resume with its attendant
cost, delay and risk. The proposed method of delivering relief to
the class is effective; specifically, the ordinary process for
obtaining Medicaid benefits and the provision of provider and plan
alerts about the policy change."
A Jan. 17 joint motion that sought a preliminary review of the
proposed settlement said the Agency for Health Care Administration
adopted a final rule on providing incontinence supplies in
December.
"In short, AHCA (the agency) intends to amend all AHCA policies,
fee schedules, and administrative rules necessary . . . for the
coverage of incontinence supplies," the joint motion said. "If the
rulemaking process and AHCA's amendment of all policies, fee
schedules, and administrative rules results in coverage of
incontinence supplies, the parties agree that they will file a
joint motion for voluntary dismissal of this litigation . . . and,
upon order of the court, AHCA will pay plaintiffs $50,000 in full
satisfaction of attorneys' fees and costs."
Barksdale's order directed the agency to pay $50,000 in attorney
fees to the plaintiffs by Oct. 3 and said the parties must file a
joint motion to dismiss the case by Sept. 10.
The lawsuit, filed in July 2022, alleged the Medicaid program
violated federal laws by denying coverage of incontinence supplies
to adults with disabilities. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of
Duval County resident Blanca Meza and St. Johns County resident
Destiny Belanger, who are incontinent and unable to care for
themselves, with Disability Rights Florida also a plaintiff.
U.S. District Judge Marcia Morales Howard in March 2023 certified
the case as a class action. Morales Howard's decision cited one
estimate that at least 480 Medicaid beneficiaries a year turn 21
and lose coverage for incontinence supplies that they received as
children. The state has provided the supplies, such as briefs,
diapers and underpads, for Medicaid beneficiaries under age 21 and
for certain adults, including people in nursing homes.
The lawsuit alleged that the state's policy of not providing
incontinence supplies to other adults violated federal Medicaid law
and laws including the Americans with Disabilities Act. It said the
state stopped providing the supplies to Meza and Belanger after
they turned 21, though they were incontinent and unable to care for
themselves.
As an example of their disabilities, the lawsuit said Meza "is
diagnosed with spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, muscle
spasticity, neuromuscular scoliosis and partial epilepsy."
"Plaintiffs are medically fragile adults each with bladder and
bowel incontinence," the lawsuit said. "As low-income Florida
residents with significant disabilities, they receive their health
services through Florida's Medicaid program. Plaintiffs' physicians
have prescribed certain incontinence supplies, including briefs and
underpads, as medically necessary to treat plaintiffs'
incontinence, keep their skin dry and clean, prevent skin
breakdowns and infections and maintain their ability to live in the
community." [GN]
FOCUS BUILDERS: Carpenters-Contractors Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARPENTERS-CONTRACTORS COOPERATION COMMITTEE, INC., a California
Nonprofit Corporation, Plaintiff v. FOCUS BUILDERS, INC. a
California Corporation, AMF CONSTRUCTION & ASSOCIATES, INC., a
California Corporation, and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
24STCV20034 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 8, 2024) arises
from the Defendants' failure to pay for each hour worked at the
appropriate rate pursuant to the California Labor Code.
The suit arises from the Defendants' failure to pay wages owed to
carpenter laborers on a construction project in Los Angeles,
California. Specifically, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for
all hours worked during the course of the project, failed to pay
for overtime hours worked, failed to pay for rest and recovery
time, failed to provide with paid sick leave, and failed to provide
with tools and equipment necessary for the performance of their
work.
The Plaintiff relates that Defendant Focus entered into a
subcontract with Defendant AMF for the project sometime between
January and August 2023. The Plaintiff and similarly situated wage
claimants performed carpentry work and general labor on the project
and worked directly for subcontractor AMF.
Focus Builders, Inc. is a California-based custom home building
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Desmond C. Lee, Esq.
Samantha B. Pastor, Esq.
SHANLEY APC
533 South Fremont Avenue, 9th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-4100
Facsimile: (213) 488-4180
E-mail: dlee@deconsel.com
spastor@shanleyapc.com
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Sabrowski Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jeffrey Sabrowski, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS PARENT
INC., Case No. CVRI2404189 was removed from the Superior Court of
California, Riverside County, to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on Sept. 3, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01873.
The Plaintiff asserts three claims: alleged violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law; alleged violations of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; and breach of contract
and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Plaintiff
seeks "compensatory, statutory, and punitive" damages;
"restitution," "disgorgement," injunctive and declaratory relief,
"pre- and post-judgment interest," and attorneys' fees and
costs.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Archis A. Parasharami, Esq.
Kevin S. Ranlett, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 263-3000
Facsimile: (202) 263-3300
Email: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com
kranlett@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Max W. Hirsch, Esq.
Charles L.J. Turner, Esq.
333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4700
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 229-9500
Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
Email: mhirsch@mayerbrown.com
clturner@mayerbrown.com
FURTHERED INC: Ezpeleta Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FurtherEd, Inc. The
case is styled as Diego Alvarez-Miranda Ezpeleta, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FurtherEd, Inc. doing
business as: Lawline, Case No. 1:24-cv-06709 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 4,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
FurtherEd, Inc. doing business as Lawline --
https://www.lawline.com/ -- provides unlimited online CLE courses
for attorneys striving for engaging, relevant CLE and professional
growth content.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elliot Omega Preston Jackson, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
1395 Brickell Ave,, Ste. 610
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 357-2107
Email: ejackson@hedinllp.com
GINKGO BIOWORKS: Class Settlement Hearing Set December 5
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California Oakland Division has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit purchasers of Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc.
common stock (NYSE: DNA):
NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO (1) purchased or otherwise acquired shares in
Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. ("Ginkgo," including by way of
exchange of Soaring Eagle Acquisition Corp., f/k/a Spinning Eagle
Acquisition Corp. ("SRNG") shares) pursuant or traceable to the
proxy/registration statement (the "Proxy/Registration Statement")
that Defendants filed with the SEC on Form S-4 on May 14, 2021, and
that was thereafter amended on Forms S-4/A on June 28, 2021, July
16, 2021, August 4, 2021, and August 9, 2021 and the body of which
was incorporated into the final prospectus on Form 424(b)(3) filed
on August 13, 2021; (2) were solicited to approve the Ginkgo
Bioworks, Inc.-SRNG merger and to retain rather than redeem SRNG
shares pursuant to the Proxy/Registration Statement, and/or (3)
purchased or otherwise acquired in a public offering or on public
markets securities of Ginkgo (including its predecessor SRNG)
between May 11, 2021 and October 5, 2021, both dates inclusive:
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, that a hearing will be
held on December 5, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. before the Honorable Kandis
A. Westmore, United States Magistrate Judge, at the courthouse for
the Northern District of California, telephonically, on Zoom,
and/or at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612 for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in
the above-captioned Action for consideration in the amount of
seventeen million seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars
($17,750,000.00) should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the Plan of Allocation is
fair and reasonable, and should be approved; (3) whether Class
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees of up to
twenty-five percent (25%) and any interest accrued thereon, and
reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses of not more than $325,000
and any interest accrued thereon, and a compensatory award for Lead
Plaintiff of not more than $5,000, all to be paid from the
Settlement Fund, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action
should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated April 4, 2024 (the
"Stipulation") filed with the Court.
You are receiving this Notice because the Court has preliminarily
certified a class of investors for settlement purposes only
("Class"), and you may be a member of the Class ("Class Member").
The proposed Class will consist of all persons or entities who (1)
purchased or otherwise acquired shares in Ginkgo, including by way
of exchange SRNG shares, pursuant or traceable to the
Proxy/Registration Statement that Defendants filed with the SEC on
Form S-4 on May 14, 2021, and that was thereafter amended on Forms
S-4/A on June 28, 2021, July 16, 2021, August 4, 2021, and August
9, 2021 and the body of which was incorporated into the final
prospectus on Form 424(b)(3) filed on August 13, 2021; (2) were
solicited to approve the Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc.-SRNG merger and to
retain rather than redeem SRNG shares pursuant to the
Proxy/Registration Statement; and/or (3) purchased or otherwise
acquired in a public offering or on public markets securities of
Ginkgo (including its predecessor SRNG) between May 11, 2021 and
October 5, 2021, both dates inclusive. Excluded from the Class are:
(a) Defendants and their immediate families; (b) current and former
directors of Ginkgo or SRNG; (c) any entity that has entered into a
stockholder agreement or co-venture agreement with Ginkgo, or was a
Private Investment in Public Equities ("PIPE") investor in Ginkgo;
and (d) any entity controlled, majority-owned or wholly owned, or
affiliated with any of the above.
If you purchased or acquired Ginkgo common stock between May 11,
2021 and November 15, 2021, your rights may be affected by this
Action and the Settlement thereof, including the release and
extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership
interest in Ginkgo common stock. If you have not received a
more-detailed, Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed
Class Action Settlement ("Notice") and the Proof of Claim and
Release Form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies of these
documents and the Stipulation by downloading them at the Settlement
website at: www.GinkgoSecuritiesSettlement.com. If you are unable
to do so, you may contact the Settlement Administrator to obtain
copies:
Ginkgo Bioworks Securities Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205
Media, PA 19063
Toll-free: (866) 274-4004
Fax: (610) 565-7985
info@strategicclaims.net
The case has been litigated since November, 2021. Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants made false and misleading statements in the
Proxy/Registration Statement it used to merge with SRNG and go
public, including: (a) inaccurately describing related party deals
impacting reported revenue and deferred revenue; (b) inaccurately
describing the value of certain services it performed; (c)
misrepresenting certain related parties as independent; and (d)
overstating the amount of non-related party revenue Ginkgo
generated. SRNG investors, having received the allegedly inaccurate
disclosures in the Proxy/Registration Statement, on September 14,
2021: (1) approved the merger, effecting the initial public
offering of Ginkgo shares, and (2) determined whether to exercise
their right of redemption for $10 per share or to receive in an
exchange a share of Ginkgo. Lead Plaintiff alleges that the
inaccuracies in the Proxy/Registration Statement violated Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lead Plaintiff also alleges that a
subset of Defendants violated Exchange Act Section 10(b) by making
misrepresentations to investors with the required "scienter."
Defendants have denied and continue to deny these allegations and
that they committed any act or omission giving rise to any
liability or violation of the law. The Settlement will resolve the
lawsuit and the Released Claims as to the Defendants and other
Released Parties. Plaintiff and the Class are represented by Class
Counsel, who may be reached by contacting: Joshua B. Silverman,
Pomerantz LLP, 10 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3505, Chicago, IL 60603,
(312) 377-1181.
If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim online or
postmarked no later than November 21, 2024, establishing that you
are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion
request, you will be bound by any Judgment rendered in the Action
whether or not you make a claim.
If you want to be excluded from the Class, you must submit to the
Settlement Administrator a request for exclusion, in accordance
with the procedures set forth in the Notice, so that it is received
no later than November 21, 2024. If you decide to exclude yourself
from the Class and wish to file your own individual lawsuit based
on the Released Plaintiffs' Claims, Defendants may argue that you
face a time bar under applicable statutes of limitation or repose,
risks that you should discuss with an appropriate legal advisor.
All members of the Class who have not requested exclusion from the
Class will be bound by any Judgment entered in the Action pursuant
to the Stipulation.
If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself, you can
object to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Class Counsel's
request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses and compensatory award to Lead Plaintiff in the manner and
form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than
November 21, 2024.
Any questions regarding the Settlement should be directed to Class
Counsel.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE
DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
Dated: July 31, 2024
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [GN]
GITLAB INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired GitLab Inc. (NASDAQ: GTLB) securities between June 6, 2023
and March 4, 2024. GitLab is a global software company that designs
and develops software solutions.
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
GitLab Inc. (GTLB) Misled Investors Regarding Demand for its
Product
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
created the false impression that they possessed reliable
information pertaining to the Company's ability to develop and
incorporate AI throughout the software development cycle to
optimize code generation thereby increasing market demand and
making all levels of software development more affordable and
properly monetizing its AI features. In truth, there was weak
market demand for GitLab's touted AI features and the Company was
incurring an increasing amount of expenses involving JiHu, its
joint venture in China, as well as the annual company-wide summit.
Defendants misled investors by continually highlighting its
AI-driven innovations to develop software more efficiently and
drive market share demands.
Plaintiff alleges that on March 4, 2024, GitLab issued a press
release reporting strong Q1 2024 results and then immediately
followed this with a disclosure announcing lower than expected
full-year guidance for 2025. GitLab attributed it to time needed to
"build pipeline and close deals on new products." On this news, the
price of GitLab's common stock declined from $74.47 per share on
March 4, 2024, to $58.84 per share on March 5, 2024, a decline of
about 21%.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against GitLab Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class must submit their application to the court
by November 4, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a
recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent
class member. For more information, click here.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
GOBRANDS INC: Guerrero Alleges Labor Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Joel Guerrero, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. GoPuff, GoBrands, Inc., Yakir Gola, Rafael, Ilishayev,
and GB Logistics LLC, Defendants, Case No 1:24-cv-06727 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 4, 2024) arises from Defendants' rampant failure to pay
owed wages, rampant failures to pay minimum wage, and
misclassification of employees.
Plaintiff Guerrero has been a delivery driver for Defendants for
over three years. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff was
subjected to illegal employment practices. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants routinely violate the law, and rely extensively on
undocumented employees to act as delivery drivers. Moreover, he and
the class members are also paid as independent contractors, on a
1099, but they are, in all things, employees of Defendants, says
the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Philadelphia, PA, GoBrands Inc. is a consumer
goods and food delivery company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Walker G. Harman, Jr.
HARMAN GREEN PC
140 Broadway, Fl 46
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (646) 248-2288
E-mail: wharman@theharmanfirm.com
HAZEL BY JENNA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Gaspa Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA GASPA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Hazel by Jenna, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-08943 (D.N.J., September 4, 2024) seeks redress for
Defendant's actions which violate the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the ADA by failing
to make its website accessible to legally blind individuals. The
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's website contains access barriers
that make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to
enjoy and learn about the services at the website.
Hazel by Jenna, LLC operates the Hazelboutique.com online retail
store, which provides consumers with access to an array of goods
including information about purchasing clothing, accessories, and
home decor products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Thukral Alleges Failure to Secure Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DHRUV THUKRAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHEQUITY, INC., WAGEWORKS, INC., and
FURTHER OPERATIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00565-HCN-CMR
(D. Utah, August 8, 2024) is a class action against Defendants for
their failure to secure and safeguard his and approximately
4,300,000 other individuals' personally identifying information and
personal health information.
On or about March 25, 2024, HealthEquity discovered that an
unauthorized third party had gained access to its network systems
and obtained files containing the PII/PHI of Defendants' customers.
The Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class Members to
implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to
secure, protect, and safeguard Plaintiff's and similarly situated
customers' PII/PHI against unauthorized access and disclosure. The
Defendants breached that duty by, among other things, failing to
implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices
to protect their customers' PII/PHI from unauthorized access and
disclosure, says the suit.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other Class Members,
asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment,
violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act, and violations
of the California Customer Records Act, and seeks declaratory
relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages,
punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized
by law.
HealthEquity, WageWorks, and Further Operations are companies that
manage health savings accounts and other consumer-directed
benefits. HealthEquity is the parent company of WageWorks and
Further Operations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jared Scott, Esq.
Jacob W. Nelsom, Esq.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
50 West Broadway, Suite 600
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Telephone: (801) 534-1700
Facsimile: (801) 364-7697
E-mail: jscott@aklawfirm.com
jnelson@aklawfirm.com
- and -
Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com
HEINZ FUNERAL: Attorney Seeks Class-Action Status in DNA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Hundsdorfer, writing for Illinois Times, reports that as many
as 800 families across the country who patronized a Carlinville
funeral home may never know if the remains on their mantles belong
to their loved ones, according to an affidavit signed by Sangamon
County Coroner Jim Allmon.
The affidavit was filed in a lawsuit pending against
Carlinville-based Heinz Funeral Home and its director August Heinz
for mishandling remains and providing the wrong cremated remains to
family members.
The number of families is based on the number of clients Heinz
handled between 2017, the time of the first known allegation, and
2023. Cremated remains cannot be identified by using DNA because
they are degraded during the incineration process, so families can
never be fully sure whether the remains given to them by Heinz are
truly those of their loved ones.
The affidavit stated that Allmon confirmed 75 cases of families
from across the country receiving incorrect cremains using existing
records.
In one of those cases, a woman prayed and talked to what she
thought was her mother's ashes every day.
"During the course of this investigation, someone had to go to her
and tell her that it wasn't mama," said Don Craven, who represents
one of the affected families.
The investigation also found that Heinz stored bodies in
unrefrigerated rooms at funeral homes, left them in the local
hospital morgues for weeks and mislabeled bodies and human remains
with the wrong names.
Don and Joe Craven, of the Springfield law firm of Craven & Craven,
are seeking to certify former clients of Heinz as a class in
lawsuit, stating those 800 families have similar claims under the
law.
The Cravens also serve as legal counsel for Capitol News Illinois.
At the time the Heinz case came to light, it wasn't immediately
clear if or how he might have broken the law. The Illinois State
Police investigated criminal wrongdoing, but as of Sept. 3, Heinz
has not faced any charges in connection with his handling of
bodies.
But charges have not entirely been ruled out.
"We are currently exploring any and all options for charges," said
Macoupin County State's Attorney Jordan Garrison.
The case also spurred Illinois lawmakers to introduce bills to more
closely regulate funeral directors and the handling of human
remains.
Last month, Gov. JB Pritzker signed the Dignity in Death Care Act
into law. The Act mandates funeral directors keep a chain of
custody with unique identifiers that stay with the remains to
ensure the proper identification of remains through cremation or
burial.
Typically, funeral directors consider it best practice to place a
titanium medallion containing the funeral home's name and a unique
identifying number with the body when it is picked up and
transferred for cremation.
The crematorium keeps a record of the person and number. The
medallion stays with the remains through the transfer and the
cremation and is typically affixed to the bag with the remains when
it is returned to the family.
This tracking system would ensure that the remains given to the
family are truly those of their loved ones.
Heinz did not have a crematorium at his funeral home but did
contract with at least two local businesses to do cremations. Those
crematoriums kept records that Heinz did not have access to,
allowing investigators to piece together the identities of some
cremains.
Under the new law, a funeral director who makes a false statement
on a death certificate, prepares false records or alters the chain
of custody records could be charged with a felony.
The new law also mandates that the Illinois Department of Financial
and Professional Regulation has 10 days to inspect funeral homes
after receiving a complaint.
In Heinz's case, Morgan County Coroner Marci Patterson filed a
complaint against Heinz six months before it was made public by
Allmon, the Sangamon County coroner. One of Patterson's deputies
went to the Carlinville funeral home and found a decomposing body
in an embalming room. Patterson reported it to IDFPR and then tried
for months to get the agency to act.
IDFPR did not take immediate action against Heinz's funeral
director license because if the agency suspended the license, it
would have only 30 days to complete an investigation and go to
trial, a spokesperson said.
During that time, Heinz continued to conduct cremations and funeral
services.
Heinz surrendered his license last year after Allmon went public
during a news conference about what he found at the Carlinville
funeral home, including three decomposing bodies. Allmon went to
the funeral home after a Springfield hospital called him about a
body abandoned in its morgue. When Allmon called the family, they
told him that Heinz had already delivered their loved one's ashes
to them.
Allmon then launched an investigation that also resulted in at
least nine exhumations, including five at Camp Butler National
Cemetery, a resting place of more than 32,000 military veterans.
[GN]
HESS BAKKEN: Penman Appeals Ruling to 8th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------
RONALD PENMAN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in
the lawsuit entitled Ronald Penman, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Hess Bakken
Investments, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00097-DLH, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of North Dakota.
On June 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs brought an action on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated royalty owners against
the Defendant for alleged contract violations.
The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint
on Aug. 4, 2022, which the Court denied through an Order entered by
Judge Daniel M. Traynor on March 23, 2023.
On Mar. 27, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate
cases, which the Court granted on Dec. 6, 2023.
On Mar. 28, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to strike statutory
interest class allegations.
On Apr. 22, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for hearing - Oral
Arguments - regarding the Defendant's motion to strike statutory
interest class allegations.
On Aug. 9, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel.
On Aug. 13, 2024, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
strike statutory interest class allegations and denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for a hearing through an Order entered by Judge
Daniel L. Hovland.
The appellate case is captioned Ronald Penman, et al. v. Hess
Bakken Investments, Case No. 24-8009, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on August 27, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners RONALD PENMAN, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Taylor Foye, Esq.
Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq.
HORN & AYLWARD
2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 421-0700
Defendant-Respondent HESS BAKKEN INVESTMENTS II, LLC is represented
by:
Daniel T. Donovan, Esq.
Gabrielle Durling, Esq.
Kevin Ross Powell, II, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 389-5174
(202) 389-3010
- and -
Zachary R. Eiken, Esq.
Paul J. Forster, Esq.
CROWLEY & FLECK
100 W. Broadway
P.O. Box 2798
Bismarck, ND 58502
Telephone: (701) 223-6585
- and -
Ragan Naresh, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS
655 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 879-5267
HUMAN BEAUTY: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE HUMAN BEAUTY MOVEMENT, PBC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-06730 (S.D.N.Y., September 4, 2024) arises from
Defendant's 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.
By failing to make its website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, the Defendant deprives blind
and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords non-disabled
individuals.
The Human Beauty Movement, PBC. operates the Humanist Beauty online
interactive website and retail store across the United States. Its
website provides consumers with access to an array of goods and
services including information about its beauty and holistic
skincare products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD: Faces Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that a class action complaint was filed against the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) labor union
for a data breach that occurred between March 31 and April 5, 2024.
IBEW represents individuals who work in a wide variety of fields,
including utilities, construction, telecommunications,
broadcasting, manufacturing, railroads, and government. The
security incident resulted in unauthorized access to the names and
social security numbers of current and former members of IBEW.
This incident resulted from a ransomware attack led by the
cybercriminal group BlackSuit, which was part of a larger attack on
many other businesses in March 2024. Most recently, this group
attacked CDK Global, a major automobile software vendor, which
affected car manufacturers nationwide.
IBEW notified affected individuals of the breach on or about August
5, 2024; the incident was initially discovered on July 3, 2024. The
class action complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, alleges that this "delay" caused harm
to the affected individuals.
The lead plaintiff, a retired electrician from Illinois, claims
that IBEW’s delay resulted in the loss by the class "of the
opportunity to try and mitigate injuries in a timely matter."
Further, in the notification to the affected individuals provided
by IBEW, the union disclosed that the incident "created a present,
continuing and significant risk of suffering identity theft."
The complaint further alleges that IBEW failed to follow the
Federal Trade Commission’s 2016 guidelines for businesses
regarding fundamental data security principles, and that the
incident constituted a violation of the federal unfair trade
practices act. The complaint also includes allegations that the
IBEW acted negligently, breached its implied contract with its
current and former members, and violated the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act. [GN]
J & S CONCEPTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Welch Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW WELCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. J & S CONCEPTS, LLC, d/b/a PARTY FOWL; NICK
JACOBSON; and AUSTIN SMITH, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01065
(M.D. Tenn., Sept. 3, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff Welch was employed by the Defendants as a server.
J & S Concepts, LLC, d/b/a Party Fowl owns and operates a
restaurant in Nashville, TN, known as Party Fowl. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anne Bennett Hunter, Esq.
HUNTER LAW FIRM
101 Creekside Crossing, Suite 1700-307
Brentwood, TN 37027
Telephone: (615) 592-2977
Email: anne@hunteremploymentlaw.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@simonsaypay.com
J-MASTER PROPERTIES: Juarez and Flores Seek Proper Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
GERARDO JUAREZ and LUIS FELIPE FLORES, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. J-MASTER PROPERTIES,
LLC (D/B/A BRIAN DEMPSEY'S), BJR RESTAURANT INC. (D/B/A BRIAN
DEMPSEY'S), JASON REYES, DOLLY REYES, and JACK BANOS, Case No.
1:24-cv-06185 (E.D.N.Y., September 4, 2024) alleges violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Juarez was employed as a cook, dishwasher, food preparer,
and cleaner while Plaintiff Flores was employed as a bartender at
Defendants' restaurant in Bayside, NY. Allegedly, the Plaintiffs
worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and/or spread of hours
compensation for the hours that they worked. In addition, the
Defendants failed to pay them wages on a timely basis, say the
Plaintiffs.
J-Master Properties, LLC owns, operates, or controls a restaurant,
located at 39-31 Bell Boulevard, Bayside, NY 11361, under the name
"Brian Dempsey's." [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
JAY-BEE PRODUCTION: Announces $42.6-Mil. Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dickerson, writing for WV Record, reports that an oil and gas
drilling company has reached a $42.6 million settlement regarding
improper royalty deductions.
Jay-Bee Production Company announced the proposed settlement of the
federal class action lawsuit August 29. If approved by U.S.
District Judge John Preston Bailey later this year, the settlement
would cover claims for improper deductions from 2010 to 2023.
The company denies the claims in the lawsuit but is settling to
resolve the dispute and avoid additional litigation. A press
release says the settlement is subject to the final court approval
as well as reaching a threshold minimum percentage of participation
by the class members.
The case also is notable because Bailey certified it as a class
action without conducting a hearing about it.
In an April 4, 2023, order, Bailey granted a motion for class
certification in a case. But on April 18, the defendant companies
filed an appeal with the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
questioning Bailey's certification. That request to appeal
eventually was denied by the 4th Circuit.
"Perhaps the most glaring problem with the certification order is
the district court's lack of attention to critical detail," the
defendants' Petition for Permission to Appeal states. "Review is
appropriate because the substantial errors contained in the
district court's ruling threaten to terminate the litigation
despite the existence of strong merit defenses."
The defendants' petition doesn't mention Bailey's lack of a class
certification hearing as a reason for appeal, but it does claim
Bailey's certification creates a conflict with Rule 23, which
details the guidelines for class certification, and "raises
unsettled legal questions under West Virginia oil and gas law."
An attorney who has an extensive history with class-action cases,
including in front of Bailey, said the lack of a hearing for class
certification is "very rare, but not completely unheard of."
"Certainly, it is rare for a court to grant a certification without
holding some form of hearing," Jeff Holmstrand told The West
Virginia Record. "But it's not completely unheard of for a court to
grant certification or to deny certification without a hearing
depending on the evidence presented."
The class-action complaint originally was filed in Tyler Circuit
Court in January 2020. It was removed to federal court later that
year.
The plaintiffs alleged Jay-Bee and the other defendants unlawfully
deducted post-production expenses from royalty payments in
violation of the terms of their oil and gas leases. The plaintiffs
claimed breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion,
misrepresentation, fraud and concealment, civil conspiracy and
negligence.
Under the terms of the settlement, Jay-Bee will pay up to $42.6
million into a settlement fund to disburse payments to the class
that includes people and entities paid or due royalties from May
21, 2010, to December 31, 2023.
The defendants -- which include Jay-Bee Production Company, JB
Exploration I LLC, BB Land LLC and other entities and individuals
-- will stop charging post-production expenses under certain leases
determined by the court to not allow post-production expenses to be
charged to royalty owners. On other leases, Jay-Bee will be able to
charge specific post-production expenses based on the language of
the lease as determined by the court.
The defendants also will refund such 2024 decisions directly to
royalty owners with interest.
After attorney fees and expenses, eligible class members will
receive a minimum payment of $200. For more information on the
settlement and royalty questions, go to www.Jay-BeeClassAction.com.
[GN]
JC PENNEY COMPANY: Robinson Sues Over False Reference Pricing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marjanique Robinson and Ariana Skurauskis, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated persons v. JC PENNEY COMPANY, INC.
a Delaware corporation and PENNEY OPCO LLC, a Virginia limited
liability company, Case No. 3:24-cv-06243-DMR (N.D. Cal., Sept. 4,
2024), is brought against the Defendants for false reference
pricing on their website, www.jcpenney.com (the "Website").
False reference pricing violates state and federal law. Yet,
sellers, including Defendants, continue to engage in this tactic
because they know they will be able to increase sales and profits
by tricking consumers into making purchasing decisions based on the
advertised reference prices. Consumers generally lack full
information about products because the information available to
consumers varies for different types of products. Thus, consumers
are left to rely on sellers and their pricing disclosures to make
their purchasing decisions.
The creation of a fake "sale" or "discount" creates a false sense
of urgency which induces customers to purchase the item out of
concern that the non-existent "sale" will end and they will lose
out on the "discount," meaning many consumers forego waiting until
that item actually goes on sale. Based on Defendants'
representations, Plaintiffs believed that they were purchasing
products for which the regular price and market value was the
purported "regular" or "former" price that Defendants advertised,
that they were receiving a substantial discount, and that the
opportunity to get that discount was seemingly time limited. These
reasonable beliefs were what led Plaintiffs to buy from Defendants
when they did.
In reality, however, Defendants' represented prices were not true.
The purported "regular" prices were not the true regular prices,
the purported "discounts" were not the true discounts, and the
"discounts" were not necessarily time limited. This conduct
artificially increases demand for the deceptively priced products
and induces customers to pay more based on an impression of the
products' falsely inflated value. The products at issue include all
goods that have at any time been offered by Defendants, either on
their Website or at one of Defendants' store locations, at a sale
or discounted price from a higher "former" or "regular" price,
including, but not limited to: apparel, home, jewelry, and beauty
products.
Consumers who visit Defendants' Website and buy an item on "sale"
from a stricken former or "reference" price are being misled by
Defendants. This is because that item has not been advertised for
sale or sold, during the relevant statutory period, at the former
price. Defendants' use of inflated reference prices, strikethrough
pricing and "discounting," and purported limited time sales, all
lead reasonable consumers to believe that the products in fact had
been listed for sale and sold by Defendants at the former price,
during, at a minimum, the relevant statutory period, or for a
substantially longer period of time, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchase from the Defendants' Website.
The Defendants operate both JC Penney's stores and ecommerce
Website, jcpenney.com, and advertise, market, distribute, and/or
sell apparel, home, jewelry, and beauty products throughout the
United States, including California..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
Andrea L. Bonner, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (610) 477-8380
Email: jshub@shublawyers.com
sholbrook@shublawyers.com
JERICO PICTURES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Nieves Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ENRIQUE NIEVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JERICO PICTURES, INC. d/b/a NATIONAL PUBLIC
DATA, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-61638-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 4,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure, safeguard, and adequately destroy sensitive
Personally Identifiable Information, spanning over 30 years,
belonging to the Plaintiff and Class Members, including, without
limitation full names, mailing addresses, Social Security numbers,
phone numbers, and other personal information, that it had acquired
and stored for its business purposes.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the PII of Plaintiff
and Class Members was compromised due to Defendant's negligent
and/or careless acts and omissions and Defendant's utter failure to
protect the PII. Defendant failed to implement appropriate security
safeguards and to even encrypt or redact the highly sensitive
information.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was safeguarded,
failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure
of data, and failing to follow applicable, required, and
appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the
encryption of data, even for internal use.
As a result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised
through disclosure to an unauthorized third party that undoubtedly
seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and
Class Members in the future, says the suit.
Jerico Pictures, Inc., doing business as National Public Data, is a
data broker company that performs employee background checks. Their
primary service is collecting information from public data sources,
including criminal records, addresses, and employment history, and
offering that information for sale. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephanie A. Casey, Esq.
Sabrina S. Saieh, Esq.
COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 476-7400
Email: scasey@colson.com
sabrina@colson.com
JERRY'S ARTARAMA: Ramos Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Eslimerari Ramos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. JERRY'S ARTARAMA N.C., INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07961
(N.D. Ill., Sept. 2, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA").
Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination
of discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it
enacted the ADA. Such discrimination includes barriers to full
integration, independent living and equal opportunity for persons
with disabilities, including those barriers created by websites and
other public accommodations that are inaccessible to blind and
visually impaired persons.
Because the Defendant's website, www.jerrysartarama.com (the
"Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates
www.jerrysartarama.com offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Mouth Wash Causes Cancer, Vasseur Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
PAIGE VASSEUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC.; and KENVUE
INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07487
(C.D. Cal., Sept. 3, 2024) action seeks to remedy the Defendants'
deceptive and misleading business practices with respect to the
marketing and sale of the Listerine Cool Mint Antiseptic Mouthwash
("the Product") in the state of California and throughout the
country.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants market
and sell the Product without warning consumers that regular use of
the Product causes the proliferation of certain bacteria, including
but not limited to Streptococcus anginosus (S. anginosus) and
Fusobacterium nucleatum (F. nucleatum), each of which can cause
severe invasive infections and have been closely associated with
multiple potentially deadly cancers, including oral cancer, head &
neck cancer, colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, esophageal
cancer, gastro-intestinal cancer, and breast cancer.
The Defendants did not disclose the harmful nature of the Product
in any of their labeling, advertising, or marketing. Nowhere on the
Product's warning label, or elsewhere, do Defendants disclose to
consumers that the Product can increase the risk of dangerous
cancers.
The Defendants knew that if they had not omitted that the Product
causes the proliferation of cancer-causing bacteria, and not
misrepresented that the Product would kill such bacteria, Plaintiff
and the Class would not have purchased the Product at all or paid
less for it, says the suit.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. engages in the research and
development of products. The Company provides products for
newborns, babies, toddlers, and mothers, including cleansers, skin
care, moisturizers, hair care, diaper care, sun protection, and
nursing products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
402 W. Broadway St., Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 810-7047
Email: tkashima@milberg.com
- and -
Alex Straus, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 S. Beverly Drive, Ste. PH
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
Email: astraus@milberg.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313)303-3472
Email: nsuciu@milberg.com
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 477-8380
Email: jshub@shublawyers.com
- and -
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Philip J. Furia, Esq.
SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com
JOY CONE: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set October 5
---------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that consumers affected by a 2023 data
breach can receive payments and other benefits from a Joy Cone
settlement.
The settlement benefits individuals Joy Cone identified as affected
by the February 2023 data breach.
According to the data breach class action lawsuit, Joy Cone failed
to protect current and former employees from a 2023 cyberattack.
This breach allegedly compromised names, Social Security numbers
and other personal information of employees.
Joy Cone is a brand of ice cream cones and cups.
Joy Cone hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an
undisclosed sum to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Joy Cone settlement, class members can
receive up to $500 in ordinary expense reimbursement for bank fees,
professional fees, credit expenses and communication charges and up
to four hours of lost time compensated at a rate of $20 per hour.
Class members who experienced documented extraordinary losses
connected to the data breach, such as damages from fraud or
identity theft, can receive up to $4,500 in reimbursement for their
losses.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 23, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Dec.
5, 2024.
To receive Joy Cone settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Oct. 23, 2024. [GN]
JP MORGAN: Marron Suit Removed to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ronald A. Marron, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, and the general public v. JPMORGAN CHASE
BANK, N.A.; a national banking association; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 37-2024-00006839-CU-BC-CTL was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on
Sept. 4, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01569-JES-AHG.
On July 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint (the "FAC"). The FAC contains the same nine causes of
action that were asserted within the original complaint: breach of
contract; fraud in the inducement; fraudulent misrepresentation;
false promise; negligent misrepresentation; promissory estoppel;
negligence; violation of the Unfair Competition Laws; and
reformation.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Arjun P. Rao, Esq.
Marcos Sasso, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: +310.907.1000
Fax: +1.310.907.1001
Email: arjun.rao@morganlewis.com
marcos.sasso@morganlewis.com
K-LINE: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Antitrust Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Hand of SeaTrade Maritime News reports that K-Line is the
first to settle in the class action suit brought by a group of
consumers and auto and truck and equipment dealerships in antitrust
claims against more than 12 international shipping firms.
We are delighted to announce the first major settlement in the
vehicle carriers case with K-Line," said attorney Warren T. Burns
of Burns Charest, interim co-lead counsel for the end-payor
plaintiffs. "This is a very significant and substantial first step
to assure that American consumers are compensated for the
conspiracy to fix the price of international car-shipping services.
We expect to make the dollar amount public very soon as we file for
preliminary approval of the class settlement."
Details of the settlement were not released.
Among the other shipping companies involved in the class action
suit are Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK) and CSAV. [GN]
KAISER FOUNDATION: To Pay for Woman's New Wheelchair in Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
As reported by the L.A. Times on August 21, 2024, Beth Smith, one
of the plaintiffs in a class action suit against Kaiser Foundation
Health Plan and the State of California over unfair limits on
insurance coverage of motorized wheelchairs, will receive $15,000
to replace her power wheelchair. RBGG and the Disability Rights
Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) are representing Smith and other
plaintiffs in the class action.
According to the Times, "A judge ruled that the claims against
Kaiser had to go to arbitration under agreements with Kaiser
members like Smith, rather than proceeding in federal court. In
July, an agreement was reached through the arbitration process for
Kaiser to pay $15,000 for a motorized wheelchair or more if 'found
medically necessary.'"
The class action against the state has been proceeding in federal
court, although it was put on hold in March as the parties agreed
to "seek federal input on the dispute at hand." The Times
concludes: "Attorney Claudia Center of the Disability Rights
Education and Defense Fund, which represented Smith and other
plaintiffs, said the group is still pressing for a statewide
resolution of the issue, potentially through legislation." [GN]
KHOSROW SADEGHIAN: Appeals Denied Bid for New Trial in Marquis Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KHOSROW SADEGHIAN, doing business as Kamy Investments, doing
business as Kamy Real Property Trust, doing business as Kamy Real
Estate Trust, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled Billy Marquis, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Khosrow Sadeghian,
doing business as Kamy Investments, doing business as Kamy Real
Property Trust, doing business as Kamy Real Estate Trust, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00626, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas.
On Aug. 27, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an Original Complaint, which
was superseded by a First Amended Complaint and a Second Amended
Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint asserts three causes of
actions against the Defendants: (1) willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); (2) violations of the Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act ("DTPA"); and (3) negligent injuring of
Plaintiff Billy Marquis. In their third amended complaint, the
Plaintiffs still assert claims under the FLSA and the DTPA and
Billy Marquis asserts a negligence claim against the Defendants.
On Mar. 28, 2024, the Court entered judgment in favor of Billy
Marquis through an Order by Judge Kimberly C. Priest Johnson.
On Apr. 17, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion for new trial,
which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Johnson on
July 23, 2024. The Court finds that the Defendants have failed to
show they are entitled to the extraordinary relief provided for in
Rule 59.
The appellate case is captioned Marquis v. Sadeghian, Case No.
24-40558, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, filed on August 27, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees BILLY MARQUIS, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Eugene Zemp DuBose, Esq.
DUBOSE LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
P.O. Box 141476
Irving, TX 75014
Telephone: (214) 520-2983
Defendants-Appellants KHOSROW SADEGHIAN, doing business as Kamy
Investments, doing business as Kamy Real Property Trust, doing
business as Kamy Real Estate Trust, et al. are represented by:
Steven Eugene Clark, Esq.
CLARK FIRM, P.L.L.C.
5445 La Sierra Drive
Dallas, TX 75231
Telephone: (214) 890-4066
KIRKLAND'S INC: Continues to Defend Miles Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending August 3, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 5, 2024, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the Miles class suit in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.
The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
filed in May 2018 in the Superior Court of California, Miles v.
Kirkland's Stores, Inc. The case has been removed to United States
District Court for the Central District of California.
The complaint alleges, on behalf of Miles and all other hourly
Kirkland's employees in California, various wage and hour
violations and seeks unpaid wages, statutory and civil penalties,
monetary damages and injunctive relief.
Kirkland's denies the material allegations in the complaint and
believes that its employment policies are generally compliant with
California law.
On March 22, 2022, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion
to certify in its entirety, and on May 26, 2022, the Ninth Circuit
granted the plaintiff's petition for permission to appeal.
On January 8, 2024, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's
denial of certification as to the subclasses related to the
security bag check but reversed the District Court as to the rest
break claim.
The Ninth Circuit did not address the issue of whether there is
liability for the rest break claim.
On June 7, 2024, the District Court certified a subclass relating
to the rest break claim and has scheduled a trial on the rest break
liability issue for July 2025.
The Company continues to believe the case is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations.
Kirkland's, Inc. is a specialty retailer of home décor and
furnishings in the United States operating 329 stores in 35 states
as of May 4, 2024, as well as an e-commerce website,
www.kirklands.com, under the Kirkland's Home brand.
KIRKLAND'S INC: Continues to Defend Sicard Class Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending August 3, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 5, 2024, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the Sicard class suit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
filed in August 2022 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Sicard v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc.
The complaint alleges, on behalf of Sicard and all other hourly
store employees based in New York, that Kirkland's violated New
York Labor Law Section 191 by failing to pay him and the putative
class members their wages within seven calendar days after the end
of the week in which those wages were earned, rather paying wages
on a bi-weekly basis.
Plaintiff claims the putative class is entitled to recover from the
Company the amount of their untimely paid wages as liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company believes the case is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against the allegations.
Kirkland's, Inc. is a specialty retailer of home décor and
furnishings in the United States operating 329 stores in 35 states
as of May 4, 2024, as well as an e-commerce website,
www.kirklands.com, under the Kirkland's Home brand.
KODIAK CAKES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fagnani Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MYKAYKLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KODIAK CAKES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-06705 (S.D.N.Y., September 4, 2024) alleges that
Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination by,
among other things, failing 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.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
Kodiak Cakes, LLC owns and operates the commercial website,
https://kodiakcakes.com, which provides consumers with access to an
array of goods and services including information about its snacks,
breakfast, and related gear collection. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
LENDMARK FINANCIAL: Parker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LENDMARK FINANCIAL
SERVICES, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Heather Parker, on
behalf of all other similarly situated employees and/or aggrieved
employees v. LENDMARK FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, DOES 1 THROUGH 20
INCLUSIVE, Case No. 24STCV22568 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
Sept. 4, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Lendmark Financial Services -- https://www.lendmarkfinancial.com/
-- is a community-based consumer finance company that specializes
in providing direct and indirect personal loans, automobile loans,
debt consolidation loans, and merchant retail sales financing
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gray Brandon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. SHIPLEY
2784 Gateway Rd. Ste., 104
Carlsbad, CA 92009-1750
Phone: 760-438-5199
Email: bgray@shipleylaw.com
LOYAL SOURCE: Pembrick Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MONIQUE PEMBRICK, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOYAL SOURCE GOVERNMENT
SERVICES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and DOES
1–50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24CU002332C, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on August 27, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01524-RBM-DEB to
the proceeding.
In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges a single cause of action
for Civil Penalties Under the Private Attorneys General Act
(California Labor Code 2698 et seq.).
Loyal Source Government Services operates as an employment agency.
The Company provides contracting staffing to government,
healthcare, technical and support services, engineering, and travel
industries.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael C. Robinson, Jr.
Orion S. Robinson, Esq.
ROBINSON DI LANDO
A Professional Law Corporation
801 South Grand Avenue, Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 229-0100
E-mail: mrobinson@rdwlaw.com
orobinson@rdwlaw.com
MANITOBA: Settlement in Special Allowance Suit Gets Court Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitoba Metis Federation (MMF) -- the National Government of
the Red River Metis -- as well as the Metis Child and Family
Services Authority, Metis Child, Family and Community Services, and
Michif Child & Family Services are pleased to announce that the
settlement for the Red River Metis Child and Family Services class
action, also known as the Lafontaine Class Action, was approved by
the Court on September 5. Manitoba will pay $84,800,000 to settle
the Lafontaine Class Action. Approximately $445,000,000 will be
paid to settle two related class actions.
The settlement approval hearing was held in the Manitoba Court of
King's Bench before the Honourable Justice Huberdeau. Justice
Huberdeau granted approval of the settlement at the end of the
hearing.
The settlement is an incredible achievement for children in the
care of Metis Child and Family Services Agencies who were deprived
the benefit of the federal Children's Special Allowance as a result
of Manitoba's unlawful actions.
"This has been a long time coming for our kids," said David
Chartrand, President of the MMF. "From the very start your Red
River Metis Government committed that every penny that was
unlawfully taken from our children in care will be returned to
them, and I am so proud that we can finally deliver on that
promise."
The settlement, under the administration of the Metis Child and
Family Services Authority, will prioritize the interests of class
members by simplifying the process for collecting their share of
the settlement funds and facilitating payments as quickly as
possible.
"Whether former or current, our children in care are finally going
to receive the support that they have been entitled to since the
beginning of their journey with us," said Minister Mona Buors, MMF
Minister of Child and Family Services. "As the National Government
of the Red River Metis, the MMF will also be developing
wrap--around services that will be available to members of the
Class, such as financial literacy workshops, so that they are
better set up for success when they receive their settlement and
enter a new chapter of their lives."
"We could not be happier with this outcome for our children and
Youth and would like to thank President Chartrand for taking on
this battle to ensure that all the children and Youth involved with
our agencies, past or present, will receive the monies they so
rightly deserve," said Karla Hildebrand--Eden, Chief Executive
Officer of the Metis Child and Family Services Authority.
"This settlement will give those who experienced child welfare an
equal opportunity to chase their dreams and future ambitions. I am
beyond grateful for everyone who made this happen. I am proud to
have been a part of such a historic moment in child welfare. To
see my people, my fellow alumni from care, come together and
support each other in this moment of new beginnings is magical,"
said Mary Derendorf, a representative plaintiff in the case.
Rene Lafontaine, the other representative plaintiff, echoed these
statements, saying, "The approval of this settlement has provided
so many opportunities for everyone involved, and I will forever be
grateful that I could be a part of something so impactful. I
believe this settlement helps with the impact of the harm that has
been done, but it does not diminish the fact that it still
happened. However, I am beyond appreciative that we finally get
what we originally deserved, and that it will lead to a more
positive future moving forward."
The Plaintiffs were represented by law firms Lax O'Sullivan Lisus
Gottlieb LLP and MN Trachtenberg Law Corporation.
Individuals who were in the care of either of the Metis Agencies
between January 1, 2005 and March 31, 2019, or the caregivers of
these individuals, are encouraged to visit
http://metiscsaclassaction.cafor more information.
For more information, media may contact:
Kat Patenaude
Media Relations Advisor
Manitoba Metis Federation
(204) 801-7710
Kat.Patenaude@mmf.mb.ca [GN]
METHODE ELECTRONICS: Continues to Defend Salem Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Methode Electronics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending July 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 5, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Salem stockholder class suit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
On August 26, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit (the
"Stockholder Action") on behalf of purchasers of Company common
stock between June 23, 2022 and March 6, 2024, inclusive, entitled
Marie Salem v. Methode Electronics, Inc. et al. was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
the Company, a former Chief Executive Officer, President and
director of the Company and a former Chief Financial Officer of the
Company.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
false and/or misleading statements relating to the Company's
business, operations and prospects, including in respect of the
Company's transition to production of more specialized components
for manufacturers of electric vehicles and the Company's operations
at its facility in Monterrey, Mexico, in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified money damages
along with equitable relief and costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees.
The Company disagrees with and intends to vigorously defend against
the Stockholder Action.
METHODIST HOSPITAL: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Rodriguez Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METHODIST HOSPITAL D/B/A HOUSTON
METHODIST, HOUSTON METHODIST HOSPITAL, HOUSTON METHODIST–TEXAS
MEDICAL CENTER, METHODIST HOSPITAL-HOUSTON, METHODIST
HOSPITAL-TEXAS MEDICAL CENTER, AND METHODIST HOSPITAL SYSTEM,
Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-03233 (S.D. Tex., August 28, 2024) is
a civil action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Portal-to-Portal Act, seeking damages for Defendant's failure to
pay Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek.
The Plaintiff began working for Defendant in 2014, was later
hired/re-hired in 2015, and continues to work for Defendant
currently at its Houston Methodist Willow brook Surgical Associates
office as a Senior Patient Service Representative. His primary job
duties involve sitting at a front desk and answering the phone,
verifying insurance, and scheduling appointments.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's uniform wage payment policy
and/or practice resulted in him and similarly situated employees
not being paid all overtime wages owed to them by Defendant in
violation of the FLSA.
Methodist Hospital, d/b/a Houston Methodist, is the flagship
quaternary care hospital of Houston Methodist academic medical
center.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
MONTREAL, QC: Court Recognizes Racial Profiling in Police Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sidhartha Banerjee of The Canadian Press reports that a Montreal
lawyer who co-piloted a successful class-action lawsuit against the
City of Montreal for racial profiling by police says what's most
important is not the financial compensation but the recognition of
prejudice.
Mike Diomande said the decision released Tuesday, September 3, was
"historic" because it establishes that racialized people in the
city were victims of profiling and that their Charter rights were
violated.
"Beyond the judicial decision, you have individuals who are victims
of racial profiling and I think this judgment is almost therapeutic
for them," Diomande said in an interview Wednesday, September 4.
"Racial profiling is very difficult to establish in evidence, so
individually, it's very difficult to prove . . . it's very
insidious."
Superior Court Justice Dominique Poulin ruled that racial profiling
is a "systemic" problem in the Montreal police force and that
victims deserve up to $5,000. The city has 30 days to appeal the
ruling; a spokesperson said the administration was studying the
nearly 100-page decision.
The case was brought by the Black Coalition of Quebec, which had
been fighting the battle for several years. The lead plaintiff was
Alexandre Lamontagne, a Black man who was stopped by Montreal
police while leaving an Old Montreal bar in August 2017.
During his arrest he was pinned to the ground, handcuffed and taken
to the station. He was then issued three statements of offence and
charged with obstructing police work and assaulting a police
officer, but most proceedings against him were eventually dropped.
Diomande says his client was pleased that after a seven-year
battle, the arrest has been recognized as a case of racial
profiling. And he says the ruling could inspire similar class
actions in other Canadian cities.
"The principles apply everywhere in Canada," Diomande said.
The Black Coalition of Quebec welcomed the ruling, saying it is
"the first organization in Quebec and indeed in Canada to obtain a
ruling on the specific issue of racial profiling by the police."
"We hope it will be followed with adequate measures from
authorities so that we don't have similar cases in the future,"
Coalition president Max Stanley Bazin said.
With the said ruling, Lamontagne will receive $5,000. As well, the
judge ordered the City of Montreal to pay $5,000 to those who were
arrested without justification and whose information was recorded
by police; others who were stopped by police but whose information
wasn't collected are entitled to $2,500.
The judge said the parties will have to work out a plan on how
members of the class action will get paid.
In August 2019, a Quebec Superior Court judge greenlighted the
class action against the City of Montreal on behalf of racialized
citizens who allege they were unfairly arrested, detained, and
racially profiled by police between mid-August 2017 and January
2019. At the time, the amount of damages was estimated at $171
million.
Diomande said it is impossible to know how much the settlement will
amount to now.
The period of time covered in the ruling is considerably shorter
than what was requested. Members can claim compensation if they
were profiled during a six-month window between July 11, 2018, and
Jan. 11, 2019 -- as per rules on lawsuits covered by the Cities and
Towns Act, Diomande said.
The judge also rejected a request for exemplary damages.
Fo Niemi, executive director of the Centre for Research-Action on
Race Relations, a civil rights organization, says the decision is
important because it puts municipalities across the province on
notice.
"All cities, all police departments should heed (the ruling) and do
more to avoid eventually being the target of a class-action
lawsuit," said Niemi, who testified in the trial. "All these
resources spent on a class action could be better spent preventing
and eradicating racial profiling in policing." [GN]
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 4,
2024.
NEIMAN MARCUS: Pelosi Balks at Failure to Secure Personal Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRYSTAL PELOSI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:24-cv-08814 (D.N.J., August 28, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to secure the personal identifiable information of
Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class, where Plaintiffs
are current and former customers and employees of Neiman Marcus.
In May 2024, Neiman Marcus learned that an unauthorized third party
gained access to a cloud data base platform used by Neiman Marcus.
As a result of the Data Breach, which Defendant failed to prevent,
the PII of Defendant's current and former customer and employees,
including Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members, was stolen.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant disregarded the rights of
Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully,
recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement reasonable
measures to safeguard its patients' PII and by failing to take
necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that
information. The Defendant's woefully inadequate data security
measures made the Data Breach a foreseeable, and even likely,
consequence of its negligence, says the suit.
Through this lawsuit, the Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant
responsible for the injuries they inflicted on Plaintiff and Class
Members due to their impermissibly inadequate data security
measures, and to seek injunctive relief to ensure the
implementation of security measures to protect the PII that remains
in Defendant's possession.
Neiman Marcus is a group of luxury retail clothing and accessory
stores that has thousands of stores across the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON
WEISELBERG GILBERT
65 Overhill Road Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com
NEXT BRIDGE: Continues to Defend Targgart Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Next Bridge Hydrocarbons 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 13, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Targgart securities class suit
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.
On March 15, 2024, a securities class action captioned Targgart v.
Next Bridge Hydrocarbons, Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-1927, was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The action is brought on behalf of a putative class of persons or
entities that acquired the Company's shares in connection with the
Company's spin-off from Meta Materials, Inc., in December 2022.
The complaint names as defendants the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors.
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act, alleging that the Form S-1 that the Company filed
with the SEC on July 14, 2022, which became effective on November
18, 2022, contained untrue statements or omissions.
The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified statutory and
compensatory damages.
Next Bridge Hydrocarbons --
https://www.nextbridgehydrocarbons.com/
-- is an energy company engaged in the acquisition, exploration,
exploitation and/or development of oil and natural gas
properties.[BN]
ONLY WHAT YOU NEED: Ri'Chard Sues Over Deceptive Trade Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Latanya Ri'Chard, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ONLY WHAT YOU NEED, INC. d/b/a Owyn, Case No.
1:24-cv-01051-SKO (E.D. Cal., Sept. 4, 2024), is brought under
California's Business & Professional Code Common law Fraud; and
warranties against Defendant arising from the deceptive trade
practices of Defendant Owyn in its manufacture and sale of numerous
protein products including their "non-dairy protein shake" whose
packaging and advertisements claim the Products contain "20g of
Plant-Based Protein" per serving, touting their commitment to "Milk
Plants, Not Cows."
The non-dairy protein shake, in particular, is available for
purchase in six flavors: Dark Chocolate, Cold Brew Coffee, Smooth
Vanilla, Cookies and Creamless, Sea Salted Caramel, and Strawberry
Banana. This product is one sub-brand of Defendant Owyn's broader
line of non-dairy, plant-based protein shakes, powders and
supplements, such as "Pro Elite High Protein Shakes," "Protein
Powders," and "Complete Nutrition Shakes," (all such products
referred to herein as the "Products"), each of which being marketed
for "so many benefits in one bottle," chiefly among them being
protein content.
The Products are explicitly and purposefully misbranded for protein
content, prominently displaying "20g of Protein" on the nutritional
label as well as the principal display panel (front panel) of the
Products' labels. Despite Defendant Owyn's claims that the
Products, excluding the Pro Elite which contains "32-35g of
Protein," contain "20g of Protein;" independent laboratory testing
has revealed that the Products contain substantially less protein
than that which is advertised. Specifically, the non-dairy protein
shake contains approximately 17.5g of actual Protein as opposed to
the "20g" Defendant purported to be true.
The Defendant Owyn's claims regarding the protein content in the
Products, including on its labels, webpages and other marketing and
advertising media and materials, is purposely deceptive to create a
competitive advantage against compliant competitors. However, it is
the consumers that ultimately suffer by this deviant and
non-compliant behavior because Defendant Owyn knowingly provide
non-factual information and omit relevant information in an attempt
to deceive and entice sales to these consumers who are seeking to
purchase high protein products conducive to weight management,
muscle development, and other protein-specific health goals, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product.
The Defendant makes and distributes non-dairy, plant-based protein
supplements, meal replacements and powders throughout the United
States, specifically, to consumers in the state of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Mackey, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT MACKEY
P.O. Box 279
Sewickley, PA 15143
Phone: (412) 370-9110
Email: bobmackeyesq@aol.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: (202) 470-3520
Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
- and -
D.Aaron Rihn, Esq.
Sara J. Watkins, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
707 Grant Street, Suite 125
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 281-7229
Email: arihn@peircelaw.com
swatkins@peircelaw.com
- and -
Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Email: dlevin@lfsblaw.com
cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
OSCAR DE LA RENTA: Porcelli Sues Over Caller ID Rules Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tammana Malik, writing for TCPA World, reports that If there's one
thing we know, it's that telemarketing lawsuits are in style.
On September 02, 2024, Madison Porcelli ("Plaintiff") filed a
putative class action lawsuit against luxury fashion label Oscar De
La Renta, LLC. ("Oscar De La Renta") alleging violations of the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"). The complaint,
involving claims under the FTSA's Caller ID Rules, is unusual
because consent -- or lack thereof -- is not in contention.
Instead, this lawsuit shifts focus to a different regulatory
requirement: the transmission of a callable telephone number.
The Caller ID Rules
The FTSA's Caller ID Rules, codified in Fla. Stat. Sec.
501.059(8)(b), apply to all Telephonic Sales Calls -- whether by
phone, text, or voicemail -- and mandate that any phone number
transmitted to the consumer must be capable of receiving calls.
Notably, the Caller ID Rules govern not only unsolicited calls but
also solicited and consented to communications. Therefore, the
application of these rules does not depend on whether the consumer
consented to receiving the telemarketing calls or messages. The
objective is simple: the phone number shown on a consumer's caller
identification service must allow for two-way communication. The
recipient should be able to view the number and call it back to
engage with the sender.
Allegations Against Oscar De La Renta
Plaintiff alleges that Oscar De La Renta violated the Caller ID
Rules by sending marketing text messages that failed to transmit a
callable phone number. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that she
received marketing text messages from Oscar De La Renta that
displayed the caller ID number 91788, and that Plaintiff's
subsequent call to this number could not be completed. Further,
Plaintiff alleges that she attempted to reply to the text from
Oscar De La Renta with the message "Do you offer free express
shipping?", to which she received only an automated response.
Based on the allegations in the complaint, Plaintiff seeks to
certify the following class:
All persons and entities that reside in Florida whose caller
identification service was transmitted a telephone number that was
not capable of receiving telephone calls and/or failed to connect
to the Oscar De La Renta Callers when Oscar De La Renta Text
Message Sales Calls were made to them since July 1, 2021.
What Makes This Case Unusual?
If you've been following TCPAWorld, you may have noticed our (and
the FCC's) emphasis on the magic words: Prior Express Written
Consent.
Most telemarketing lawsuits hinge on whether the consumer consented
to receive marketing communications in the form of automated calls
or prerecorded messages, or while their number was listed on the Do
Not Call Registry. However, this lawsuit deviates from that
well-trodden path by focusing on a different aspect of
telemarketing -- the consumer's ability to reach the telemarketer.
This case is a reminder to pay close attention to state consumer
protection laws so you can avoid getting tripped up by technical
requirements like the transmission of a callable number. If not,
you may find yourself catwalking to court. [GN]
PARKSITE INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Oliver Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
TYLER OLIVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PARKSITE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08037 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 4, 2024) is a class action arising
from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data.
According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly
sensitive personal identifiable information about its current and
former employees and their beneficiaries. But Defendant lost
control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its
insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the
"Data Breach").
Cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because
Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity
and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols
to protect the Class's PII. In short, Defendant's failures placed
the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy
targets for cybercriminals. Because of the Defendant's Data Breach,
Plaintiff has suffered—and will continue to suffer
from—anxiety, sleep disruption, stress, fear, and frustration.
Because of the Data Breach, Plaintiff anticipates spending
considerable amounts of time and money to try and mitigate his
injuries, the suit contends.
Parksite, Inc. is a wholesale supplier of premium interior and
exterior building products specializing in project solutions,
training, and education. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago IL, 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: raina@straussborrelli.com
sam@straussborrelli.com
PAUL LABRECQUE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Picon Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YELITZA PICON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PAUL LABRECQUE SALON, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-06701 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 2024) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.paullabrecque.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Paul Labrecque Salon, Inc. is a full service skin spa, hair and
color salon located in New York City, Palm Beach, Philadelphia.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
PETER PAN BUS: Mulani Sues Over Deceptive Extra Fees
----------------------------------------------------
DINESH MULANI; and WESLEY BATSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PETER PAN BUS LINES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-12277 (D. Mass., Sept. 4, 2024) is a
proposed class action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and
injunctive and declaratory relief from the Defendant arising from
its deceptive and unfairly disclosed junk fees ("Extra Fees").
According to the complaint, the Extra Fees include, but are not
limited to, Peter Pan's purported "Reservation Fee", "Terminal
Fee", "Fuel Surcharge", "Departure Fee" and "Transaction Fees"
assessed on bus tickets. When consumers purchase a bus ticket on
Peter Pan's website, Peter Pan advertises a single low price for a
that bus ticket. However, that marketing representation is false
because Peter Pan surreptitiously adds a host of Extra Fees to all
bus ticket purchases. As discussed in detail herein, the assessment
of these fees is deceptive and unfair, since, a) Peter Pan does not
disclose these added fees until the very last step in the
multi-step purchasing process; b) the fees themselves are
deceptively named and described; and c) the fees are an actuality
simply the price of riding on a Peter Pan bus.
By this conduct, Peter Pan has engineered a "pay junk fees to play"
scheme. Consumers cannot ride on a Peter Pan bus unless they pay
the junk fees unilaterally set by Defendant with zero relationship
to the services actually being provided, says the suit.
As a result of Defendant's alleged unfair and deceptive conduct,
Plaintiffs and the proposed class have suffered damages. They
purchased bus tickets they otherwise may not have bought and paid
fees they otherwise would not have paid, had they not been drawn in
by Defendant's deceptive bait-and-switch scheme.
Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc. provides intercity bus transportation
services. The Company offers motorcoach travel, bus charters,
shipping, showbus tours, shuttle, group travel, sports ticket
packages, and garage services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan M. Hixon, Esq.
HACKETT FEINBERG P.C.
155 Federal Street, 9th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 422-0200
Email: jmh@bostonbusinesslaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielgold.com
PLANET LABS: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit in DE
-------------------------------------------------------------
Planet Labs PBC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending July 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 5, 2024, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the stockholder class suit in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.
A stockholder class action was filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware on August 19, 2024, against the former
officers and directors of dMY IV and the Company.
The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached
various fiduciary duties to the dMY IV stockholders and that the
Company aided and abetted such breaches.
The case is brought on behalf of a purported class of holders of
dMY IV Class A Common Stock who held such stock prior to the
redemption deadline for the Business Combination, did not exercise
the right to redeem their shares, and were allegedly injured.
The case is in its earliest stages and defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint.
Planet Labs PBC operates as a public Earth imaging company. The
Company provides daily satellite data that helps businesses,
governments, researchers, and journalists understand the physical
world and take action. Planet Labs designs and manufactures
triple-cubesat miniature satellites called Doves that are then
delivered into orbit as secondary payloads on other rocket launch
missions. [BN]
RAJAN PATEL: Smith Appeals Denied Motions to Reopen Case
--------------------------------------------------------
TORIN SMITH is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit
entitled Torin Smith, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rajan Patel, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 4:21-cv-04035-SOH, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint against the Defendants for
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
On Oct. 13, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of the
case, which the Court granted. Judge Susan O. Hickey entered an
Order to dismiss the case with prejudice.
On Mar. 6, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for copies.
On Mar. 7, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen case.
On May 7, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a second motion to reopen
case.
On July 23, 2024, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion for
copies and motions to reopen case through an Order entered by Judge
Susan O. Hickey.
The appellate case is captioned Torin Smith v. Rajan Patel, et al.,
Case No. 24-2725, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit, filed on August 27, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant TORIN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, appears pro se.
RAYMOND JAMES: Schmidlin Suit Hits Illegal Cash Sweep Programs
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND SCHMIDLIN and JULIET SCHMIDLIN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RAYMOND JAMES
FINANCIAL, INC., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., RAYMOND JAMES
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. and RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL SERVICES
ADVISORS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-02041 (M.D. Fla.,
August 27, 2024) arises from the cash sweep programs implemented
by Defendants whereby, acting as its customers' agent and
fiduciary, defendant RJA automatically "sweeps" uninvested cash
balances in Plaintiffs and similarly situated customers' accounts
and deposits that cash into a deposit account at one of its
affiliated banks, Raymond James Bank and TriState Capital Bank, or
non-affiliate banks.
According to the complaint, the Defendants implemented the Program
ostensibly to offer RJA's customers an interest-paying vehicle to
hold cash that offers FDIC insurance on those cash deposits, but in
fact, the Defendants designed and operated the Program to obtain
outsized benefits for themselves from their customers' cash. The
Defendants shortchanged their customers for the benefit of
themselves and their affiliates by negotiating with affiliate and
non-affiliate banks one-sided transactions related to the Program,
says the suit.
The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of a
Class of similarly situated individuals for breach of fiduciary
duty, gross negligence, breach of contract, violation of Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment to
recover damages arising from Defendants' violations of the law, and
for such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Raymond James Financial, Inc. is an American multinational
independent investment bank and financial services company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan M. Stein, Esq.
STEINLAW FLORIDA, PLLC
1825 NW Corporate Blvd., Suite 110
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 834-2699
E-mail: jon@SteinLawFlorida.com
- and -
Jonathan A. Korte, Esq.
ROSCA SCARLATO LLC
2000 Auburn Dr. Suite 200
Beachwood, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 946-7070
E-mail: arosca@rscounsel.law
jkorte@rscounsel.law
- and -
Paul J. Scarlato, Esq.
161 Washington Street, Suite 1025
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (216) 946-7070
E-mail: pscarlato@rscounsel.law
- and -
Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
Andrew D. Abramowitz, Esq.
Alex B. Heller, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
E-mail: rraghavan@bm.net
mdellangelo@bm.net
aabramowitz@bm.net
aheller@bm.net
RITE AID: Faces Hale Jr. Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Rite Aid Corporation
captioned as JIMMIE RAY HALE, JR., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RITE AID CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-03356-HB (E.D. P.A., Aug. 6, 2024).
Rite Aid Corporation operates a retail drugstore chain in various
states and the District of Columbia. The Company sells prescription
drugs, as well as other products such as health and beauty aids,
nonprescription medications, and cosmetics. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Dr. Suite 400
West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 477-8380
Email: bjohns@shublawyers.com
RODD & GUNN: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Pollitt Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK POLLITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RODD & GUNN USA RETAIL, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-06153 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 2024) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.roddandgunn.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Rodd & Gunn USA Retail, Inc. sells, designs, and retails men's
clothing, and operating in the fashion industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
ROGUE VALLEY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martin Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
EVAN MARTIN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. ROGUE VALLEY MANOR, a domestic nonprofit
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01478-AA (D. Or.,
September 4, 2024), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Portal-to-Portal Pay Act, and the Oregon
Wage and Hour Laws.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a security guard during
the time period relevant to this lawsuit. The Plaintiff frequently
worked over 40 hours per week but he did not receive all pay to
which he was legally entitled. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks
damages as the result of the Defendant's failure to pay him and
similarly situated individuals as required by the FLSA and the
Oregon statutes.
Rogue Valley Manor is a nursing home in Medford, OR. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ashley A. Marton, Esq.
Rebecca Cambreleng, Esq.
CAMBRELENG & MARTON LLC
3518 S Corbett Avenue
Portland, OR 97239
Telephone: (503) 477-4899
E-mail: ashley@workplacelawpdx.com
rebecca@workplacelawpdx.com
- and -
Colby Qualls, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street, Ste. 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
E-mail: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com
ROSANGELA KIRILAUSCAS: Pardo Alleges Inaccessible Commercial Space
------------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. ROSANGELA KIRILAUSCAS
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-23293 (S.D. Fla., August 28, 2024)
is an action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals,
against the Defendant for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Defendant owns and operates a commercial property in Miami,
Florida. Plaintiff Pardo found the commercial property to be rife
with ADA violations due to architectural barriers. The barriers to
access at Defendant's commercial property has denied or diminished
Plaintiff's ability to visit the place and has endangered his
safety in violation of the ADA, says the suit.
Moreover, the Defendant has 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, the suit adds.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Telephone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
SANOH AMERICA: Rush Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
DALLAS RUSH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SANOH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01472
(N.D. Ohio, August 27, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendant for its failure to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Rush was employed by the Defendant as a
production/manufacturing employee from approximately August 2023
until December 2023. He and other similarly situated employees
regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek but they were not
paid one-and-one half times their regular rates of pay for all of
hours worked over 40 as a result of Defendant's unlawful policies
and/or practices, says the Plaintiff.
Sanoh America, Inc. is a business engaged in supplying tubular
products for automotive applications, using engineering,
technology, and production resources to create its products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
Tristan T. Akers, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd. Suite #126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
takers@mcoffmanlegal.com
- and -
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher St., N.W., Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
SINGLE ROOM: Anderson Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Anderson, and others similarly situated v. SINGLE ROOM
OCCUPANCY HOUSING CORPORATION; ANITA U. NELSON; and DOES 1 to 25,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV22438 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
Sept. 3, 2024), is brought against the Defendants' failure to
compensate for all hours worked; failure to pay minimum wages;
failure to pay overtime; failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; failure to pay wages owed every pay period; failure to
pay wages when employment ends; failure to provide rest breaks;
failure to provide meal breaks; failure to reimburse business
expenses; Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") and violation of
Business And Professions Code Section.
The Defendant violated Labor Code because it failed to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all
hours worked, including the statutory minimum wage for all hours
worked and 2 for "off the clock" work. This is so because SRO had a
company policy wherein they would disproportionately round down the
number of hours worked, resulting in "time shaving" and further
resulting in aggrieved employees not being paid for all hours
worked. In addition, and since meal periods were interrupted while
"off the clock" due to urgent emails or correspondence having to be
sent or if a client came in, the latter would amount to a minimum
wage violation. Moreover, SRO failed to provide its employees with
proper and accurate reporting time pay, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff started working at SRO on or around January 2024 as
an intensive care manager.
SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY HOUSING CORPORATION is a California
corporation, doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
STATE FARM: Ninth Circuit Allows Class Action Lawsuit to Continue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rayne Morgan, writing for Insurance NewsNet, reports that the Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has allowed a class action lawsuit
against State Farm to continue, after partially reversing the
decision of a Washington federal court recently.
Plaintiffs allege in the lawsuit that State Farm is using a
software program to artificially reduce totaled vehicle values and
underpay insurance claims. The insurer is battling similar lawsuits
around the country.
They argue that these price adjustments are not permitted under
Washington law, and that doing so counts as a breach of contract
and unfair trade practice under Washington's Consumer Protection
Act.
A district court earlier decertified both the negotiation and
condition classes based on the plaintiffs' "putative failure to
demonstrate injury." However, the appeals court has agreed with
decertification of one class but not the other, breathing new life
into the case.
"The panel reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor
of insurers as to the named plaintiffs' individual claims, and
remanded for the district court to evaluate anew whether the named
plaintiffs have adduced sufficient evidence of injury consistent
with this opinion," the Ninth Circuit opinion states.
Claim adjustments called into question
The Faysal Jama, et al v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company, et al case centers around State Farm's use of a
third-party vendor called Autodex to generate "Autosource" reports
after a client's vehicle is totaled.
The report searches databases of advertised prices of comparable
vehicles and makes "adjustments" such as a "negotiation" and a
"condition" discount. Plaintiffs in the case are challenging these
two adjustments in particular.
The negotiation discount accounts for the lower price a buyer may
negotiate for a car. The condition discount accounts for a car's
actual condition being worse than a replacement vehicle, and
therefore being worth less.
The district court ruled that while "appropriate condition
adjustments" are allowed under Washington law, negotiation
adjustments are not.
Their ruling drew heavily on a 2022 Lara v. First National
Insurance case, a somewhat similar putative class action in which
the Ninth Circuit agreed with a district court's decision not to
certify a proposed damage class but rather to determine damages
individually.
The district court's summary judgment "reasoned that, under Lara,
the mere fact of an illegal adjustment under Washington's insurance
regulations did not suffice to establish injury."
However, the appeals court disagreed with this, determining that
the lower court misread Lara in its decision.
"Because we conclude that the district court misread Lara as to the
negotiation discount, it follows that the district court's entry of
summary judgment against the named plaintiffs based on their claims
for the negotiation discount was in error. We further hold that —
even as to the challenged condition adjustment — the district
court also erred in holding that plaintiffs could not rely on the
Autosource reports, and the amount of a challenged adjustment, as
relevant evidence of value and injury," the Ninth Circuit
concludes.
As that court does not determine whether plaintiffs have presented
sufficient evidence of injury to survive summary judgment, that
issue has been remanded to the district court.
Classwide assessment of damages
The Ninth Circuit also found the lower court abused its discretion
by decertifying the negotiation class, effectively allowing damages
to be assessed collectively for an entire class rather than
individually.
However, they upheld the district court's decision to decertify the
condition class "since no one disputes that State Farm could have
applied a lawful condition adjustment to each member of that
class."
"Because we conclude that the class based on the negotiation
discount can prove injury on a class-wide basis, we reverse the
district court's decision decertifying the negotiation class.
However, because the condition class here is in all relevant
aspects identical to the one in Lara, we affirm the district
court's decision to decertify the condition class," the panel
writes.
State Farm lawsuit dissent
Circuit Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson was the sole dissenter. She
disagreed with the majority opinion in the State Farm lawsuit,
arguing that it conflicts with Lara and creates an "unnecessary
circuit split," which the court strives to avoid.
She emphasized that, in Lara, the court found violation of the
regulation was not a breach of contract; plaintiffs still had to
show harm; plaintiffs could not use reports to show harm; and harm
was determined on an individual level rather than class-wide.
"My colleagues in the majority followed the Lara decision and do
not challenge the denial of certification for the condition
adjustment claims. However, their attempt to distinguish Lara as
applied to the negotiation adjustment claims, in my view, is
singularly unpersuasive," Rawlinson states in her opinion.
The opinion was filed by circuit judges Rawlinson, Jennifer Sung
and Jed S. Rakoff.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that each party in the Faysal Jama, et al
v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al appeal
case must bear their own costs. [GN]
STEAK 'N SHAKE: Illegally Collects Face Biometrics, Massel Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act has another notch in
its litigation belt, this time in the form of a class action
against fast food chain Steak 'n Shake. Illinois resident Michael
Massel is behind the suit, which alleges that the burger joint
illegally collects face biometrics at its ordering kiosks.
Steak n' Shake's biometric self-ordering kiosks are a relatively
new addition to the company's operations, introduced just this
year. Biometric capabilities are provided by PopID in kiosks from
ACRELEC, which have been installed at all 300-plus Steak 'n Shake
locations in the U.S.
The kiosks allow customers to "check in" and pay for their meals
using facial recognition. The class action alleges that the
practice contravenes BIPA by "unlawfully collecting, storing, and
using customers' facial geometry data without proper consent."
Massel says Steak 'n Shake failed to provide adequate notice and to
obtain written consent to collect his biometric personal
information. His suit notes the permanence of facial geometry and
the consequent inability to replace it in the case of identity
theft or a data breach.
In part because of this sensitivity, BIPA requires private entities
to provide written information describing how biometrics are
collected, what they'll be used for, and for how long. Written
consent to collect biometric data is also mandatory.
Massel's action seeks to represent "anyone who had their biometric
information collected by Steak 'n Shake in Illinois at any point in
the past five years." He is asking for damages of up to $5,000 per
violation, plus additional costs -- meaning a settlement could be
in the millions.
Is there a frequent litigators discount?
The plaintiff's name may be familiar from a previous lawsuit under
BIPA -- or five.
Massel has previously brought suit over alleged biometric data
privacy violations, and been represented by Attorney Michael
Fradin, against crypto trading platforms Zengo, CoinZoom and
Coinbase, and dating apps Zoosk and Luxy.
Customers might face pay at BK, but probably not at Burger Clown
A recent article in The Conversation gets into the psychology
behind facial recognition payment technology (FRPT), or face
payments.
"According to the basic psychological need theory, people have
three basic needs when adopting a new technology: autonomy (a sense
of mastery and control over the technology), competence (the sense
of integrity, reliability and trust in the technology) and
relatedness (a sense of belonging or familiarity with the
technology)," reads the piece.
The authors, from institutions in Australia and New Zealand,
conducted research with potential users to discover how these
motivations play out in consumer adoption of face payments.
"Shoppers' autonomy and competence were satisfied if they had
access to information, considered the technology convenient,
trusted the retailer and were offered an incentive."
Big familiar brands engendered trust in biometric data -- a key
point, in that shoppers proved less willing to trial and adopt
facial recognition for payments to lesser-known parties. Other
barriers include a perceived lack of assistance, and --
contravening the conventional wisdom that customers always want
digital payments to be as frictionless as possible -- concerns
about overspending.
The piece quotes one respondent, who says "FRPT could be bad
because then I've got no way of saying 'I don't have money on me.'
Yeah, sadly facial recognition is always there." While most
respondents say they would try facial recognition for payment in a
physical retail location first, online payments could become as
easy as simply looking at an Amazon page.
(The piece notes that "an 'alert limit' -- in the same way credit
card providers limit 'tap and go' payment over a certain value --
might help mitigate overspending risks.")
The piece concludes that the security benefits of biometric payment
schemes are worth the tradeoffs. But success and widespread
adoption will only happen if communications about the biometric
tools in use are clear, frequent and easy to see, in the form of
signs or video notices. [GN]
STOCKX LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Murphy Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA KARIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STOCKX, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06664 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.stockx.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
StockX LLC, doing business as SMOT, operates as an online
marketplace. The Company offers buying and selling of sneakers,
apparel, electronics, collectibles, trading cards, and accessories.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Faces Investment Scheme Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that on August 5, three Named Plaintiffs sued TIAA
and Morningstar in the S.D.N.Y., claiming Defendants engaged in a
"scheme to enhance corporate profits" by counseling participants to
invest in two of TIAA's most lucrative investment vehicles.
Plaintiffs target ERISA and non-ERISA plans. The Complaint alleges
TIAA and Morningstar developed an investment advisory tool -- the
Retirement Advisor Field View (RAFV) -- deliberately inducing
participants to transfer account balances into TIAA's Traditional
Annuity and/or Real Estate Account, TIAA's two most profitable
investment products.
Notably, no plan nor plan sponsor is named as a fiduciary nor a
Defendant. TIAA and Morningstar are the sole Defendants. The case
is brought as a broad class action. The class definition includes
all participants and beneficiaries of all ERISA-covered defined
contribution plans and plans not subject to ERISA, who initiated or
increased their allocation of assets in the TIAA annuity or real
estate funds based on advice received through the RAFV tool. The
claims include breach of fiduciary duty and loyalty under ERISA and
New York state law (as to non-ERISA plans sponsored by public
universities) and claims under ERISA's prohibited transaction
rules. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek trial by jury or an advisory
jury.
The Complaint weaves together contentions of an unlawful TIAA
"scheme" developed to recover losses from its core retirement
services business. Plaintiffs' theory is that because TIAA was
losing market share, it developed this new business model -- RAFV
-- that induced participants to move their investments to the TIAA
Traditional Annuity and TIAA Real Estate Account. According to
Plaintiffs, RAFV was designed to show participants they were
failing to meet their retirement income goals based upon their
current allocations. Representatives provided new investment
recommendations, and those TIAA and Morningstar recommendations
channeled participant funds into TIAA's annuity and real estate
accounts, even though Morningstar purported to be an "independent
financial expert." According to the Complaint, these two investment
funds were TIAA's most profitable investment products, in large
part due to continued revenue flows from this "scheme." In this
sense, these allegations borrow heavily from prior proprietary fee
cases.
Defenses
The chief defense to the case is whether TIAA and Morningstar's
conduct is fiduciary conduct. The alleged advice is provided to
participants as they exit the plan, either because they are
retiring, or because they are moving their assets into an
investment vehicle that is no longer an ERISA plan. The Department
of Labor's fiduciary rules may or may not govern such situations in
the future, but those rules, to the extent that they were in
effect, have been enjoined nationally.
The Complaint is interesting also because it ignores the touchstone
between TIAA and Morningstar's alleged conduct and the
activity/presence of a plan sponsor or a more traditional plan
fiduciary. Typically, this type of claim would be centered on a
plan fiduciary and the allegations cast as a fiduciary failing to
recognize how the service provider takes advantage of plan
participants. Instead, this Complaint bypasses a specific plan or
plan fiduciary and takes direct aim at the service provider. Will
that strategy succeed before regulatory rules govern such service
provider conduct?
Takeaways
Financial services entities weathered the proprietary fee
litigation cases when many such entities were sued for offering
their proprietary investment products to their employees in their
own 401(k) Plans. This case has elements of proprietary fee
litigation in that it attacks TIAA for marketing proprietary
products to participants to "feather its own nest." Given the past
401(k) Plan litigation history and the analogous prior proprietary
fee cases, if this case survives a motion to dismiss as to
fiduciary status, we may see more of these cases filed in the
future against other financial services entities. [GN]
TITAN PHARMACEUTICALS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With BSKE
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating Titan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: TTNP), relating
to its proposed merger with BSKE Ltd. Under the terms of the
agreement, Titan shareholders are expected to own approximately
13.3% of the combined company.
Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/titan-pharmaceuticals-inc/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
Tel: (212) 971-1341
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN]
TRAXNYC CORP: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Trippett Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRAXNYC CORP., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06140 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.traxnyc.com, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
TraxNYC is a jewelry manufacturer providing the selection of men's
gold jewelry, men's hip hop jewelry, and custom diamond jewelry.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
TWITTER INC: Court Certifies Age Bias Claims in Mass Layoff Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing of Yahoo!Finance, reports that a federal
judge in San Francisco has ruled that roughly 150 older workers who
were laid off by social media platform X when Elon Musk acquired
the company can sue for age discrimination as a class, exposing the
company to millions of dollars in potential damages.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in a decision released late
Tuesday, September 3, said the case presented a common question
over the impact that a 2022 mass layoff at the company had on
workers 50 and older.
Plaintiff John Zeman, who worked in X's communications department
when the company was called Twitter, sued in 2023. He said in his
lawsuit that X laid off 60% of employees who were 50 or older and
nearly three-quarters of those who were over 60, compared with 54%
of employees younger than 50.
"Plaintiff has shown beyond mere speculation that Twitter may have
discriminated against older employees in the November 4, 2022 (mass
layoff), which constitutes a single decision that affected all
members of the proposed class," Illston wrote.
September 3's ruling allows Zeman's lawyers to send notice of the
lawsuit to potential class members, giving them a chance to opt
into the case.
X did not respond to a request for comment. The company has denied
engaging in discrimination and has said it eliminated the entire
communications department where Zeman worked after Musk took over,
regardless of those workers' ages.
Shannon Liss-Riordan, a lawyer for Zeman and about 2,000 other
former Twitter employees who have brought a series of legal claims
against the company, said she was pleased with the ruling.
The lawsuit is one of about a dozen X has faced stemming from
Musk's decision to lay off more than half of Twitter's workforce in
2022.
Those cases include various claims, all of which X has denied,
including that the company laid off employees and contractors
without the required advance notice, targeted women for layoffs,
and forced out workers with disabilities by banning remote work.
In August, two judges separately dismissed the sex and disability
bias cases while allowing the plaintiffs to file amended complaints
fleshing out their claims.
Two other lawsuits claim the company owes former employees at least
$500 million in severance pay. One of those cases was dismissed in
July. [GN]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: IPO Class Settlement Hearing Set on December 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Boston Retirement System and other investors are one step
closer to reaching a settlement with Uber in a class action lawsuit
seeking damages from investment losses related to the company's
2019 initial public offering.
A hearing for final approval of the settlement is scheduled for
December 5 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California to determine if the proposed settlement is fair and
review a plan of allocation for the distribution of settlement
funds among class members and for counsel's fees.
The Boston Retirement System, with $5.4 billion in assets and
34,000 in active and retired members and beneficiaries, is one of
the court-appointed class representatives in the case, Boston
Retirement System v. Uber Technologies Inc. Defendants in the case
include the company, executives, board members and a group of banks
that underwrote the IPO.
The Boston Retirement System and the law firm representing the
pension fund, Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP, as the result of a
mediation process, in April proposed a $200 million settlement for
investors who purchased Uber stock during the period between May
10, 2019, and November 5, 2019, shortly after the company's IPO.
In 2020, the BRS filed a complaint against Uber, alleging that
documents connected with the company's IPO contained false and
misleading statements and/or omissions.
Uber's IPO priced on May 10, 2019, at $45 per share, reaching an
$82.4 billion valuation, less than the projected $120 billion some
investors had anticipated. Shares closed at $41, a drop of more
than 7%.
Since its IPO, Uber's shares have increased roughly 67%, as of
September 6.
"We believe strongly that our IPO materials were both complete and
accurate and are pleased to put this matter behind us," a
spokesperson for Uber said. [GN]
VENTRA HEALTH: Jacobs Sues Over Failure to Compensate Hours Worked
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aikeila Jacobs, and other similarly situated aggrieved employees v.
VENTRA HEALTH, INC.; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV22438 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 3, 2024), is
brought against the Defendants' failure to compensate for all hours
worked in violation of the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA")
and violation of Business and Professions Code Section.
The Defendant violated Labor Code as well as the applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order (no. 4 or 5) because
it failed to provide Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees the
requisite 30-minute, uninterrupted meal periods for every 5 hours
of work throughout their employment, and Plaintiff did not validly
waive said meal periods. THE DEFENDANT did not completely relieve
Plaintiffs of all duties during said meal periods. Defendant did
not pay to Plaintiff one additional hour of pay at Plaintiff's
regular rate of compensation for each workday that one or more
statutory meal periods was not provided. Due to being
misclassified, Plaintiff simply was not able to take meal breaks
that were before the 5th work and uninterrupted, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff started working for the Defendants on 2023.
VENTRA HEALTH, INC. is a Delaware corporation, doing business in
the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and which employed
Plaintiff.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
VERIZON COMMUNICATION: Pollitt Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Pollitt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Verizon Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-06156
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for
their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services Stadium
Enterprises provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.verizon.com (hereinafter "Verizon.com" or "the
website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Verizon.com, is not equally accessible
to blind and visually- impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Stadium
Enterprises' policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
The Defendant controls and operates Verizon.com in New York State
and throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: +1 347-941-4715
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
VOLCARE HEALTH: Hill Seeks Proper Wages for Caregivers
------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA HILL, Individually, and on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff, v.
VOLCARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC. and SHIRLEY INGRAM, Defendants, Case
No. 1:24-cv-01191 (W.D. Tenn., September 4, 2024) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff
and other similarly situated caregivers pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).
Plaintiff Hill has been employed by Defendants as a caregiver.
Allegedly, the Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay
Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all hours worked over 80
within bi-weekly pay periods at one and one-half times their
regular hourly rate of pay.
Headquartered in Jackson, TN, Volcare Health Services, Inc.
provides home care and community support services in Tennessee.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
Joshua Autry, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
jbryant@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
jautry@jsyc.com
WALGREENS CO: Faces Class Suit Over Benzene Product Labeling
------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens is facing a class action lawsuit, filed by two South
Carolina residents, accusing the large retailer of selling a
generic version of the popular cold medicine, Mucinex, that
contains a chemical linked to cancer. According to the lawsuit,
Walgreens allegedly failed to inform customers that the product
contained benzene, a well-known carcinogen, and did not label the
product to indicate the potential health risks associated with
consuming this product. The lead plaintiffs, Miriam Birdsong and
Cheryl Mikel, claim that they would not have purchased the over the
counter (OTC) medication, or would have paid less for it, had they
known it contained the carcinogen.
The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Chicago, and the
plaintiffs are seeking both damages and restitution. They also hope
to ignite a nationwide class action of Walgreens customers who also
purchased the product, as well as have separate classes for
residents of Illinois and South Carolina, specifically.
As a Class 1 solvent, benzene is a chemical that is released into
the air from emissions from automobiles and burning coal and oil,
and it has been linked to leukemia. It is also used in a wide range
of industrial products, including chemicals, dyes, detergents, and
some plastics. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has long
stated that benzene should not be used in the manufacturing of
drugs and has advised companies to recall any products that contain
more than two parts per million of the substance.
Despite issuing these guidelines, the presence of benzene in
consumer products, particularly pharmaceutical drugs, has been a
growing concern at of late due to the fact that the chemical has
been detected in a variety of OTC products.
The current lawsuit against Walgreens is part of a broader wave of
litigation targeting the company for allegedly selling products
that contain benzene. Earlier in 2024, at least three other
lawsuits were filed in federal courts in Chicago and California
over claims that Walgreens sells acne treatment products containing
benzoyl peroxide, a compound that can degrade into benzene. These
lawsuits, similar to the current case involving Mucinex, alleged
that Walgreens failed to properly warn consumers about the
additive's potential risks.
Walgreens has argued in response to some of these cases that its
product labeling is governed by the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, which sets the guidelines for what information must
be included on product labels, and that its labeling complies with
federal regulations.
The lawsuit filed by Birdsong and Mikel is part of a broader
movement to hold companies accountable for ensuring the safety of
their products, particularly in cases involving harmful chemicals.
If the plaintiffs succeed in obtaining class certification,
Walgreens could face significant fines -- likely in the millions.
This case not only represents an example of increasing consumer
demand for transparency and safety in everyday household products,
but it could also mean that companies held liable will be held to
higher standards moving forward. [GN]
WALMART INC: Jenkins Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Richard Jenkins, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Walmart Inc., Case No.
2024-CH-07012 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Sept. 3, 2024, and assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-08013.
The Complaint alleges that Walmart violated Plaintiff's rights
under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), by
failing to develop and/or make public a written retention schedule
or guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers or
biometric information that was made available to the public, in
violation of the BIPA; and collecting, capturing, obtaining, and
storing Plaintiff's and class members' biometric identifiers and/or
biometric information without providing notice and obtaining
written consent, in violation of the BIPA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William H. Beaumont
Aaron S. Welo
BEAUMONT LLC
107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209
Chicago, IL 60605
Phone: (773) 832-8000
Email: whb@beaumont-law.com
asw@beaumont-law.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Collin J. Vierra
EIMER STAHL LLP
1999 South Bascom Avenue, Suite 1025
Campbell, CA 95008
Phone: 312.660.7600
Email: cvierra@eimerstahl.com
- and -
Ryan J. Walsh
Olivia Radics
EIMER STAHL LLP
10 East Doty Street, Suite 621
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: 312.660.7600
Email: rwalsh@eimerstahl.com
oradics@eimerstahl.com
WEBTOON ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned Brookman v. Webtoon
Entertainment Inc., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-07553, on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired WEBTOON
Entertainment Inc. ("Webtoon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: WBTN)
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with the Company's June 2024
initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"). Plaintiff
pursues claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
If you suffered a loss on your Webtoon investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/WEBTOON-Entertainment-Inc/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On June 27, 2024, Webtoon conducted its IPO, selling 16,371,549
shares of common stock at $21.00 per share.
On August 8, 2024, after the market closed, Webtoon announced its
financial results for second quarter 2024, which had ended just
days after the IPO closed. The Company reported revenue of $321
million, which represented total revenue growth of only 0.1%. The
Company further revealed advertising revenue declined 3.6% and IP
Adaptations revenue declined 3.7%. The Company revealed its revenue
and revenue growth had been "offset by the Company's significant
exposure to weaker foreign currencies." Webtoon also reported a
quarterly net loss of $76.6 million, or 70 cents.
On this news, Webtoon's stock fell $7.88 or 38.2%, to close at
$12.75 per share on August 9, 2024, on unusually heavy trading
volume. By the commencement of this action, Webtoon stock has
traded as low as $12.45 per share, a more than 40% decline from the
$21.00 per share IPO price.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the
Registration Statement made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company experienced a deceleration in advertising revenue
growth; (2) that the Company experienced a deceleration in IP
adaptations revenue; (3) that the Company experienced exposure to
weaker foreign currencies which offset revenue growth; (4) that, as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Webtoon common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no
later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan,
Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles
California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by
email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]
WHOLE FOODS: Brooks Suit Alleges Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
CLIFFORD BROOKS SR. and WILLIAM JOHNHASTINGS, individuals, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24CV086502 (Cal.
Super., Alameda Cty., August 8, 2024) alleges that Defendants
violated various provisions of the California Labor Code, relevant
orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, and California
Business & Professions Code, and seek redress for these
violations.
According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in and enforced
unlawful practices and policies against Plaintiffs and the Class
members by failing to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation,
failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing to pay reporting
time wages, failing to furnish accurate itemized wage statements,
failing to pay all wages earned, failing to maintain accurate time
and wage records, and failing to reimburse necessary work related
expenses or losses.
Plaintiffs Brooks and Hastings worked as a grocery team member and
as an assistant meat manager, respectively, at Defendants' store
locations in California.
Whole Foods Market California, Inc. is a subsidiary of Amazon, is
an American multinational supermarket chain headquartered in
Austin, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Emil Davtyan, Esq.
David Yeremian, Esq.
Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
Jean Hopkins Power, Esq.
D.LAW,INC.
880 E Broadway
Glendale, CA 91205
Telephone: (818) 962-6465
Facsimile: (818) 962-6469
E-mail: emil@d.law
d.yeremian@d.law
a.lindsay@d.law
j.power@d.law
XZY INC: Gaspa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------
Veronica Gaspa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. XZY, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-08944 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 4,
2024), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to make its
digital properties accessible to legally blind individuals, which
violates the effective communication and equal access requirements
of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").
Because Defendant's website, https://www.justourshoes.com/, (the
"Website" or "Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers. Defendants Website, and its online
information, is heavily integrated with its brick and mortar
locations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is visually impaired and legally blind.
The Defendant offers the commercial website, Justourshoes.com, to
the public.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: 718.705.8706
Fax: 718.705.8705
Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
YOUNG CONSULTING: Xavier Sues Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------
Michael Xavier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. YOUNG CONSULTING, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03961-TWT (N.D.
Ga., Sept. 4, 2024), is brought on behalf of all persons who
entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable
information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI", and
collectively with "PII", "Private Information") that was
subsequently exposed in a data breach, which Young Consulting
publicly disclosed on August 26, 2024 (the "Data Breach" or the
"Breach").
The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly
secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it,
and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that
information. More than 950,000 consumers were affected by the Data
Breach, in which their sensitive Private Information, including
names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and insurance
claims information, were accessed by an unauthorized third party.
The Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and
common law duties and obligations, including those based on its
affirmative representations to Plaintiff and the Class, to keep
their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected
from unauthorized disclosure or access.
The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep
consumers' Private Information safe and secure. The Defendant owed
Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and
necessary measures to keep the Private Information that it
collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant
collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private
Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or
maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant admits that
information in its system was accessed by unauthorized
individuals.
The Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and
personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed
to use reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to
the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained
for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Private
Information for Plaintiff and Class Members, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff received a data breach notice letter.
Young Consulting is a Georgia based entity that provides integrated
software solutions for marketing, underwriting, and administering
medical stop-loss insurance for carriers, brokers, and third-party
administrators, including for Blue Shield of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Herman, Esq.
Candace N. Smith, Esq.
HERMAN JONES LLP
3424 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 1650
Atlanta, GA 30326
Phone: 404-504-6555
Email: jherman@hermanjones.com
csmith@hermanjones.com
- and -
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
Email: cmaccarone@zlk.com
ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that
purchasers of ZoomInfo Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZI) Class A
common stock between November 10, 2020 and August 5, 2024,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until November 4, 2024 to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff of the ZoomInfo class action lawsuit.
Captioned City of Pontiac Police and Fire Retirement System v.
ZoomInfo Technologies, Inc., No. 24-cv-05739 (W.D. Wash.), the
ZoomInfo class action lawsuit charges ZoomInfo and certain of
ZoomInfo's top executive officers and others with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the ZoomInfo class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-zoominfo-technologies-inc-class-action-lawsuit-zi.html
You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal
of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at
info@rgrdlaw.com.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: ZoomInfo is a software and data company that
provides customer contact and business information to its clients.
The ZoomInfo class action lawsuit alleges that defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) ZoomInfo's financial and
operational results during the Class Period had been temporarily
inflated by the ephemeral effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which
had pulled-forward demand for ZoomInfo's database of digital
contact information; (ii) material portions of ZoomInfo's existing
customer base were attempting to either substantially reduce their
use of ZoomInfo's product or abandon it altogether; (iii) ZoomInfo
had used manipulative and coercive auto-renew policies and threats
of litigation to force customers into remaining with ZoomInfo for
an additional contractual term even though such customers did not
want to; (iv) ZoomInfo's coercive customer retention tactics had
materially damaged ZoomInfo's customer relationships, client
franchise, and competitive advantages, and created a hidden demand
cliff for customer contract renewals in future periods; and (v) as
a result of all of the above, ZoomInfo's reported revenues,
operating income, and customer and retention metrics were
materially overstated.
On November 1, 2022, ZoomInfo announced financial results for the
third fiscal quarter of 2022, revealing that it had experienced
increased "scrutiny" by customers during the contract renewal
process, which negatively impacted ZoomInfo's financial results in
the quarter and would cause ZoomInfo to "retrace" Net Revenue
Retention ("NRR") gains achieved in 2021. Further reflecting this
loss of business, ZoomInfo further revealed that its total
Remaining Performance Obligations ("RPOs") fell to $979 million,
compared to $985 million the prior quarter, and that current RPOs
fell to $757 million, compared to $764 million the prior quarter.
On this news, the price of ZoomInfo Class A common stock fell more
than 29%.
Then, on November 16, 2022, ZoomInfo revealed that intense customer
scrutiny during the contract renewal process had continued into the
fourth quarter, which would negatively impact ZoomInfo's ability to
grow its revenues in fiscal year 2023. On this news, the price of
ZoomInfo Class A common stock fell approximately 17% over two
trading sessions.
Thereafter, on July 31, 2023, ZoomInfo announced financial results
for the second fiscal quarter of 2023, revealing that ZoomInfo's
customers with annual contract values of $100,000 or greater had
declined to 1,893 from 1,905 such clients in the prior quarter.
ZoomInfo further reduced its annual revenue guidance from a range
of $1.275 billion to $1.285 billion to a range of $1.225 billion to
$1.235 billion, representing a reduction of $50 million at the
mid-point. On this news, the price of ZoomInfo Class A common stock
fell approximately 28% over two trading sessions.
Subsequently, on May 7, 2024, ZoomInfo announced financial results
for the first fiscal quarter of 2024, disclosing that it had a
large pool of small business customers that exhibited "weakness"
during renewals in the period, which had caused NRR to decline
sequentially to 85% from the 87% reported in the fourth quarter.
ZoomInfo further reduced its annual revenue guidance from range of
$1.26 billion to $1.28 billion to a range of $1.255 billion to
$1.27 billion. On this news, the price of ZoomInfo Class A common
stock fell more than 24%.
Finally, on August 5, 2024, ZoomInfo announced financial results
for the second fiscal quarter of 2024, disclosing that ZoomInfo was
incurring a $33 million charge due to non-payments from customers
and had been forced to implement a "new business risk model" to
reduce write-offs. In connection with its new risk model, ZoomInfo
stated it was altering its operational procedures to require
up-front payments from small business customers, indicating that
many of ZoomInfo's previous customers had been unable to afford
ZoomInfo's products and services. As a result, ZoomInfo further
reduced its annual revenue guidance by $65 million at the midpoint,
from a range of $1.255 billion to $1.27 billion to a range of $1.19
billion to $1.205 billion. On this news, the price of ZoomInfo
Class A common stock fell more than 18%.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by
clicking here.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased ZoomInfo
Class A common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the ZoomInfo class action lawsuit. A lead
plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the ZoomInfo
class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of
its choice to litigate the ZoomInfo class action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the
ZoomInfo class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of
the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities
fraud cases. Our Firm has been #1 in the ISS Securities Class
Action Services rankings for six out of the last ten years for
securing the most monetary relief for investors. We recovered $6.6
billion for investors in securities-related class action cases --
over $2.2 billion more than any other law firm in the last four
years. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the
largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys
have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
(800) 449-4900
info@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
[*] Addition of Arbitration Clauses on Residential Leases Discussed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathilda S. McGee-Tubb, Janki H. Viroja, writing for MINTZ, report
that landlords and property managers are increasingly adding
arbitration clauses with class action waivers to their residential
leases. These lease provisions can protect landlords from the
significant time and costs associated with litigating claims
brought by residents, including potential class claims that present
high exposure risk for multifamily owners and managers. But the
enforceability of these types of provisions remains an open
question in many states.
Arbitration Clauses in Residential Leases
Arbitration -- the out-of-court resolution of a dispute through a
formal process -- is typically faster, less expensive, and less
complex than traditional litigation. Many contracts include
provisions requiring disputes arising out of the contract to be
resolved through arbitration. Residential leases are contracts and
can include such provisions.
Some states have statutes prohibiting contractual provisions that
require a resident to arbitrate disputes arising out of a lease or
otherwise waive a resident's right to a jury trial. However, under
the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the Supreme Court's 2011
decision in AT&T Mobility L.L.C. v. Concepcion, arbitration
provisions in otherwise valid contracts are generally enforceable.
And because the FAA is a federal law, it preempts contrary state
laws. If the FAA applies to an agreement that contains an
arbitration clause, the agreement will likely be enforced even in
the face of a contrary state law (with some limited exceptions).
The key question for landlords is therefore whether the FAA is
applicable to residential leases. The FAA applies to contracts
"evidencing a transaction involving commerce." In 1985 in Russell
v. United States, the Supreme Court stated that the "rental of real
estate is unquestionably" an activity that affects commerce. Based
on Russell, it is likely that a court would conclude that a
residential lease is subject to the FAA and an otherwise valid
arbitration provision within it is enforceable. Recently, federal
courts in California and Louisiana, in Payan v. Owen Village, LLC
and Turnipseed v. APMT, LLC respectively, have taken this approach
and held that the FAA applied to a residential lease, upholding an
arbitration provision in it.
Class Action Waivers in Residential Leases
A class action waiver is a provision included in a contract that
prohibits a party to the contract from filing a class action
lawsuit against the other party. Class action litigation can be
costly, particularly for landlords or property managers who own or
manage hundreds or thousands of units in a particular state or
nationally. Class action waivers can protect landlords from a
single resident bringing an individual grievance and claiming that
all other current and former residents in that building or others
owned by the same landlord suffered the same grievance -- and
seeking hefty monetary relief on behalf of all of those other
residents, along with a very large attorney's fee award (as is
permitted in class actions).
Class action waivers can be standalone or embedded within or
accompanied by an arbitration provision. When a class action waiver
is embedded within an arbitration provision, it may be deemed
enforceable under the FAA by extension if the arbitration provision
is. For example, following the Concepcion decision, in 2013 the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Feeney III held that a
class waiver included in an arbitration clause "may not be
invalidated on the grounds that it effectively denies the
plaintiffs a remedy." This decision eliminated an argument
previously available to consumers in Massachusetts that a class
action waiver in an arbitration clause was unenforceable because it
rendered an individual's claim "nonremediable."
When a class action waiver is included separately in a lease (i.e.,
as a "standalone" provision), it does not benefit from the same FAA
preemption, and is subject to review under state law. Some states
consider class action waivers to be contrary to public policy, and
may find them unenforceable. In Rhode Island, in Metcalfe v. Grieco
Hyundai LLC, a federal court concluded that a standalone class
action waiver in a car leasing agreement, unaccompanied by an
arbitration provision, violated Rhode Island's public policy and
was unenforceable. Under Massachusetts precedent, decisions from
the Supreme Judicial Court articulating a public policy favoring
consumer class actions could serve to defeat a class action waiver
in a contract that is not otherwise subject to the FAA. However, a
Massachusetts court could consider other policy arguments, such as
the existence of a dedicated housing court in Massachusetts giving
tenants a viable option for pursuing individual relief against a
landlord, in evaluating whether to uphold a class action waiver
clause.
Other jurisdictions, on the other hand, have upheld freestanding
class action waivers. Recently, in July 2024, the New Jersey
Supreme Court held in Pace v. Hamilton Cove that class action
waivers not tied to arbitration provisions in residential leases
are not per se contrary to public policy, and can be enforceable so
long as they are not unconscionable or otherwise violative of
tenants' rights under state law.
These examples show that different states may reach opposite
conclusions, particularly when applying state laws that take a
stance on whether class action waivers comport with public policy.
Recommendations for Landlords
Landlords and property managers operating in states that do not yet
have clear precedent upholding arbitration clauses and class action
waivers in residential leases should take the following steps
toward protecting themselves from costly litigation:
-- include an arbitration clause that clearly states that any
claims arising from or relating to the lease will be subject to
binding arbitration under the FAA;
-- ensure that the arbitration clause is sufficiently broad to
encompass the types of claims that would be suitable for
arbitration, and excludes those that may be better suited for court
(e.g., eviction proceedings);
-- ensure that any class action waiver is embedded in or
accompanied by an arbitration clause;
-- ensure that the lease contains a severability provision so
that if one of these provisions is found unenforceable, the rest of
the lease remains enforceable; and
-- consult counsel to ensure the arbitration and class action
waiver provisions are drafted in a manner consistent with
applicable laws, and to discuss whether to allow residents to opt
out of the class action waiver to address any concerns under those
laws. [GN]
[*] Class-Action Suit Planned for PCB Victims in Hartford Schools
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Whiting, writing for Inside Investigator, reports that on
September 5, 2024, Ivelisse Correa, Vice-President of BLM's
Hartford Chapter and CEO of Good Trouble Advocacy, joined two
lawyers in front of John C. Clark Elementary School in Hartford to
announce their intent to file a class-action lawsuit in pursuit of
compensation for students, staff and administrators who have
suffered health complications as a result of toxic PCB exposure
while teaching or learning at several Hartford schools.
"We're holding this today because we want people to get screened,"
said Correa, visibly distraught and fighting tears as she recounted
her own experiences with people impacted by PCBs. "I went to middle
school with a girl who went to Clark, she died of breast cancer ten
years ago. One of my friends died in high school. So some people
died not knowing that they needed regular screening."
"It's not just about the class-action lawsuit, yeah, these people
need justice, these people need compensation," said Correa. "But
they need to be warned, 'Hey, this is part of your medical
history.' I don't want anyone else to die right?"
Correa was joined by Bloomfield-based lawyer Aaron Romano and Luke
Kist, Chief Marketing Officer of Whistleblowers International, a
large DC-based law firm that focuses on corporate misconduct.
Romano said that he and Kist have been at work investigating a link
between health complications and those who have attended Clark,
Annie Fisher Magnet School, Kinsella Magnet School, Mary Hooker
Magnet School, and Batchelder School. Martin Luther King Jr. School
and Hartford High have also tested positive in the past, and other
schools constructed around the same time likely contain these
toxins as well.
"The number of people exposed may run into the tens of thousands,"
said Romano. "We've identified multiple people who have contracted
cancer, some of whom have died as a result of their illnesses."
PCBs, which stand for polychlorinated biphenyls, are a group of
synthetic chemicals widely used from 1950 to 1979 for the
manufacture of consumer and industrial goods. The chemicals
aerosolize over time and are now known to be extremely hazardous to
humans. Those exposed to PCBs have a significantly higher risk of
various forms of cancer, liver and thyroid problems, hormonal
imbalances, immune diseases and neurological disorders. Exposure in
parents can also lead to birth and developmental complications in
children.
Correa said that the issue first came to her attention several
years ago, when an ex-boyfriend, who had just finished his own
battle with cancer, and an old podcast co-host attended the funeral
of a mutual friend who had died of cancer. It spurred a
conversation in which the two started listing off names of people
they went to school with who had died of cancer, which immediately
caught Correa's attention. Making matters even more concerning, was
the fact that her ex went to Annie Fisher School as a child, while
her co-host had gone to Simpson-Waverly School.
"I'm like, this seems really odd, right?," said Correa. "Why is it
that people from certain elementary schools have higher rates of
cancer than other elementary schools?"
Correa said the three then began to search for answers and upon
comparing notes, noticed that the schools with wood floors had
lower cancer rates, while those who went to schools with tiled
floors had higher cancer rates. Correa then started to tie these
tiled schools to people in her own life who had battled cancer and
other health problems.
"So Batchelder School would be my uncle, who had colon cancer, my
dad who had liver problems, my uncle who has cancer and liver
problems, my step-sister who's currently battling breast cancer at
the age of -- she's 36, 37," said Correa. "Kinsella, my step-mom
went there and she's had thyroid problems most of her life and she
has liver problems now. My kids almost lost their dad, he's lost
friends. Recently, when I got in touch with people that he went to
elementary school with, sadly enough, a couple of them died with
GoFundMe's for their medical bills."
She also noted several former staff members who have battled cancer
in the past, such as former Kinsella principal, Pamela
Totten-Alvarado, as well as a former principal of Annie Fisher.
"There's way too many obituaries from former staff," said Correa.
It was around the time Correa noticed that pattern that she began
searching for a lawyer, and reached out to Kist, who she has worked
with on advocacy initiatives in the past. Kist then contacted
Romano and asked him to be the case's local council. All three have
had a history of working together on advocacy issues.
Romano and Kist explained that the suit has not been filed yet, as
they are still in the preliminary phase of researching at-risk
schools, reaching out to those who may have been affected, and
deciding which defendants ought to be named in the suit. Correa
said that the group plans to hold informational meetings as soon as
October, at which concerned residents will be educated on PCBs,
shown how to get doctor's notes for proper health screenings and
sign onto the class-action lawsuit if they are suffering from
related complications already. Correa noted that the dates and
locations of these meetings will be released in the near future.
"We're hoping to spread awareness because people have died," said
Correa. "Had they had proper warning years ago, when the City of
Hartford first even filed their lawsuit, people would have been
more proactive in their cancer screening."
Kist described Clark, which was closed by the City of Hartford in
2015, as a "time capsule," due to the ongoing legal battle between
the City of Hartford and chemical manufacturer Monsanto. The suit,
which was originally filed by Hartford in 2015, will decide who is
held financially responsible for renovating the school, which has
since fallen into a state of visible disrepair. Many schools
constructed during the same period as those which tested positive
and are likely to have tested positive themselves, have since been
renovated by the district, rendering testing impossible.
"Something that really disturbs me is when this first came to
light, the superintendent stated that there was no testing
mandate," said Correa. "These are children that we're talking
about, and educators. Educators dedicate their lives to educating
the next generation, and children are innocent. It's not fair to
anyone who stepped through these doors at all, that just because
you were here. . . you may die because of that."
Carol Gale, President of the Hartford Teachers Association, who was
also present and in support, said that several teachers reached out
to superintendent Dr. Leslie Torres-Rodriguez in 2019 to voice
their concerns and asked for testing, but were met with little
help.
"Many of my members are people who have worked in the schools
Ivelisse named, and we're certainly aware that, though we can't
make a direct correlation, we know of people who have had cancers,"
said Gale.
When asked whether the City of Hartford would be named as a
defendant in the suit, the group offered no comment. Correa said
that she had made city council members and Mayor Arunan Arulampalam
aware of the day's conference, and was hoping they would show out
in support, but evidently none were present.
"What bothers me is that this is now three administrations," said
Correa, who explained that the exposure first made headlines under
former mayor Pedro Segarra. "We've tried to reach out to this
administration, and [say] 'You know it's you're constituents that
are dying, even your employees.'"
Correa acknowledged that while she understood City officials may be
hesitant to show face as they don't yet know which direction the
blame will be pointed in this particular suit, she said, "It's a
new administration, so I don't see why they wouldn't want to stand
with victims of chemical exposure. It's not your fault, so let's
not worry about playing hot potato with people's lives."
Kist said that he and Romano looked into Clark's history and
discovered that a third-party sprinkler company was the first to
detect the PCB's, which caused the city to promptly shut it down in
2015. Kist said that at the time of the school's closing it was too
early to file such a suit, but now that several years have passed
since the PCBs were confirmed, every case of former students and
staff with health complications can be tied to their time spent at
the school. Kist said that the group was going to fight to "make
sure that those who are injured get the compensation they deserve,"
and that the issue has flown under the radar because of the income
level of those affected.
"A lot of this gets pushed under the rug and ignored because the
people, financially, are not wealthy," said Kist. "If this was in
West Hartford or any of the big name schools it'd be blasted out
everywhere."
Correa also noted the difficulties of many people she knows that
have tried to get proper screening, and shared her hope that now
that a proper link has been established, doctors would not be so
quick to deny patients the screenings they need.
"The overwhelming majority of people who stepped through these
doors are black and brown, and they're the same ones who have been
facing barriers when asking for screening, which really bothered
me," said Correa. The three urged anybody who thinks they may have
been exposed to PCBs, which would be anyone who went to a Hartford
school constructed or renovated between 1950-1979, to sign-on to
the suit, either by going to pcbclaims.com or calling 203-872-2394.
[GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***